Electoral College vs. Popular vote - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dlssmith · #46 03-21-2006, 01:40 AM

I am not sure if there are any pure democracies, but I'm sure to be corrected here. And if there are, I'd like to know, that's for sure.

For example, in a parliamentary system, like England. The Prime Minister is not elected by popular vote, except in his or her home district. In parliament each party elects a leader, and if they hold a majority their leader becomes Prime Minister. As long as the party holds the majority they get to chose the PM. The party itself makes the choice for leader. Sort of like the Senate Majority Leader and House Majority Leaders in the US congress. The PM reports to the Monarch.

In the US, the Pres is the Monarch, but only four years at a time.

mzsmbs · #47 03-21-2006, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

You guys seem to be not getting that the electoral college is not designed to place the candidate in office that gets the popular vote, nationally. The vote is not tabulated nationally. There is no official National vote count for the President. How many ways can I say it?

Each state is responsible for counting the popular votes in state, and then the counted votes are presented to the electoral college convention in the state, and the candidate with the highest number of popular votes gets elected from that state, if that's the state's procedure (it is for most states). All states electoral votes are then counted in congress in Washington, and the election is certified.

The way the electoral college members are chosen is up to the states. The way the votes are tabulated is up to the states. If the state wants to split the electoral votes, it's up to the state. If you have a problem with the way your state does this - if you even know that your state does this - then maybe you should either move to a different state, or find out how to change things in your state.

hey, i know how the EC works, believe you me.. my state is messed up as it is and there is no changing some things in this backwards bastion. the biggest issues around here have been time change, a new stadium for the stupid pass and catch team and prayer at the state house.. insanity abounds.

move to another state? gee, you want me to move to WI? i think i would freaking die there.. the legislature maybe a little bit better but the people would drive me to drinking.

peragro · #48 03-21-2006, 02:28 AM

I like the Electoral College. It was a brilliant solution that those gentlemen in Philadelphia crafted for the most equal of representation. I've lost on some votes with it and won on others. Seems silly to throw away something that has worked for centuries because your guy didn't win - after all, he'll be out of office in 8 years maximum, no matter who he or she is.

As far as State politics go... I've been in CA for 7 years now. Things are fairly different now then when I got here. I always vote, even when I'm the minority. Have done so since age 18. I encourage those who feel that their vote is useless to not vote though - I wouldn't want someone with that little foresight voting.

Botnst · #49 03-21-2006, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzsmbs

...the 2 senator thing is to make all states equal.

Why would it be desirable to reduce the differential influence of population in one of two houses of Congress?

Botnst · #50 03-21-2006, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthonyb

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.

Perfectly explained.

Moneypit SEL · #51 03-21-2006, 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzsmbs

Iraq

What delusion makes you think Iraq is a pure democracy?

mzsmbs · #52 03-21-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moneypit SEL

What delusion makes you think Iraq is a pure democracy?

that's not my dilusion.

mzsmbs · #53 03-21-2006, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Why would it be desirable to reduce the differential influence of population in one of two houses of Congress?

equality and in a way another pesky check and balance thingy.

Botnst · #54 03-21-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzsmbs

equality and in a way another pesky check and balance thingy.

Yes, and the same principle applies to the EC. The electors equal to congressional districts heavily favors the population while the two electors per state moderates, but does not in any sense negate, the overwhelming impact of populous states.

Triffin · #55 03-21-2006, 09:39 AM

"i could be OK with the EC if it the electoral votes were split according to the real numbers but this winner takes all is just insane."

The purpose of the EC is to pick a clear winner ..
Presidential candidates are trying to 'win'
50 simultaneously held popular elections ..
Win the popular election in any given state by
just one vote and you receive all of that states'
EC votes .. You need 270 EC votes to win a presidential election .. It works as designed most
of the time .. How many times has the HR had to
chose the President ??

Triff ..

aklim · #56 03-21-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzsmbs

and what's wrong with that? would love to see term limits for those boobs too.

Nothing. You were the one to say a vote against doesn't count that much.

Term limits, sure. I'd go for that.

mikemover · #57 03-21-2006, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlssmith

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)

Exactly.

The "one man, one vote" concept, as wonderful as it may sound on the surrface, does not apply... because we are NOT a democracy, and never were intended to be. The word "democracy" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, or the Bill of Rights.

Pure democracy is nothing more than "mob rules". Thank the founding fathers for having the sense and foresight to ensure that we did NOT become such a thing.

Mike

mikemover · #58 03-21-2006, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzsmbs

the popular vote seems to work just fine everywhere else.. USA must be "special"

Show us a nation on this planet that operates as you describe.

Mike

mzsmbs · #59 03-21-2006, 11:53 AM

so, that's your excuse to continue this archaic foolishness? i thought america was a leader not a follower.

aklim · #60 03-21-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mzsmbs

so, that's your excuse to continue this archaic foolishness? i thought america was a leader not a follower.

Did we get elected to be a leader or what happened? There is some wisdom in leading and some in following. You rush into an unknown situation and you are point, you get what happens, good or bad.