when i grow up, i hope that the electoral college will be one of those things that people look back upon and wonder why the hell we used it

the electoral college was made for a time when communications was slow and people were ill informed of their candidates. this is not the case anymore and i think the electoral college should be abolished

Well I care I wouldn't want to just read about the person who wants to be in charge of this nation that I love I'd want to listen to them live or meet them get the measure of the man (or woman)

quote:

But Glove, right now canidates only campaign in swing states. It might be worthwhile for a Democrat to go to Texas or a Republican to go to CA.

We were discussing this in one of my political science classes (I'm a polisci major...). According to my professor, candidates camaign at least once in each of the fifty states. Besides that...who really CARES where they campaign??? I certainly don't. I think it would almost be BETTER if we received a pamphlet in the mail stating what each of the candidates' positions were on a variety of subjects and then we get to select one to vote for.

With the electoral college and the numbers associated with it, a candidate needs to win at least 19 (i think) states. Without it, it would only need 4. People who live in very unpopulated states, such as Wyoming, which only receives 3 votes (the minimum), are actually OVERREPRESENTED in the electoral college because even though it takes 500,000 people (i think) to get each vote (in addition to the 2 guarenteed for each state), each state is guaranteed one. So...in a smaller state, they are represented more by the electoral college than popular vote.


Got a problem? Dispute the content, not the grammar...

But Glove, right now canidates only campaign in swing states. It might be worthwhile for a Democrat to go to Texas or a Republican to go to CA.

And even with the electoral college, I don't see any canidates too concerned with rural areas.

quote:

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
You want real change? Pass legislation requiring party primaries to be held on the same day in all states. As it goes now only a handful of states effectively decide the candidates. You really think Bush would have beaten McCain if the whole country was voting about it?

Just so you know, I used this as my new bill proposal to Model Congress. It's a great idea.

quote:

How is "majority" tyranny? And obviously, electors do NOT vote with the popular vote. Gore would've won, then, and he obviously did not.

Aside from the fact that the 2000 situation is extremely unlikely, the Electors DID vote with the popular vote...on a state by state basis.

My point is that is has an often unseen influence on how the candidate runs and what they actually do, which I think is beneficial.

Also, I was referring to the concept of the "tyranny of the majority", not implying that majority rule was tyranny.

quote:

As of right now, politicians ONLY go to big states to campaign anyway, because of the plethora of electoral votes to be found there. If that wasn't an issue, they might be more inclined to travel more variably.

I'd say that they'd be more inclined to gravitate towards population centers.
To think that politicians would have an interest in running all over the country doesn't make any sense. They'd go to where the people are.

Getting rid of the college isn't a solution to the problem we're talking about here. Think about it. You're from NJ, but I'm not sure from which part. I'm from a fairly rural area, and the last time a candidate for govenor came through the area was Christie Whitman, probably two or three elections ago. Oh, not to mention how we're pretty screwed for state funding and aid because we've go almost no voice. The state just pulled the rug out from under a school district near me, promising funding for a new school then denying it after construction had already started. A strong centralized system needs to have assurances that those not in the majority (which is urbanized) are not trampled underfoot.

quote:

And just because cities are voting for this person, does not mean this person is unconcerned with rural area issues.

True, they might be concerned, but they're far more likely to have no idea what they're talking about when it comes to rural issues.

quote:

As of right now, politicians ONLY go to big states to campaign anyway, because of the plethora of electoral votes to be found there. If that wasn't an issue, they might be more inclined to travel more variably.

Exactly

But when the electors are directly proportional to the population, what's the difference?

How is "majority" tyranny? And obviously, electors do NOT vote with the popular vote. Gore would've won, then, and he obviously did not.

If, let's say, 67% of the country is voting for John Smith, that 67% is not just cities. And just because cities are voting for this person, does not mean this person is unconcerned with rural area issues.

As of right now, politicians ONLY go to big states to campaign anyway, because of the plethora of electoral votes to be found there. If that wasn't an issue, they might be more inclined to travel more variably.

Neither do I live in a big city, so I understand your point.

Seeing as how today the popular vote determines the Electoral votes, I don't see a problem. A pure popular vote is a bad idea because it shifts the entire power base over to large urbanized population centers. Everybody else is at risk of being run over by the tyrrany of the majority.

I personally don't live in a huge city, and it's obvious to me that life style and veiws on the expectation of government differ greatly by how and where people live. It's a great idea that people care about what Ohio or Colorado thinks, and not just New England and California.

But do you Doc think it should still be used in todays elections?...isn't the popular vote enough or hasn't that much changed in 200 years?

quote:

people were ill informed of their candidates. this is not the case anymore

You're an excellent comedian.

The electoral college is an excellent idea. Here's why: Our country should not be run by a few small population centers. The electoral college ensures that the candidates pay attention to the concerns of smaller, less populated and more rural states. Otherwise candidates would simply run in New York, LA, and a few other large cities.

Think about it this way. At the time of our delcaration of independence, Britian had about 10 million citizens, and the US around 3 million. A large, urbanized population disconnected from the rest of the country controled the political system. That is one of the things the electoral college helps to prevent.

And it's not really a system of having someone "vote for you" anymore as many states have legislation requiring the electors to vote with the popular winner.

You want real change? Pass legislation requiring party primaries to be held on the same day in all states. As it goes now only a handful of states effectively decide the candidates. You really think Bush would have beaten McCain if the whole country was voting about it?

quote:

in 2000 until the Supreme Court stepped in and declared the winner of the election, at no other time in our nations history has the Supreme Court had to step in to declare a president.

The Supreme Court did not "declare a winner". They interpreted Flordia law in favor of those saying more recounts were illegal, or at least irrelevent. This just stopped the ridiculous recounting, and allowed the electoral process to continue as normal.

quote:

And on the other coin, do we need to be second-guessed when we vote for one cadidate, and a sleect group of chosen individuals say, "Um, not so much, entire population of America. Thanks for telling us who YOU want, but we're gonna go with someone COMPLETELY different."

And that too should send bells ringing off in peoples, just because you voted for one person doesn't mean that's who the electoral college a certify.

I'm glad were educated to the facts that are out there, some people just don't care.

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything(majority of the american public)

And on the other coin, do we need to be second-guessed when we vote for one cadidate, and a sleect group of chosen individuals say, "Um, not so much, entire population of America. Thanks for telling us who YOU want, but we're gonna go with someone COMPLETELY different."

quote:

We're all (mostly) publicly educated, as well. There is no reason to have someone vote for us.

Exactly my point, are we that uneducated of the facts that we need a second reassuring pat on the back that we made the right decision in the first place, if clearly stated it the first time around?...

Basically I proposed the abolishment of the electoral college. I explained how the system was created for a variety of reasons (to get states equal votes, to speak for the people since the majority of people of the time were uneducated, etc) all of which are very outdated. I mentioned the miscounts and such of elections (emphasizing the last two our nation had [without any partisan bias, of course]) and how just counting the popular vote is a much better idea. People are less manipulated now by a demogague than they were two hundred years ago. We're all (mostly) publicly educated, as well. There is no reason to have someone vote for us.

And of course, I mentioned the tiny problems of faithless electors, etc. But mostly I emphasized how our country is not a true democracy unless the people elect their representatives. I made some "land of the free" comment as well.

If you have any other questions, ask. That's my generalization of my argument.

quote:

I wrote my bill for Model Congress on abolishing the electoral college.

I'd like to hear your thoughts if you still have them.

I wrote my bill for Model Congress on abolishing the electoral college.

That too what you said but it's main purpose was to insure the smaller southern states had equal say in the governmental process(i.e. Presidential elections).

The only purpose of the electoral college is to insure that the state delegates chosen from each parties platform(winning party) certify the votes on December 3rd before the senate to formally certify the winner of the popular vote as the winner of the presidential election.

But as we saw this did process wasn't complete to certify a winner in 2000 until the Supreme Court stepped in and declared the winner of the election, at no other time in our nations history has the Supreme Court had to step in to declare a president.

But the electoral college is a lost cause, and hopefully within the next few years or so legislatures will see the problems with the system as well.