The Black Vault

Aquarian wrote:Either way, the national directly democratic voting process would reflect the national popular will of the people. It would also be a step in the right direction in providing an opportunity for third parties to emerge in a more fair setting. Right now, the Electoral College is always faithful to the two-party system. Big and small states have an equal opportunity to fight for their candidates on equal ground- each individual vote would count for what it is- an individual vote.

Except that a State with a lower population would therefore have a weaker voice come election time...which is exactly why the States fought for the setup to be how it is now before they would agree to the Union as it stands.

In a direct 1-1 vote, you would never ever ever see a national candidate visit states like Wyoming or Montana, so therefore the voices of those people would be silenced when it comes to National debate. Why is Iowa so important at the beginning of primaries? Not because of it's super massive population.
Doing away with this system would simply weaken the individual States rights, and deteriorate the system even more towards a direct federal government as opposed to the limited federal government we are supposed to have now.

Zounds!
Sparty

In practical terms, I think that candidates who avoid states on purpose would risk political suicide, shame and public chastisement. I am not saying it won't happen in some instances, but I think the pressure would be far too great.

We have about 8 states with a population of less the 1M people. States like New York and California have at least 30M+. The reasons for the Electorial College are well written in the Constitution. If you read it and understand it, it makes perfect sence. Individual States are guarenteed equal voice in our system. Thats the way it should be.

If you want to make an issue out of something important, I would ask why if the President is Nominated in a Primary, why does the Vice President get picked by the nominee, instead of elected under the same system. Or at least the 2nd place in the Primary, become the VP selection? Califorina elects the Governor and Lt. Governors independant of each other, the Governor does pick his running mate, why should the President.

For the most part, our political system functions on a popular vote system- including U.S. Senators, House Representatives, state governors and legislators and other local officials. Why should the President/Vice President be different?

Unfortunately, the people that framed the Constitution did not trust the "general public" with them choosing a president- an elitist notion no doubt. This is not to say that abolishing the electoral college system would be the antidote to the political problems of the U.S. In my opinion, what we need is a ballot revolution, defined by the crumbling of the two-party system, replaced by a truly democratic republic attuned to the interests of the working-class and swift de-powering of corporate control. But the abolishing of the EC would be a step in the right direction.

In essence, the millions of people who cast votes for Pres and Vice Pres are really casting their ballots for 538 electors, not the national referendum.

Also, candidates with less votes on the national level are able to win the presidency by winning narrow victories in the big states (Florida for example).

Aquarian wrote:

Unfortunately, the people that framed the Constitution did not trust the "general public" with them choosing a president- an elitist notion no doubt.


.

Think about it though...at the time it was framed, the general education level for a citizen was pretty pathetic, and using elitist notions to set up a government in a vacuum seems pretty sensible to me. Now, after all the years, we have a more educated yet equally stupid electorate.

The idea that political pressure would force candidates to pay attention to Wyoming et. al., holds no real water. If you are talking about a Federal election, what possible pressure would be placed on you to care about Wyoming? All that matters is votes, and if you can guarantee a majority win in California and N.Y., then you won't really be caring about that nonexistent pressure as you settle into your comfy office in D.C.

Zounds!
Sparty

Aquarian, all those other elections are within the individual States, so popular vote is the way it can be done. No other state resident can vote in your state. Only residents of Florida vote in your elected officials.

If you do think about the concept of the Electorial College system, you could make a valid argument for the same system to be used in State races within the states. Forinstance, California elections could be swayed by the political needs of just the largest citys. Los Angeles and San Diego and San Francisco combined would overpower small counties all over the state. The 3 big cities would control the vote of the rest of the state that is 1000 miles x 250 miles.

When the Constitution was written, we had 13 states, and the populations were tiny compared to today. The never imagined we would have 300M people and 50 states, but if we didn;t have this system in place, long ago our elections would have been controlled by only the few largest states. Now more than ever, with such a contrast in State Populations, the Electorial College is even more important.

Sparty wrote:

Nesaie wrote:
bare arms, , etc.

I know I'm a jerk...but this made me laugh. I don't think the Constitution guarantees our right to wear short sleeved shirts!

Zounds!
Sparty

Do tank tops count? We actually got some sun.

I HATE it when I do that.

Aquarian wrote:The Electoral College should be abolished. It is more democratic to have a direct voting process.

WE ARE A REPUBLIC!!!!

We are NOT a democracy!!!!

If you want to get involved, find out how to be a PCO in your county. I already applied for my county. At least that is a start. I've considered door belling and leaving a card and a Constitution. I just ordered 100 more, I gave my last one away. That is kinda my thing lately, giving out Constitutions. Some people give out Bibles, I give out Constitutions.

Nesaie wrote:

Aquarian wrote:The Electoral College should be abolished. It is more democratic to have a direct voting process.

WE ARE A REPUBLIC!!!!

We are NOT a democracy!!!!

If you want to get involved, find out how to be a PCO in your county. I already applied for my county. At least that is a start. I've considered door belling and leaving a card and a Constitution. I just ordered 100 more, I gave my last one away. That is kinda my thing lately, giving out Constitutions. Some people give out Bibles, I give out Constitutions.

I think that is fantastic, you doing that.

You and I know it, but most people don't; this country has completely forgotten the Constitution and the progressives have been re-writing history in our schools for decades... so they could skirt the Consititution without the majority of us even caring. "It's an old document in need of updating," etc. You know the kids--the ignorant ones at least--fall for that, hook line and sinker.

I'm with the Tea Partiers these days. It's funny how the progressives try to paint the Tea Partiers as an all-white, racist, gun-toting, radical group. It ain't workin. Not on a lot of people at least.

Aquarian, this country was designed so that individual states could make their own decisions. The electoral college was part and parcel to that achievement. Until the progressives re-write the Consititution, the states still have the right to do things like protect their own border and even secede from the union if they see that the Federal government is becoming too large or radical (or both like today).