The electoral college | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)
Apples and Oranges (none / 0)
To be clear, I don't care if it's a Republican or a Democrat  - and what you aren't taking into consideration is it would give more status to 3rd party candidates who wouldn't have to rely on Republican or Democratic Congress critters to "allow" them to take office.

But, your premise is skewed. It is only the Presidential race which is affected by the E.C. and then only after the fact.- the states would still have the same number of Representatives and Senators they currently have and THEY are the ones who push for things for their states.

It's up to the people living in those areas to make a fuss if some candidate slights them by not campaigning there - not that they aren't; TV, Internet, Newspapers and Radio are all there to help get the candidates "message" out.

Again, things have changed since 1787. Mass communication, minority voting rights - these are things that weren't available then.

If we still did things the same, Senators would be appointed instead of being voted on by the people. Would you rather have that system still in place?

The e.c. only affects the President and the President really doesn't have much say about things on a local or state level. What difference does it really make if he (she) stops in Biloxi or Juneau to give a stump speech on free trade?

by MedfordTim on 03/10/2010 03:16:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hardly apples and oranges (none / 0)
The president needs to be and should always be a representative of the AMERICAN people, not just of California, Ohio, Texas, NY, and Florida. The president has alot to say and alot of influence over what happens on a state level he ultimately signs bills into law or vetos them and has a tremendous amount of push.

Its imo a silly point to suggest that radio and the internet gets the same message out and shouldn't matter where the message is broadcast from. The point is NOT to have a message heard at specific places, its to have presidential candidates visit these locations and learn about those locations and to understand their concerns and issues, its not about having the same soap box at a different place, its about giving the people of these small states a soap box to tell their potential president what is important to them.

Things may have changed since 1787, but the point of the electoral college has not nor have I seen a compelling argument against it or a better system to replace it. The popular vote would be absolutely unfair to most of America shifting the "tyranny of a small state" to the "tyranny of a few large ones".

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 04:01:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Your assumptions are frustrating (none / 0)
The popular vote would be absolutely unfair to most of America shifting the "tyranny of a small state" to the "tyranny of a few large ones".

How, exactly, does that work? There would be a candidate who is only popular in big cities and carries 80% of their votes? I think that's just crazy talk.

You don't NEED a system to replace it - that's the point! It's the "appendix" of the US political being - the only time you'll notice it's there is if it explodes. The "system" of "one person, one vote" is already in place and being used on a very regular basis.

(full disclosure: if it were up to me, the U.S. would have mandatory voting as is done in Australia. Our low turnout is a bigger worry to me than the e.c.)

its about giving the people of these small states a soap box to tell their potential president what is important to them

...they could write him (her) a letter. It would probably be just as effective as a two hour stopover in some town just so they could say they went there. 

Any smart politician would know that it is wise to go to these smaller states whether there was an e.c. hanging over their heads or not. I truly doubt that it is even a consideration in current campaigns.

Seems to me, it boils down to: if you don't accept one person, one vote as viable, you aren't going to see  "a compelling argument against it." But, you know what?

That's okay. 

Take solace in knowing that I am rarely consulted when it comes to policy matters...

by MedfordTim on 03/10/2010 05:04:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Too literal there (none / 0)
"...they could write him (her) a letter. It would probably be just as effective as a two hour stopover in some town just so they could say they went there."

Im not saying that a president should actually physically hear concerns and hear issues from every state, but rather to have an incentive to address them in some way shape or form. If there is no incentive to address the issues of every state, then you can guarantee that they will be ignored.

For example, when Bush was elected into office, California was driven into an energy crisis. A made up crisis designed to drum up serious money for Texas based energy providers. Bush understanding that California is not a state he will ever win and will ever need to compete for, decided to do nothing despite pleas from our former governor to intervene and stop the corruption going on through federal means. This is one example of how a lack of incentive to address the issues of state compounded the problem. California gives no incentive to a republican president to give a flying fuck about what happens there, now one can say that would change if a popular vote was implemented instead. While it would be true for California that it would automatically become a state both republican and democratic presidents would work to impress, several state with much smaller populations would get the short end of the stick and lose any incentives that a president may have had to look out for their best interest.

by Smokin on 03/10/2010 05:44:31 PM EST

[ Parent ]

The electoral college | 11 comments (11 topical, 0 hidden)