Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it time to abolish the electoral college?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is it time to abolish the electoral college?

    To be completely nonpartisan and fair, it seems the best thing to do at this juncture is to get rid of the electoral college. From my understanding of United States history and politics, the college was formed to make sure dumb dirt poor farmers and imbeciles couldn't sway elections- only the votes of educated, upstanding electors would count.

    However, education has since improved, and even a mere 18 year old can educate himself on the planks and platform of a party and its candidate. We aren't a nation of uneducated rural farmers who spite Washington- on the contrary, we're a nation of (sub)urban people with a minority rural population that is still educated enough to make an informed vote.

    Even more agonizing is the classic liberal-in-a-red-state or conservative-in-a-blue-state tale. For instance, I tend to lean Democratic on most issues, but my vote for a Democratic presidential candidate more than likely will not "count" because I live in Georgia, where my party is a minority. Similarly, a conservative in California or Massachusetts will find his vote will not "count".

    I understand that an Iowan or Nebraskan may be felt left out as candidates will naturally propel their campaigns on densely populated areas. However, is this any better than candidates zooming in on a handful of "swing states"? It seems a lot more fair for the American people to decide who become Commander in Chief.

    Any thoughts or comments?

  • #2
    The United States is a Consitutional Republic, a government where representitves vote on the behalf of a group of people. The electoral college is the same way.

    Haven't seen you at SFOG.net in a while.You should come back.

    Comment


    • #3
      We cant make regular people's votes count. They're not smart enough to decide on their own!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Leftseat86
        We cant make regular people's votes count. They're not smart enough to decide on their own!
        I guess this explains why we don't have politicians who represent the regular people and what they want, but do an excellent job of representing the special interest groups.
        Click Here to view my aircraft photos at JetPhotos.Net!

        Comment


        • #5
          I think this is a job for Chuck Norris. He can round-house kick the College.


          My useless .02.
          My Flickr Pictures! Click Me!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by bbuse
            I guess this explains why we don't have politicians who represent the regular people and what they want, but do an excellent job of representing the special interest groups.

            Exaaaaactly.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Leftseat86
              We cant make regular people's votes count. They're not smart enough to decide on their own!
              Would it be better if states were forced to split their electoral votes to match popular demand in that state? I resent being penalized as a liberal Georgian, and I'm sure there are plenty of Californians that resent the 50-odd electoral votes going for a party and candidate they don't support.

              Haven't seen you at SFOG.net in a while.You should come back.
              Heh, I'm one of those people that show up daily on that site the day I buy a season pass. How's Goliath coming along anyway? *rushes on to SFOG.net*

              Comment


              • #8
                The electoral college places emphasis on areas most important to the future of our country. It is a good thing and should remain in place.

                there, a simple, to the point post.
                THE VOICE OF REASON HAS SPOKEN!
                Pop quiz: Which US president said, "Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
                George W. Bush is not correct. It was Bill Clinton in his 1998 State of the Union speech. HMMMMMMMMM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by wannabepilot777
                  The electoral college places emphasis on areas most important to the future of our country. It is a good thing and should remain in place.

                  there, a simple, to the point post.
                  Are you saying the people of North Dakota are less important to the future of our country?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Leftseat86
                    Are you saying the people of North Dakota are less important to the future of our country?
                    Another fallacy of the status quo that can really only be solved with a popular vote. I'm starting to think that the split-electors idea is a good stepping stone to the popular vote now, though.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Leftseat86
                      Are you saying the people of North Dakota are less important to the future of our country?
                      yes, they simply are. There is a reason North Dakota is loosing population when every other state is gaining it. Farms are important and all, but huge companies and mega ports are more so.
                      THE VOICE OF REASON HAS SPOKEN!
                      Pop quiz: Which US president said, "Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
                      George W. Bush is not correct. It was Bill Clinton in his 1998 State of the Union speech. HMMMMMMMMM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by wannabepilot777
                        yes, they simply are. There is a reason North Dakota is loosing population when every other state is gaining it. Farms are important and all, but huge companies and mega ports are more so.
                        Hmm...so this "equal representation" thing is a sham too, huh, if we can't even treat everyone equally during a presidential race? North Dakota as a state may not be an economic powerhouse or have a New York-esque city within its borders, but it still deserves to be treated equally with other states when it comes to choosing the President.

                        Sometimes the status quo isn't perfect, no matter how much you try to think it is.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Yes the electoral college should go. Why? For one, more equal representation as well as a vote that really counts. Despite checks and balances, the executive is very powerful and therefore should be directly elected by the people to more accurately reflect the popular feelings of the people. Also, more people might vote if they felt that their vote really counted.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            first off...north dakota sucks

                            but the electoral college sucks. If you're living in a place like North Dakota, or anywhere else that historically goes for the same political party every election, your vote is pretty much useless if you go against the popular opinion. Because of this, the only states that are important in an election are the so called swing states. Swing states aren't always the most important to the future of our country, they're just the ones with the biggest mix of population.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by US Constitution, ArtII, Sec. 1
                              Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
                              In other words, the weight of each state is proportionate to its population (and then some i.e. 3 for North Dakota rather than 1). It simply allows the "popular" vote to be broken into 50 separate popular votes. This is mainly because, as any American History students will tell you, the United States of America is based on the idea of each state making certain decisions on their own. In this representative democracy, this is how things are done. There is nothing wrong with this at all. If you remove the Electoral College, you take away another important pillar of the principal of states' rights.
                              THE VOICE OF REASON HAS SPOKEN!
                              Pop quiz: Which US president said, "Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
                              George W. Bush is not correct. It was Bill Clinton in his 1998 State of the Union speech. HMMMMMMMMM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X