I'm curious as to what people think about the Electoral College, in its current form, consistenting of the addition of the political party system. In the past the Electoral College was used to "protect" the citizens from themselves. The common Federalist view was the common man was too excitable to directly vote for a candidate and therefore we did and continue to vote for electors. But now the slate of electors, that win the plurality of the vote, are generally bound to vote for the candidate who they pledged to vote for, by state law. So what�s the point of having a system that serves no real purpose, other than a ceremonial purpose?

...but your "point" on why we "need" the Electoral College if, barring an Electoral College, you would support run-off elections.

So what's the answer?

i think the person with the most votes should win, because my state voted for bush last time and i wanted gore, so my vote didn't really count!!!!

I Do support the electoral college.

And it is not me whining about someone not recieving the popular vote as being undemocratic, it's the liberals.

I was just aming the point why we need the electoral college

So, DO you support run off elections? Because, you know, if not having over 50% of the vote makes a candidate invalid and undemocratic, the electoral college doesn't change ANYTHING. Also, considering the American vote turnout, it makes just about everyone elected recently "undemocratic." And really, how can you complain about something being undemocratic if you support the electoral college?

lpfan, you don't have anything to say, you don't know gato mierda about music, just scurry away now.

You can insult me all you want, but never the Linkin park. Otherwise i'll kick your @ss from wherever you are to Mexico.

No Smurf, I am just highlighting the importance of the Electoral College.

quote:

---

Lincoln still would have lead in votes

---

But not by the majority of voters.
This would be a case of the Minority of people ruling over the majority, which ISN'T Democratic.

I know it wasn't everyone vs. Lincoln, but Of everyone who voted, more than half of those people DIDN'T want Lincoln to be president. So the majority of people where over ruled by the Electoral college.

In a Democracy, you need the majority of ALL votes, not just have the most votes, but have more than half of the voters vote for you.

Had it been, everyone vs. Lincoln he would have lost, because more people would rather him NOT be president. Do you get where I am going with this?

Liberalism thrives on ignorance though. It's a requirement. If liberals actually analyzed any positions or issues they wouldn't have most of the views they do. That's also why running the schools into the ground, which they have done, behooves them.

Candidate (party) Popular vote
(6 Nov 1860) Electoral vote
(5 Dec 1860)
Abraham Lincoln (Republican) 1,865,908 180
John C. Breckinridge (Democratic) 848,019 72
John Bell (Const. Union) 590,901 39
Stephen A. Douglas (Democratic) 1,380,202 12
other 531 0


Abraham Lincoln= 1,868,908
Other= 2,819,122 of a total 4,685,030.

That is not the popular vote. More than half of the people who voted wanted someone other than Lincoln to win.

He won by, say this with me Smurf, Electoral College!

quote:

---

Korith is simply full of ****.

---

You just don't know the difference in what the Popular vote, and the Majority vote is.

Don't blame me for your ignorance.

The whole purpose of the Electoral College is to give equal protection under the Constitution. It ensures, as has been pointed out before, that a few states do not control the entire political landscape of this country. Therefore, aside from being fully Constitutional by letter of law, it is also fully Constitutional by spirit of law.

In fact, few other parts of the original Constitution embrace the essence of fairness and equality that that Article II, Section 1 does.

Abraham Lincoln's vote totals are a fact, you jackass. Korith is simply full of ****. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the popular and the electoral vote, but Congress decided to install John Quincy Adams as President. The next two times Jackson ran, he won both votes.

In the Thomas Jefferson case of 1800, there weren't electoral votes for President and Vice President, so his party engineered a tie in electoral votes, and Jefferson was selected as President. Now, Benjamin Harrison actually DID win the Presidency with more electoral votes and less popular votes than Grover Cleveland. But those other three cases are just false. Look, you can try to push around opinions with spin, but don't try to use actual facts.

I personally think that the Electoral College is unconstitutional because it goes against the part of the Thirteenth Amendment which guarentees equal protection of the laws and says that no law should be made to abridge the priveledge or immunities of citizens of the United States.

And, of course, plain and simple, the fact that something is written into the original Constitution does NOT mean that it is constitutional. Want a direct quote from the constitution?

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Number, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of other Persons."

So, do you support that? IT'S IN THE CONSTITUTION!

That from somebody who called the EC unconstitutional despite it being written right in!

Wrong. Abraham Lincoln DID win the popular vote, he just had a plurality. He still won. CHECK YOUR HEAD.

Abraham Lincoln
Thomas Jefferson
Andrew Jackson

Just a few elected by electoral college. None of them won popular vote.

Oh wait, you have to count all the votes to see who gets the electoral votes...so, no, that's absolutely wrong. Sorry, try again. Possibly when you stop listening to Linkin Park.

The electoral college just makes the system go faster. It would be nice to get rid of it in my opinion, but voting and counting the votes would take so much longer.

quote:

---

Unconstitutional.

---

ComradeSmurf, As NuShoes implied, you'd be making a pretty large and unsubstantied claim saying that the Electoral College is unconstitutional. Seeing how it is written into the original articles by the founding fathers, I'd say it's as constitutional as you can get.

Yes, it would be violative of the spirit of the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College. The intent was for every vote to matter, but without the EC, only the votes of the people in a handful of states would count.

Unconstitutional.

quote:

---

THen the president would do what was in the best interests of the nation as a whole rather than politically arranging his agenda to get him the electoral votes he needs.

---

But he wouldn't be acting in the interests of the whole nation, because he could get by appealing to the most populous, urban states, and ignoring the rural ones. Like mine!!

P.S. I think the Korean War Memorial quote is just his signature, not anything to do with the post.