What Are Your Thoughts On the Electoral Voting System?

[Stealth Hunter]

In my opinion, it does not reflect the general wants of the voters. I believe the president should be decided by the popular vote.

[Platapus]

People have been debating this ever since before the Constitution was written. :)

[Stealth Hunter]

Yep, and nobody has done a thing.

[Platapus]

Well there have been over 700 proposed amendments to the Constitution on this issue.

The Electoral system, while antiquated, does work and since both the Republican and Democratic parties already have a mechanism to use the electoral college to their benefit, I doubt there will be any changes.

[Stealth Hunter]

But think about it...

Yeah, it WORKS, but does it reflect who the people WANT to lead them?

[Task Force]

I belive are votes should be the final votes not the electoral votes.:yep: But what do I know, Im not even old enough to vote yet.:cool:

[Sailor Steve]

In my opinion, it does not reflect the general wants of the voters. I believe the president should be decided by the popular vote.
I agree, but I worry about some of the possibilities. One of these is the debacle in Florida in 2000. Can you imagine the consequenses when every vote became that important. It could happen in every state. We could still be deciding that election eight years later.

Another is that in any close election no candidate would ever get a 2/3 majority, and every election would be decided in the House. Our votes could potentially mean even less than they do now.

On the other hand, a third-party candidate (or fourth, or fifth) could really shake things up, and possibly even win.

I voted 'No Opinion', but what I really meant was 'Undecided'.

[Platapus]

1972 was the last time an elector (from Virginia) cast 1 vote for the Libertarian party.

The biggest complaint I have with the Electoral College is that it keeps the US essentially a two party state.

I posted the following on another related thread, but it does have applicability with this thread also.

There have been more proposed amendments to the Constitution concerning the Electoral College than for another issue. Over 700 proposals.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...llege/faq.html

The consensus seems to be that the Electoral system is crap but probably the best crappy system we can find. As with many issues with the United States, it is a delicate balance between citizen rights (democracy) and State rights (Representative).

Since this country is slowly but firmly moving away from being the United States of America toward being the United Federation of America the issue of State rights is becoming mooter (I just made that workup )

Technically there is no reason not to have the President and Vice President elected by direct citizen vote. Politically though there are issues. The smaller states will feel more left out of the political game when the candidates concentrate solely on the highest population centers of the country. Why would any candidate spend the money and more importantly the time to campaign in Alaska for instance. Whether this is a valid point or not can be debated.

The bottom line seems to be that while a lot of people recognize the problems with the Electoral College, the system does work and the current political machines are geared for operating within an Electoral system. Since Congress is one of only two bodies that can change the system, and the political machines that run congressional elections like the Electoral system, fat chance of any changes.

That leaves the states being the only other body that can make this change. Smaller states sure aint goin to give up the Electoral system so it would be doubtful to get the necessary 2/3rds of the states (33 states) to propose the amendment nor get the necessary 3/4ths of the states (38 states) to ratify the amendment.

So we seem to be stuck with the Electoral system. The Electoral system was brought into existence like a bastard child -- half improvised, half compromised.

I would not count on either Congress nor the States changing it any time soon.

[TFatseas]

I support it.


A every vote counts system I believe would be ripe for abuse.

[Hylander_1314]

But think about it...

Yeah, it WORKS, but does it reflect who the people WANT to lead them?

The popular vote is supposed to influence the electoral vote. It doesn't do this 100% of the time, but it still has an influence on the outcome. Al-be-it, not as much as the corporate masters who have the politicians in their hip pockets.

But that is how the Republic was founded. The people weren't meant to be directly involved in every aspect of it. There are specific guidelines in the Constitution that outline all of this. Although from what i heard last time, G.W.Bush thinks it's nothing more than a "G.D." piece of paper, and it has to make one wonder how many in D.C. think the same way.

Personally, I like the guy (sorry, can't think of his name at the moment) running for the Whig Party. His motto is, We gave this country liberty the first time 230 years ago, and it looks like it's up to us to do it again.

I'll take liberty and personal responsibility any day over servitude and masters.

[Platapus]

But think about it...

Yeah, it WORKS, but does it reflect who the people WANT to lead them?

The popular vote is supposed to influence the electoral vote. It doesn't do this 100% of the time, but it still has an influence on the outcome.

"Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party's candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged."

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#popular

[Neptunus Rex]

Here's what would happen if the popular vote ruled;

Candidates would only have to campaign in the most populous states to gain the victory. The lesser populated states would then become marginalized and vassals of those that elect the president.

Thats why the constitutional framers did not go with popular vote.

Image it! The president elected by the most populous states. You know, the ones with the highest presentage of naturalized citizens (and not so naturalized).

As bad as the current system MAY appear, it works, and the alternative is worse!

[Zachstar]

Here's what would happen if the popular vote ruled;

Candidates would only have to campaign in the most populous states to gain the victory. The lesser populated states would then become marginalized and vassals of those that elect the president.

Thats why the constitutional framers did not go with popular vote.

Image it! The president elected by the most populous states. You know, the ones with the highest presentage of naturalized citizens (and not so naturalized).

As bad as the current system MAY appear, it works, and the alternative is worse!

That is the way it is now. Except it is only the battleground populated states that get the most attention.

[Platapus]

I have to admit as we are moving toward the United Federation of America the arguments in favour of the Electoral College seem to be weaker and weaker.

I can understand the historical purpose of the Electoral College, but as our nation changed and the emergence of communication technology beyond the wildest dreams of the Founding Fathers, the utility of the Electoral College seems lacking these days.

[Tchocky]

Hows about PR?

[fatty]

Hows about PR?

Not really applicable when electing a president; perhaps for congress.

[Skybird]

It's rooting deeper, imo.

Imo electorial systems like today's democracy only tend to function as advertised in relatively small, manageable communities/systems. the bigger in size thes ebecome, the more they tend to become counterfunctional, corrupt, unmanageable. There seem to be a treshold where some kind of a feudal system may work better.

However, both approaches are not prone to the deformations caused by human flaws and bad aspects of human character.

The early roman republics tried to combine both the "noble" class (a definition that is a problem in itself, maybe) and ordinary citizen class in powersharing, at least give both of them a voice to see their interests taken into account. If it always functioned well in practice, can be discussed, but in princi8pal it may be a path worth to be considered, in any way.

To say democracy is in principal the best solution is a statement I do not commit to. It's record is far too two-sided for that assessement. And paradopxically demo0cratic social orders of today seem to create new seld-declared and self-defined noble classes themselves, that behave as oligarchies and plutocracies, as we can see in the present.

I personaolly think the high time of democracies already is iover, and we have entered a phase of transformation into an order that may be given new, different names one day, but nevertheless compare to the old feudal orders that we already had. hisotry moves in cycles.

If we are lucky, each cycle takes place on a slighty higher level of complexity and developement. A linear trend in history I cannot really see. At best a spiral moving "upwards".

And sometimes backwards again. Which means: downwards.

but that spiral metaphor is misleading, since it implies there is just one path, and always just one possibility to realise. I do not believe in that. One should not make a fetish of thinking models. They are all just crutches.

I value the idea of Confuzianism, that the stability of a social order is helped if everybody has his clear, define dplace in the social order where he both serves and gets served, has responsibilities and others are responsible to him. I also think that this correspondents to a basic precodntion for psychological happiness and satisfaction with life. Compared to that, the have every four years the chance to make an anonymous decision on some personnel, a vote that completely drowns in an ocean of other voices, is unsatisfactory. But right this disatisfaction may explain why some people get so fanatic about defending a given name in office, or the bitter fighting between political camps, like Republicans versus Democrats in a two-party system. the thing that may play a role here is overcompensation for the existing frustration - who knows.

the lacking satisfaction from voting, and the overcompensation for that deficit, may compare to earning money with your work. I do not know how you see it, but I personally do not take satisfaction when doing something just for money, and nothing more. I then accept that there is a need to earn money, but it is not more than a necessary technical annoyance. Satisfaction I take from work, or engagement, only when it is resulting in outcomes and effects that have any kind of non-monetarian, personal meaning for me.

[GoldenRivet]

The Electoral voting system prevents states with small populations from being completely ignored throughout the campaign process.

its about as fair as one can make it i guess.

look at it this way... if you lived in a state with 20,000 residents... and all of the other states had 400,000 residence... who really cares about your state?

but if your state has 20,000 residents with say FOUR electoral votes while all of the other states only have 2 or 3 electoral votes... your little good for nothing state is closer to being on equal ground with the rest.

there is no perfect system, but it is the best we have right now.

[Sailor Steve]

Funny, I think the exact opposite could be reasonably argued. Three or Four electoral votes could be easily ignored when some states have 50 or more, but 20,000 votes are 20,000 votes no matter where they come from. I could be asserted that the electoral system demeans the smaller states, because a state like Utah only has five votes, and they will all go to McCain, as Utah is the Redest state on the planet. The 20% or more in Salt Lake City who will vote Democrat will not even count, because the winner takes all. It didn't use to be that way. There are records from the past of split Electoral Votes in different states.

People claim that voter fraud would be more prevalent with a direct-election system, but I don't see how it would be much different. Maybe the results of fraud are dampened when a small percentage one way or the other doesn't affect the state going to one side or the other, but I hate seeing third-party candidates have no chance at all. You can't get real change when the two big gorillas only have to worry about each other.

[Skybird]

I have one major porblem with any electorial voting system. That the "voting competence" of the voter plays no role is not object of critical consideration. I do not believe in the equal worth of all people, some people there are who convince me that we would be better of without them. I also do not believe that somebody who in the wider meaning of the word is incompetent to assess what he is voti8ng about, can claim the right that his vote should be of same worth as that of somebody who knows the issue to voter about much better. there are several other problems as well, very obvious is the egoism versus altruism thing. Or the querstion to what degree votes are being bought, or influenced by bribery, like tax gifts, for example.

You see, there is enough reason to not look at election system in blinded glorious enthusiasm. the system is not perfect, and is vulnerable. It is the attenpt to solve old dilemmas that currently is popular. but it is not carved in stone, and there is no reason to do so. The problem is the same like with democracy in principle - the greater the system or community, the more vulnerable the method becomes. Like democracy it seems to be depending on being limited to relatively small communities.

Do they hold elections about orders and officer promotions in the military? there is this - at leats in germany - controversial novel by Heinlein, Starship Troopers, and I mean the novel, not the movie. the controversial and provocating thought behind it is the assessement that totalitarian order does function, and functions quite well - the question is at what price.

some weeks ago there was a research getting published, about the level of happiness of people with their life in different nations. It were not america and not europe scoring best. the most happy people are - the Chinese. According to this examination.

That is a bitter, ugly, fat pill to swallow, isn't it - it already hurts while swallowing.

[Sailor Steve]

Do they hold elections about orders and officer promotions in the military?
In the past the US military sometimes did. During our civil war units originally elected their own commanders. Then they realized that popular leaders are not necessarily competent leaders.

there is this - at leats in germany - controversial novel by Heinlein, Starship Troopers, and I mean the novel, not the movie. the controversial and provocating thought behind it is the assessement that totalitarian order does function, and functions quite well - the question is at what price.
Read it a long time ago (like 40 years or more). It brings up the old concept that the best possible government is a benevolent dictatorship. The problem, of course, is the 'benevolent' part. Find someone who can rule wisely and well and the problems might be solved. Unfortunately as soon as the dictator is no longer benevolent the populace either suffers, or clamors for democracy, or both.

some weeks ago there was a reaserach getting published, about the level of happiness with their life in different nations. It were not america nd not europe scoring best. the most happy people are - the Chinese. According to this examination.

That is a bitter, ugly, fat pill to swallow, isn't it - it already hurts while swallowing.
The problem with that, of course, is the 'ignorance is bliss' factor. Are they happier because they don't know any better? Because they are kept in the dark? I think the more freedom people have the unhappier they're going to be, simply because they can see how much worse it could be, they can see how much better it could be, and they can see that their world is not perfect, and may never be. And that makes them unhappy

[August]

The problem with that, of course, is the 'ignorance is bliss' factor. Are they happier because they don't know any better? Because they are kept in the dark? I think the more freedom people have the unhappier they're going to be, simply because they can see how much worse it could be, they can see how much better it could be, and they can see that their world is not perfect, and may never be. And that makes them unhappy

Not to mention with everything controlled by an authoritarian government how can anyone claim such a poll represents the actual truth instead of what the Chinese government claims it to be?

[Sailor Steve]

That's a point too.:sunny:

[Skybird]

Reasonable replies by you, Steve.I am just not sure if you meant them as countering what I said, or not. At least I do not feel "challenged". In principle you said what I tried to point at.