Our founder fathers were very smart and wise men. They new that checks and balance are needed to prevent one person or group from taking total power. The electoral college is a perfect example of this. It serves a few purposes.

1. It forces candidates to compaign in less populated states. Without the college the East and West coast would be all that matters, the entire center of the country would never see a candidate.

2. It protects the voters from themselves. What happens if a radical party ever manages to gain enough support to get a President in office? Just study how Hitler came to power. The people cannot always be trusted the electoral college hopefully will prevent such an event.

We have a very good system it has worked well for well over 200 years. Their is no reason to change it and risk screwing something up.

Besides we are a Republic, no reason to fix what ain't broke.

unfortunately they can. it's a sham in todays world and should be gone.

the 2 senator thing is to make all states equal.

Hattersguy,
You took the words right off my keyboard.
Exactly right!
YOu can tell that many people have an exalted opinion of themselves, combined with a low opinion of the founders.
The Founders knew human nature as well as history; they came with an excellent system. Remember the words of the hypocratic oath, " First, do no harm "
Too much of modern politics is the result of unintended consequences. Can anyone predict the unintended consequences of eliminating the Electoral Collge?

But they have -- they're called Republicrats.

it sure happened last two elections didn't it? the EC makes everyone's votes kind of useless. i agree with h2o.. it needs to go, NOW!

america is looking more and more like a freaking dictatorship not a republic/democracy.

obviously the founding fathers didn't forsee the kind card blanche fenomenon that we have to live with right now. what use do check and balances have when there is absolutely no checking going on.. freaking sheep. :mad:

I'd like to agree with you, sounds good in principle, but in today's society I don't think so. Back in the old old days, there was no mass communication just word of mouth, local editorials, and as far as your horse would take you. Today a canidate doesn't have to travel to speak to the people in person to spread his agenda. People make their decisions by the in your face media, all day and night. Unless it a super close race, the larger states are still the most sought after prizes for college delegates. Some canidates dismiss the smaller state visits altogether, or make a token appearence.

Most of the time on the road is spent raising money, specifically with their respective party or selected audience, not the general population. As for a raical party, if thats what the majority people want, thats what they should get. Personally, the way this county's going, not a bad idea. Who defines radical anyway? Our choices are limited to a 2 party system because of political campaign contribution laws, and unfair media bias towards a 3rd party canidate who doesn't get equal exposure time.

Look at that Florida fiasco, party run election officials invalidated votes and manipulated procedures to rig the electorate their way, not exactly a checked and balanced system. And what did the "supreme court" do...? Nothing. let it stand. Disgracefull.

Earlier in this thread it was asked why there are two senators in every state. The answer is the same as why there is an electoral college. Equal representation for each state. Which, when the constitution was written, were intended to be run like countries, independently of one another, but for the national defense and international commerce matters.

A bicameral legistlature makes the process of passing laws more cumbersome, thus slower, which was also intended. There was to be plenty of discussion about proposed laws, and having it all done twice before reaching the President's desk mostly accomplishes that.

We don't hear very much about states rights anymore in the news because with later amendments to the constitution, equal protection, interstate commerce clause and so forth, a lot of the contentious issues regarding who has jurisdiction on a given matter were settled post facto. The creation of the IRS and withholding payroll taxes were the final nail in the states rights coffin.

By the way, until around 1830 or 1840, Senators were appointed by the state's governors. Once again, an amendment to the constitution created the popular election of the senate.

The electoral college is an amazing thing, and as a resident of a less populated state, I consider it important, since I want my vote to count. Without it, elections would be decided by the voting in the large cities, mainly. There has been talk in some states of circumventing the electoral college by dividing the states electoral votes according to the popular vote - allowing them to be split. I think one state does this but can't remember which.

By the way, statistically, people are now referring to red state, blue state, according to the way things went in the EC voting at the last election. But statements of this nature indicate an ignorance of actual voting statistics within the states. People are actually quite evenly divided in every state, left and right. There is a duality in the system, which has always existed - 50-50 for the most part. The determinating factor in elections is always personality and perception of personality. That's why a "red" candidate can and will win in a "blue" state. For instance, Republican (and conservative) Mitt Romney is governor of Massachusetts, one of the most "blue" of states.

This duality that I speak of has existed in our system since the very beginning. When Washington was President, there were no proclaimed political parties, and he thought best to keep it that way. As soon as he was out of the way, the divide occurred with a pent up energy and the two party system was born. The war was on between the factions - one for a strong central government (they won) and one for strong state governments. (You can tell who won by which of your tax bills is higher)

you gotta be kidding me, right?

please look at the results in WY or IN for example and then let's talk about 50/50..

I happened to think of one other important fact about the electoral college and why it's important:

In the election of 2000, the deciding voting state was Florida. In the 2004 election, it was Ohio. WHY?

The answer is why the electoral college is important beyond your wildest partisan fantasies.

Answer: keep the candidates working hard for your vote, don't let them assume anything. If they were to be able to predict the center of power (where the vote is) power would then be vested there and would NEVER NEVER shift. An oligarchy would be born.

MZSMBS wrote:

please look at the results in WY or IN for example and then let's talk about 50/50..

My answer: Most people that think their vote doesn't count, don't vote. But they are wrong. However, the politicians in power, left or right, don't want them to vote either.

I really don't see how your popular vote for a canidate in Iowa would count any more or less than a popular vote in any other state. If all you people in Iowa feel strongly in favor of a particular canidate representing your views, the more votes the merrier for him(or her). The EC vote it's like negating the votes of the looseing canidate and conceding them over to the winner. Or do you splt your delegates? That would be a truer representaion of the people.

The bicameral legislature is also designed to reflect two competing interests of representative democracy: ensuring that the people's voices are heard, without compromising the ability to make decisions in the best interest of the country in the long term.

Hence the House of Representatives, with members who are elected to 2-year terms by small districts - thus more likely to have a finger on the pulse of their respective constituencies.

And then again the Senate, with members elected to 6-year terms in relatively large districts - more likely to result in the preservation of institutional knowledge, and with some insulation from the political whims of the electorate.

I also forget which state it was, but I believe it was on the ballot for approval by that state's voters in 11/04. Proponents echoed H202's diagnosis (though not his prescription) that the existing system disenfranchises voters at either end in relatively partisan states, and I'm sympathetic to that. The state where I live, Utah, ended up going close to 70/30 for Bush in '04; election morning was a cold one, and no matter what your views it gave you pause to stand in line outside to participate in a foregone conclusion - the individual vote really didn't count.

The counter-argument to splitting electoral votes is that except in a few hyper-red or hyper-blue states, splitting the vote renders the state irrelevant for campaigning. If all of a state's electoral votes are up for grabs and the state is a close one, candidates will repeatedly visit the state and whore themselves out with campaign promises they hope will resonate. If a candidate knows he's getting 50% of a state's votes plus or minus one, there's not much incentive to pay attention.

explain to me how a vote against the gop counts in either of the two states i mentioned. it doesn't. the gop is the overwhelming majority in both examples. actually, i don't think they have ever counted.

MZSMBS, there are democrats holding office in both of those states. Why?