Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What? Are you suggesting that they work together? Like adults!?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Electoral College should be abolished. And here's why...
- Thread starter Poisonshady313
- Start date
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Your entire premise is flawed because you apparently believe that the United States is a democracy, where Presidential elections are determined by the sum total of individual votes, and the winner is determined by the vote count of these individual votes.
The Founders despised democracies, for very good reason.
The United States is a Constitutional representative Republic, where the states select the President, not the individual voter.
The electors are selected to represent the peoples wishes in their state.
It is patently obvious that if an individual vote system were adopted, huge voting blocks in urban areas in a few states could drown out the voices of all the people in other states. Orange county in the peoples republik of kalifornia has a greater population than many states.
As the American electorate gets more and more polarized, the cities of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Seattle, safely in the democrat stable, could essentially elect the President.
The point is moot though.
It is the states who must decide on the matter, through the Constitutional amendment process, again, the states decide, not individual voters. It would not happen.
Further, there is one other way to enact the voting system you envision, a Convention of the States, something that has never occurred. It too must be created by the states, not by individual votes
The Founders knew exactly what they were doing and why they were doing it.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
wrong. I would be content, as I said before, for the people to be removed from the process altogether, and let the state legislatures decide which electors get to cast their vote for President. But if, and only if, the Census only counted citizens.
then remove the individual voter from the process. Let the states do their job without wasting my time.
Not really. Not as long as we have winner take all and no minimum for voter turnout.
The bulk of my original post refutes this. Don't hide behind phrases like "patently obvious". Show your work. Provide even just a little bit of evidence to support the idea that populous states like California would have more power without the Electoral College.
no, they couldn't. If you think I'm wrong about that, I invite you to support your claim.
If the red states woke up and realized they are being taken advantage of, it could happen.
The founders saw several elections where many states didn't have their people participate AT ALL in the general election. I wouldn't mind going back to that.
PureX
Veteran Member
Everyone who votes has a "voice", and a say in who gets elected. Then, whomever gets the most votes gets the job of representing ALL the people in his/her district (this should be kept in kind when we choose who we vote for ... that their job is to represent everyone, and not just ourselves and our like-minded cronies).
As it stands, now, a vote in California is only worth 2/3rds what a vote in Utah is worth. And all of the votes in some states can be completely ignored by the electoral representatives of that state, if they so choose, and so are essentially worthless. They are just "show" votes, with no actual influence on who that state's electoral representatives propose to be president. And the citizens don't get to elect those electoral representatives, either! They're just appointed cronies of the state's current politicians. This is all fundamentally undemocratic.
And even before all this cheating of the democratic in the presidential election process happens, there are the primary elections, in which, for democrats, at least, NO ONE'S VOTE COUNTS. The popular vote in the democratic primary is completely meaningless, as the democratic party bosses have total authority to chose who the democratic candidate for president will be. The voters have no actual say, at all.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Pump the brakes there, chief. None of that is at stake. I'm not asking to alter the structure of our government. This isn't a question about states rights.
All I'm asking for is a change in the way we elect our President.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Incorrect.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
What I'm saying is, the Electoral College is unfair because it takes away the voice of most of the people in this country.
The Electoral College is the direct opposite of everything Electoral College supporters say it is.
It does NOT make candidates care about the whole country.
It does NOT make candidates care about small states.
It does NOT prevent New York and California from deciding every election.
Yes, but the way we elect our president is due to the very issues I pointed out. There are many good reasons one might cite to support abolishing the Electoral College, but the reasons for doing so indicate that the original justifications for having the EC in the first place may not be relevant in today's society. It may not necessarily mean that it would happen right now, but it's a question society will have to address sooner or later anyway.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
Earlier you said "In other words, any move to eliminate the Electoral College would require that Americans re-examine the entire concept of States and States Rights."
My questions are:
Why?
What does one have to do with the other?
Why do you think we created the Electoral College in the first place? Answer that question, and perhaps you'll see what one has to do with the other.
Dang, I could write a whole essay about this.
The bottom line is that the 21st century USA is vastly different from the USA of the Founding Fathers, in a multitude of ways.
Let me hammer on just one major point.
Back then, the president had almost nothing to do with the daily lives of the majority of people. The states were far more sovereign and pretty much ran all their own internal affairs individually. The president was tasked with representing the state governments to foreign powers. In day to day affairs, the federal government had little influence, or need of it.
All that's changed giganticly since then. States are really just provinces now, and the federal government dominates on most things. Think about the three biggest issues in the 2016 election, taxes and health care and immigration. None of those even existed back then. The president had nothing to say about them.
The president didn't represent the people, he represented the state governments. So, the state governments picked the people who the legislatures felt would best represent their interests, and sent them off to the Electoral College. Those representatives hashed out the best choice and made a decision. But there was no popular election involved, nor was there a reason for one.
Actually, there's already a huge effort to democratize America. According to the Constitution, state legislatures can choose Electoral College delegates however they choose. When states representing 270 EC votes decide to require their delegates to vote for the popular vote winner, the USA will be a democracy.
Check this out. It's a little closer than you might realize.
National Popular Vote
Tom
Well, it sounds promising. Another way to democratize things and still keep the EC is to remove the "winner take all" provision. Make the electoral votes proportional to the vote count in each state. That would solve some of the issues without necessarily doing away with the EC altogether.
But you're right. The actual Office of the President has expanded greatly in its size, scope, and overall importance - and the role of the state governments has also changed immensely.
In principle, I agree with the basic premise of states rights as it relates to self-rule, but I would extend the same concept to even lower levels of government - counties, municipalities, villages, etc.
I've noticed that, in the states where states' rights has its staunchest advocates, they still favor a strong central government for the state, with the county and city governments being nothing more than vassals.
That's where the states' rights view can get contradictory, since it's seemingly okay to give most political power to state governments, while keeping it out of the hands of the Federal government. But then, the whole reason the Feds had to interfere in the first place was precisely because too much power was being granted to the state governments and not distributed evenly among the local governments.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
I've heard the talking points. None of them point to why you said what you said. Or maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you'll be so kind as to point out how I'm wrong by answering my question. What does one have to do with the other?
Let me try a different approach:
"Should states have any autonomy at all?"
What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with states having or not having autonomy?
"Should there be a Senate?"
What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with whether or not there should be a Senate?
"Should government be more centralized and state governments weakened?"
What does a direct national popular vote for President of the United States have anything to do with whether or not the government should be more centralized?
All of this has to do with America and how Americans view their government, the role of state governments vs. the federal government, and the expanded role of the president in this day and age.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your basic point about why the Electoral College should be abolished, but I don't see how the underlying issue can be confined to the neat little box you're to confine it to. You say that one has nothing to do with the other, but it all has to do with how we choose to govern ourselves in these United States.
If you can't see the connection or the bigger picture of how issues relate to each other, then I'm sorry, but when you ask what does one have to do with the other, I'm not sure what you're really asking for. Nor am I clear as to why you're asking.
Poisonshady313
Well-Known Member
The Electoral College is a temporary group of individuals we vote for every 4 years for the singular purpose of electing the President of the United States.
I'm saying that rather than have 4.5 million Californians decide which 55 electors (who represent 40 million Californians) will represent them to elect our president, we ought to let the voters elect the President directly. This way, the other states have to contend with 12-18 million Californians who won't all vote the same way. Hell, they probably won't even all vote at all. Instead of contending with 40 million Californians all voting the same way, even though 40 million Californians aren't eligible to vote.
Seeing as neither method of electing the President affects or is affected by Congress, how this relates to whether or not we ought to continue having a Senate is a question I'm waiting for you to answer.
PureX
Veteran Member
No, it's not. And I explained why, but apparently you're just going to ignore that, so there's no point in my responding further.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It appears that only the Trumpettes like the EC. Probably because that is the only chance that loser has. It has nothing to do with "states rights". That is a non sequitur that simply "will not hunt". What the EC does is to give excessive power to larger swing states. Low population states still have very little power and are largely ignored.
It has to do with the perceptions you're outlining here. In your scenario, it's still ostensibly important whether these millions are Californians - as opposed to being Iowans, Nebraskans, Delawareans, or whatever. Why do these designations even matter? Why are they important?
If state designations are not important (or no more significant than county delineations), then why bother with a Senate? What's the point in having one, if states and their governments have no real significance or meaning in the democratic process?
As to how it relates - we're talking about states here: The identity and role of states in US history and our political culture.