Electoral College

ghostparty · Post by **ghostparty** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:03 pm

OK, this is probably a more serious thread than other posts but, why do we use the electoral college over majority vote?
Is the only reason because then little states such as rhode island can have about the same say as state as large as say california?
I'm just kind of curious if that's the only reason.

ragnarok2040 · Post by **ragnarok2040** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:29 pm

Nah, it was done because it was decided the majority of people were too stupid to make a legitimate vote and that if Congress voted for President, then it would get too much power. States with a small population get less electoral votes than states with larger populations, as they get the same number of electoral votes as the people they have in Congress, so states don't really have an equal footing at all.

ghostparty · Post by **ghostparty** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:36 pm

Yeah, I believe that every states number of electoral votes is based off of the number of reps that state has in the house.
I guess it makes since.

butters · Post by **butters** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:41 pm

At least it is better now than the original system, where you voted for the President and Vice President seperately.

weeperofsouls · Post by **weeperofsouls** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:55 pm

though if that was the case in 2000, the election wouldve gone very differently. i know many people who voted for bush then just because they didnt like lieberman.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:56 pm

ghostparty wrote:Yeah, I believe that every states number of electoral votes is based off of the number of reps that state has in the house.
I guess it makes since.

It is representatives PLUS senators. So every state has at least 3. It's a compromise between population power and individual state power. Otherwise small states would be completely ignored. I'm not sure if I like the system or not, I have mixed feelings.

At least it is better now than the original system, where you voted for the President and Vice President seperately.

That's not exactly true. You just voted for president, and the vice president was the guy who came in second. In other words, Dole would be VP right now.

Jeeba Jabba · Post by **Jeeba Jabba** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:07 pm

ragnarok2040 wrote:Nah, it was done because it was decided the majority of people were too stupid to make a legitimate vote and that if Congress voted for President, then it would get too much power. States with a small population get less electoral votes than states with larger populations, as they get the same number of electoral votes as the people they have in Congress, so states don't really have an equal footing at all.

If I may add:

Communications and news were much slower 200 years ago. Now we have Television and the Internet, which is why I think the system needs major reform.

AgentGreen · Post by **AgentGreen** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:18 pm

Lartrak wrote:That's not exactly true. You just voted for president, and the vice president was the guy who came in second. In other words, Dole would be VP right now.

I think you mean Gore

atf487 · Post by **atf487** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:41 pm

Honestly, I don't like the electoral college at all. Sure, its not a terribly thought out system, but whats wrong with just counting all the votes? Is there a downside to it?

I say that make it true to a democracy and let the people decide whos president, instead of congress. But that will never happen.

Post by **Roofus** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 8:02 pm

DetunedRadio wrote:Honestly, I don't like the electoral college at all. Sure, its not a terribly thought out system, but whats wrong with just counting all the votes? Is there a downside to it?

Yes. Los Angeles and New York would decide every election.

DetunedRadio wrote:I say that make it true to a democracy and let the people decide whos president, instead of congress. But that will never happen.

I say you have no idea what you're talking about. Congress doesn't decide who becomes President. A direct democracy would never work. People have lives and don't have time to read and vote on every single piece of legislation. That's why we have people to do that for us.

Synlor · Post by **Synlor** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:08 pm

With the electoral college it gives the smaller population states a say in the process. South Dakota relies heavily on agriculture, but lets say a canidite wants to just throw agriculture out the window, and just appeal to people in big cities. South Dakota's 700,000s people won't be able to defend their way of life because cities vastly outnumber our population. Thats why the electoral college is a good thing.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:40 pm

SychoGoldfish wrote:
Lartrak wrote:That's not exactly true. You just voted for president, and the vice president was the guy who came in second. In other words, Dole would be VP right now.
I think you mean Gore

Freudian slip?

Chile · Post by **Chile** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:57 pm

no u mean bush would be. we the people voted for him

ghostparty · Post by **ghostparty** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:42 pm

Every state has two senators, no more, no less, so I guess that since every state gets a minimum of one rep then the lowest electoral vote a state can have is 3.
Thanks!

Rand Linden · Post by **Rand Linden** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:58 pm

The system was designed when communication and people were far more spread out and doesn't make much sense now... just like Daylight Savings time.

If anything, DST should work *backwards* to the way it current does, especially considering the huge energy savings states like California would see.

In any event, the fact that the 2000 election resulted in a conflict between the majority and electoral college should give rise to the question "what happens if all the most populous states vote one way, and all the smaller states vote the other way... plus one."

http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

Sure, it's a not likely scenario, but the fact that it *could* occur warrants at least giving it some serious thought ... all political issues aside, some simple math reveals a very scary scenario in which the power rests with people that aren't even remotely close to a majority of the citizens.

... which, by definition is *not* a democracy:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy&db=*

Whether or not the current political situation infact qualifies as a democracy is certainly debatable ... however, last time around things were very close... will they be next time?

Rand.

edit: There's an excellent .pdf on the first site I linked to -- download it and read some of the history... very interesting indeed.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

Kamjin · Post by **Kamjin** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:32 pm

Rand Linden wrote:The system was designed when communication and people were far more spread out and doesn't make much sense now... just like Daylight Savings time.

If anything, DST should work *backwards* to the way it current does, especially considering the huge energy savings states like California would see.

In any event, the fact that the 2000 election resulted in a conflict between the majority and electoral college should give rise to the question "what happens if all the most populous states vote one way, and all the smaller states vote the other way... plus one."

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

It's all our bizzare methods of democracy, even in a parlimentary system we constatly see overwhelming majority govts. elected with a miniority of votes.. a lot of the problem still lies in the vote/seat distribution. I guess there's a fear in distributing the votes on an equal basis, since it might cause a backlash from the lower populated areas... Also wanted to mention that there was this excellent show on PBS about the original idea the founders of the US had in mind when developing it, and how today's myth of the 1 person 1vote democracy was never their intention.. I searched the site, but couldn't find a reference to it. if anyone else caught that series, let me know the series title.

actually wanted to comment on the daylight saving time.. what an annoying thing when you live in the north.. sunlight well into 10pm, and
sunset at 3-4pm in the winter.. why in the world did they come up that??

farrell2k · Post by **farrell2k** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:36 pm

Roofus wrote:
DetunedRadio wrote:Honestly, I don't like the electoral college at all. Sure, its not a terribly thought out system, but whats wrong with just counting all the votes? Is there a downside to it?
Yes. Los Angeles and New York would decide every election.

DetunedRadio wrote:I say that make it true to a democracy and let the people decide whos president, instead of congress. But that will never happen.
I say you have no idea what you're talking about. Congress doesn't decide who becomes President. A direct democracy would never work. People have lives and don't have time to read and vote on every single piece of legislation. That's why we have people to do that for us.

If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the house of reps takes a vote to pick a president.

SuperMegatron · Post by **SuperMegatron** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:26 am

farrell2k wrote:If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the house of reps takes a vote to pick a president.

That almost happened with the Nixon election I believe either mcgovern or wallace won a few states in the south and it looked like we were going to have a major crisis getting the president. I believe you need more then the majority to be president isnt it like 65% of the ec.

ragnarok2040 · Post by **ragnarok2040** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:45 am

Whoever said the United States was a democracy? We're a republic.

I always wondered about the party names. Democrat would be someone who sides with the majority of people, and Republican is someone who sides with the representatives of the people? At least, that's what they mean to me if I broke down the meaning of the names, anyways.

Lartrak · Post by **Lartrak** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:59 am

Chile wrote:no u mean bush would be. we the people voted for him

No. Under the old system, the person with the most electoral votes was president, #2 was vice president.