BF2S Forums Electoral collage Good or bad??

I do agree with you Ken because hearing someone say I stand for this and that, then you vote him into a position of power where the only reason he wants to stand by his word is to get reelected.. As far as congress goes.....

Well I'm on the democratic side of things and live in New Jersey so I don't even have to vote because of the electoral collage and my vote doesn't count.. New Jersey is primarily a Democrate State and doesn't really swing the other way... If my vote actually counted I'd vote..

The electoral college is outdated.  Several items here.  First and foremost, one of the major reasons people do not vote is they don't feel their vote counts in the electoral college.  I hear your concerns about the big cities forming an election.  There are far more votes to be had in the small cities compared to the top 6 or 7 major cities.  So a smart politician would be moving from town to town on the whistle stop tours to get as many small cities as possible.  Keep in mind, in a popular vote 1 = 1.  It is not who wins New York or who wins LA.

One thing that would help is putting a "No confidence" vote into play.  That way if a President gets out of line as this one has it can be put to a vote to rid ourselves of him.  This should be popular vote as well.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2006-11-06 13:30:16)

ATG wrote:

It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.

it's alot like having a bicameral congress, where one house is based on population, and the other simply a "2 vote per state" set up. If it were only the House of Representatives (the population based one) a few metropolitan clusters frome dictating the political lives of the 35-ish states not on either seaboard, conversely if it were only the senate (2 votes per state), then there wouldn't be appropriate representation for each voter, you would give a state like alaska just as much power in congress as New York, even though there are counties in new york with as much population as the entire state of alaska. If it weren't for the EC, then the area from NY to massachussetts and southern Cal would control all elections.

Last edited by kr@cker (2006-11-07 07:29:26)

GATOR591957 wrote:

kr@cker wrote:

ATG wrote:

It absolutely does.
If it weren't there then large cities like New York and L.A. would get to pick the president.
The electoral college sort of evens things out.

it's alot like having a bicameral congress, where one house is based on population, and the other simply a "2 vote per state" set up. If it were only the House of Representatives (the population based one) a few metropolitan clusters frome dictating the political lives of the 35-ish states not on either seaboard, conversely if it were only the senate (2 votes per state), then there wouldn't be appropriate representation for each voter, you would give a state like alaska just as much power in congress as New York, even though there are counties in new york with as much population as the entire state of alaska. If it weren't for the EC, then the area from NY to massachussetts and southern Cal would control all elections.

Not true
 
Just because New York has a higher population does not mean they all will vote for one person.  Popular vote is just that.  One vote per person.  So how will they get to pick the President?

They won't. And if they did, it'd be fair and democratic. But conservatives are afraid that cities, being loosely associated with liberal thinking, would democratically elect their opponents. So, conservatives fought for the bicameral legislature to restrict democracy, and have a long history of supporting false democracy in America.

CameronPoe wrote:

Electoral College - NOT democracy. Every man is equal but some are more equal than others....

The electoral college doesn't really have to do with inequality of vote. Electoral votes are assigned based on population, in an attempt to solve this problem. The undemocratic aspect of the electoral college is the jerrymandering of districts it allows. Districts can be drawn such that one party is more likely to win more districts, and thus, take more of the electoral vote, despite losing the popular vote. The practice may be illegal, but that doesn't mean it won't happen, nor go unpunished.

CameronPoe wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Electoral College - NOT democracy. Every man is equal but some are more equal than others....

The electoral college doesn't really have to do with inequality of vote. Electoral votes are assigned based on population, in an attempt to solve this problem. The undemocratic aspect of the electoral college is the jerrymandering of districts it allows. Districts can be drawn such that one party is more likely to win more districts, and thus, take more of the electoral vote, despite losing the popular vote. The practice may be illegal, but that doesn't mean it won't happen, nor go unpunished.

Actually there is some merit in the electoral college on a state by state basis - given that it is a federation of states and not strictly speaking a nation-state, but gerrymandering is a big problem, Northern Ireland was notorious for it as the British loyalists tried desparately to cling to total domination of their Irish untermensch.

If I was American I wouldn't like the way that a small group of floating voters in Ohio and Florida decide the course of the nation on a four-yearly basis. The system must be flawed somewhere.

Gerrymandering, historically, has been a big problem here too. And our presidential elections are rather silly.

Though I doubt we'll see so much trouble in the future, I heard diebold came out with a machine that will just vote for us! How convenient.

kr@cker wrote:

democracy=mob rule=never existed in america

america = republic

the electoral college is a body of representatives that vote (generally, but not obligated to) as the majority of their district constituent votes do. a major part of it's creation was due to the fact that at the time news would take weeks or even months to disseminate through all segments of the voting population, and it was thought that people could not generally be trusted to stay informed of the more important issues. since we now have the communication technology to rapidly disseminate it focuses more on balancing voting power between rural and urban areas.

there is no constitutional right to vote, only the right to be represented if taxed

Democracy is not strictly mob rule, that's propaganda from the confederation.

The electoral college is obligated, by law, to vote in the majority, with the exception of two states. Electoral college doesn't balance (or isn't intended to balance) anything between urban and rural areas, rural areas get fewer votes, dingdong.

Edit: Oh, and there is a constitutional right to suffrage.

Last edited by jonsimon (2006-11-07 08:58:06)

kr@cker wrote:

you're thinking of the 15th, 19th, and 26th amendments, which state that you can't deny a person's right to vote based on age (so long as they're 18+), race, or sex, but there is no implicit guarantee that everyone can vote.

edit: this bunch says it a little better
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote

dingaling

Oh, the amendments aren't part of the constitution now? Silly.

CameronPoe wrote:

Electoral College - NOT democracy. Every man is equal but some are more equal than others....

Exactly...  either the Electoral College goes, or America needs to admit that we're not all equal as individuals.