Electoral College
- Thread starter Cruentus
- Start date
So states with a smaller population wouldn't be outvoiced by states with huge populations... TW
From what I understand, and I am by no means the most educated on the subject, when the USA was first formed it was basically a collection of sovereign nations...states printed there own money, had their own laws, own militaries and so forth...
We talk about being a democracy, but we really aren't...we are a republic. In congress, the Senate is a representation of the states while the weaker house, Representatives, reflects the people.
The electoral college does help protect the voice of less populated states. In the kind of the same way the Senate does. The senate provides an equal voice for each state regardless of population. The electoral college does reflect population, but levels the playing field a lot more than a simple popular vote does. Each state is guaranteed 3 votes...
For instance, if we used the popular vote method, California would have about 12% of the vote and North Dakota would only have about .2% of the vote...
Under the electoral system, California has about 10% of the vote and North Dakota has about .55% of the vote...still doesn't seem like much, but it almost tripled the say they have in the matter...
We talk about being a democracy, but we really aren't...we are a republic. In congress, the Senate is a representation of the states while the weaker house, Representatives, reflects the people.
The electoral college does help protect the voice of less populated states. In the kind of the same way the Senate does. The senate provides an equal voice for each state regardless of population. The electoral college does reflect population, but levels the playing field a lot more than a simple popular vote does. Each state is guaranteed 3 votes...
For instance, if we used the popular vote method, California would have about 12% of the vote and North Dakota would only have about .2% of the vote...
Under the electoral system, California has about 10% of the vote and North Dakota has about .55% of the vote...still doesn't seem like much, but it almost tripled the say they have in the matter...
OP
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
TigerWoman said:
Right.
And before the information age, that made a lot of sense. Before TV and Internet when lower population southern states (for example) had to rely on information to travel from the East coast and Washington D.C. to them, there was a legitimate concern that the states with smaller population would be ignored in federal elections. The electoral college forced canidates to visit and address needs of all states, even the ones with lower populations
But now in the age of information, where info doesn't have to travel through state lines and can get to us instantly through TV, the net, the phone, etc., I am thinking that the electoral college is having the opposite effect of what it was created for. Now canidates don't focus on states with lower electoral votes, or on states that are "red" or "blue," and they tend to focus on "swing states." All of our focus tends to be on one or two states to tip the electoral votes one way or the other for the canidates. Last time it was Florida, this time it was Ohio. Then, there is the problem of people not thinking there vote will "count." For example, under our current system if you are a democrate but live in a red state, you can count on the republicans winning your state and all the electoral votes for your state being for the republicans. This makes voters who lie on opposite ends of the political spectrum then their state feel disinfranchised, and like it doesn't matter whether they vote at all.
I feel that going straight to the popular vote would eliminate some election problems and confusions, would reduce focused campaigning on swing states, and would truely allow all votes to "count."
I am not 100% on this, but it seems to make sense.
M
Mark Weiser
Guest
I agree that the electoral college system needs to be changed. Here is a possible problem that could happen in the electoral college vote in January. The Electoral college does have the power and legal authority to cast ballots for whom ever they chose.They can ignore the popular vote and cast ballots for anyone they chose. Therefore the Electoral college could elect an unkown person into the White House all they have to be is from the winning polictical party.
OP
OP
Cruentus
Grandmaster
Mark Weiser said:
Yes, that is another problem (although largely overlooked) with the college. Yes, the members of the electoral college are appointed by the individual parties, so one would ASSUME that they would cast their vote for their parties canidate. However, we did have an incident last year where one electoral vote from the Gore camp went to Bush. There are rumors that one of Bush's electorites will cast his vote for Kerry this time around.
I don't think that few individuals should be given the power to overturn the popular vote in a democracy or in a republic.
