Why Keep the Electoral College?  

Because 1 person 1 vote means New York, Chigago and Los Angeles decide everything. Majority rule is mob rule. Do you really think any candidate would care about Florida or Ohio in the system you would like? NO. They wouldn't have to venture out of the 4 or 5 biggest cities.

Yes, the Constition was designed to be ammended when needed, but when we ammend it, let's do it out of knowledge, not ignorance.

Professor Katz has some good points. The few changes we have made so far have given power to the special interest groups. No member of Congress is supposed to have any more power than any other. Since we've allow the two houses of Congress to centralize power among a few, special interest groups need only sway those few to get their way.

Which is why special interest groups need to be out lawed.

You can't outlaw special interest groups without defining which citizens are allowed to speak with elected officials and which can't (which, of course, would be unconstitutional). You can, however, reduce the undue influence special interest groups have. How? By going back to the U.S. Constitution, where each member of Congress voted on a bill or issue without a select few pressuring the rest on how to vote.

People keep calling or new laws, when what we really need is a return to the Constitution.

ParaTed,

You make a great point about the centralization of power within the two house. And, you point out the obvious resolution -- a return to Constitutional adherence.

Adding to your point about returning to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, I would add: I believe the very best way to decrease the influence of lobbies & P.A.C.s is to get the elected representatives out of a centralized location.

The Founding Fathers anticipated that the best way to keep the elected away from temptation was to keep them at home, in their respective districts, managing their own personal careers. I dare say, they never imagined full-time, life-long politicians who had little or no other business experience, or who had such limited contact with their constituents.

There is no reason why our elected should be draining off tax dollars to have a second, pampered lifestyle in D.C. Especially when one considers that the Democrat leadership recently returned the business on The Hill to a three day work week!

Conducting the business of the nation does not require 10.5 months per year in D.C. Particularly if the states are handling what should be state's issues.

I agree completely with that. Senators and Housemembers belong in their States and Districts. The ONLY Time they should be in Washington is when Congress is in session. If Congress is adjourned more than 3 days in a row, they should return to their jurisdictions.

Also, their staffs should be local only. Their offices should be redone into living quarters for use while they are in DC.

They are there to serve their state or district, that is where they should be spending their time.

Exactly, the big cities would decide everything for everyone.

Minnesota just passed a Constitutional Ammendent that give a minimum of 40% of the state transportaiton budget to mass transit. Two areas benifit the most from this ammendent and they are Minneapolis and St Paul. This is what happens when you get rule by the majority. Who will play for their new toy train - light rail - will be the rest of the state so the few people can ride the light rail at a greatly reduced price. One estimate is that the light rail is subsidized 75% by the state.

Hello Bobmnu,

NM has recently entangled itself in a similar mess. Bill Richardson allocated a huge portion of our D.O.T budget for a light rail system running from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. Of course, not only is King Bill a crook, he's also an idiot.

The initial phase of the light rail was heavily matched by federal funds, then when it came time for the state to pony up the remainder, King Bill found out that we don't have enough funds to finish the project. So, we've got a partially finished light rail, with no connecting transportation options, no money to finish it, and a dangerously depleted road & bridge repair budget.

All this while knowing ahead of time that the ridership of the light rail may have been a few thousand people per day, from only the central corridor of the state. And, pretty much just those people who live in ABQ and are state employees who work in the capitol - Santa Fe.

The Dem leadership of the state immediately suggested a tax increase to finish funding the light rail. It was put up for a state wide vote, and was passionately denied. So, now King Bill is feverishly trying to figure out how to underhandedly get the rest of NM citizens to finish paying for the light rail debaucle.

Oh, and just as an aside: the light rail proponents acknowledged early on that the ridership would be so low that every ticket purchased for $3.00 (one way) would have to be subsidized by the rest of the state and country to the tune of $13.00 per one way ticket.

My point being that your example is 'spot on'. This light rail nonsense is but one example of the big cities overriding the needs of the smaller cities & rural outskirts.

The light rail here was never going to provide any benefit for any NM residents outside of the Abq - Santa Fe corridor. This despite the fact that our largest projected regional expansion is in the southern 1/3 of the state.

Is there no end to the Light Rail scam? Personally though, I think you are better off with what you have than if that waste of steel and technology were completed and "operating".

In almost every state in the USA the poltically powerful highly populated cities bully the rural areas to their detriment.

This seems to be a good time to point out that the US CIVIL WAR had its orgins with a similar problem. The highly populated industrialized north, economically bullied the rural less populated south.

Not that I think there will be war between our cities and rural areas, but the US CIVIL WAR does demonstrate that this sort of disagreement is serious.

Unless something is done, the cities are going to continue to decline while the rural areas become increasingly resentful of funding them.

I have two questions for any proponent of "light rail" or electric trolley...

1) How can your contraptions be used by the community in times of disaster?

2) Can the routes be changed as the needs of the city change?

Hmmmmm, (silence), I thought so.

Para to answer the first question light rail can get the people to the congestion faster and creat more congestion making the disaster worse. We can then Blame Bush.

The second is yes it can be changed to meet the changes in the cities at the cost os several hundren million per mile. Increase the gas tax.

Exactly ;)

Hello Pboreoheart & JuLuvYa,

And, were/are they so wrong? Look at the popular support, and defense of their personal absurdities that Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton enjoy.

At the end of my answer above, I have included a link which outlines a scenario where a feeble-minded, self-destructive elitist could use the popular vote to hijack the Presidency for personal gain. The only thing that currently prevents such an absurdity is the Electoral College.

Would you either of you be happy with a President Paris? Or, a President Brittany?

As much as I'm sure we would all like to say that We the American People are much to wise to ever let such a thing happen, clearly the popularity of Paris & Brittany should give us all a moment of pause.

I'm sorry that's been done already with the aid of the Electoral College...feebal minded elitist Bush hijacked the White House and used it for his and his buddies own personal financial gain-lol.
And your point was?
Fear tactics don't work on me- I want my vote to count.
It is really sad, I think, that you really feel that THE MAJORITY of Americans are dumb enough to elect Paris or Brittany to the office of President:(
This is part of America's problem with foreign policy as well. Our country is run by a bunch of people who think they are so wonderful and that it is their job or duty to save the rest of us from our stupid, lower class, lower cultured selves.
Even my 7 year old is smart enough to know that Brittany shouldn't be allowed to own a dog- let alone be President.

JaLuvYa, I laugh out loud at people who say Bush didn't win the elections. Your guy lost, Get Over It!

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

Hello JuLuvYa,

You clearly get credit for raising a wise 7yr old. Yet, many, many Americans went so far as to sign a petition seeking a legal pardon for Paris Hilton.

Here's a link to a news story about the petition:
http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-5-9/55075.html

And, here's just one petition in support of Britney Spears:
http://www.petitionspot.c...

You may have committed yourself to knowing the in's & out's of our nation's workings, but many others have not. I cannot tell you how many Americans cannot name the current Secretary of State, or know how long a duly elected Senator holds office, or have even a basic understanding of foreign policy.

Ask yourself this: How many Americans believe that there is such a thing as free healthcare? Or free any 'thing' for that matter? The point being that, being endowed with the right to choose a national leader should carry some level of responsibility -- not just an alleged proficiency of understanding the rules of the road, i.e. possessing a driver's license.

Economics, civics, American & World History, current events, etc... these are all areas that should be understood by the voter, as they should weigh heavily when choosing a leader.

Yet, in the arena of politics today, one side has presented candidates who have virtually no experience running anything: not a state, not a city, not a business, no experience 'meeting payroll', no experience working within the confines of an existing budget. If the party is fielding candidates with no first hand economics, or managerial experience, what kind of message does that send to the party faithful? It sends the message that it's ok to choose the candidate that one 'feels' an affinity toward. In other words, it's a popularity contest, not one based on verifiable experience. Moreover, the party faithful are not contesting this lack of experience. Which speaks volumes, as far as I see it.

Say what you will about President Bush, I know I have issues with him, yet let's not forget that the man does have a Bachelors & a Masters from two of the most respected universities in the land. He may have only carried a 'C' average, but a feable minded individual would have a difficult time writing a passing masters level thesis.

My point is that in addition to the supporting reasons provided by ParaTed, one cannot dismiss the reality that the existence of the Electoral College does provide a level of security that all 50 of these United States have some level of confidence in a chosen candidate.

These aren't fear tactics, JuLuvYa. Over the 4th of July, this year, I actually heard an American teacher (yes, one who is charged with the responsibility of teaching our youth) confidently proclaim that the war that was fought to gain the USA's freedom from Britain, was WWII! This was no hoax. This teacher was even given the opportunity to recant, yet stood firm in her knowledge of American History. Not surprisingly, I was shocked!

Exactly, it seems like more sour grapes than Constitutional logic.

So, do you really want Chigago, New York and LA to decide how the resources of Kansas are used? That is exactly how 1 person 1 vote would be.

Hello Lilwonders123,

Based on your stated position in quite a few of your posted discussions, I'm very surprised that you support abolishing the Electoral College.

The surest way to bring about a second civil war in this country, would be to disenfranchise the voters of 2,434 counties throughout these United States.

Below is an excerpt from the article that I linked to in my original response. Please note the figures relating to how many stolen or bought votes would be required to hijack an election, if we abolished the Electoral College. Only 3.1 votes per precinct!!!

"Second, in any direct national election there would be significant election-fraud concerns. In the 2000 Bush-Gore race, Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. "Finding" three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing, or as former presidential scholar and Kennedy advisor Theodore White testified before the Congress in 1970, "There is an almost unprecedented chaos that comes in the system where the change of one or two votes per precinct can switch the national election of the United States."

Washington state's 2004 governor's race was decided by just 129 votes. A judge found 1,678 illegal votes were cast, and it turned out that 1,200 more votes were counted in Seattle's King County than the number of people recorded as voting. This affected just Washington state, but in a direct national election where everything hangs on a small number of urban districts, such manipulations could easily decide presidencies."


http://www.opinionjournal...

right!

People point to the last two presidential elections as failures in the Electoral College. I see them as examples of why it is still necessary. States like Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin would never have been "swing" states if it was 1 person 1 vote.

It is ironic that people point to the last two Presidential elections as electoral college failures. The 2000 election had Bush winning the electoral votes and Gore winning the popular vote, but had Bush lost Ohio in 2004, he would have won the popular vote and Kerry would have been President by winning the electoral votes. The tables would then be turned. Would both sides have changed positions? I think so. Sadly, I think people would want to change this system to benefit the candidate they support rather than thinking about the consequences it has for the United States as a whole. If there was any type of reform I might agree to, but I'd have to study it first, is for states to divide up their electoral votes, i.e., by congressional district, then the extra two go to the winner of the state.

That's where you don't understand the system. My vote DOESN"T count more. It counts the same. If you got your way, you would gladly suck all the resources from the country for use in the city and laugh as we feebly complained with no voice.

Keep your class warfare crap out of it, it is nothing but bigotry.

You are right, we do not live in a democracy.

If you did a little digging, such as the US Constitution or even the Pledge of Allegiance, you would find that the US is a Representative Republic founded on democratic principles, but it is NOT a democracy, and never was intended as one.

The problems today is that a lot of people don't know enough about our countries history or the way our government works to even have a useful opinion.

Every vote does count...you vote for the electors who then vote for the president, and that's the way it has always been.

America is a Capitalistic Society, meaning that we believe in free enterprise, free trade and private ownership of property and business as opposed to Socialism.

As a result is also one of the richest nations in the world.

"I wonder whose flag you would of waved during the civil war?"

I find this statement to be racist and bigoted, and also it isn't very knowledgeable either....considering that the Civil War was fought between 1861 and 1865, which means that the likelihood of anyone flying either side's flag and still being alive is fairly slim and quite unlikely.

I would suggest that you augment your knowledge of our history and our government really soon, because your understanding is severely lacking.

LOL- first of all read my statement again, I said which flag he "would have" not "did". I'm well aware of how long ago that war took place. I'm not an idiot and the statement is no more bigoted than comparing city dwellers to a "mob". Also again, I said we live in a capitalistic society "disguised" as a democracy... I know we are not a true democracy which is why I stated we are hypocritical in running around judging everyone else for not being one.
I don't claim to know everything but I am far from dumb my friend, so I resent the implication.
The fact remains that this method of election distorts the significance of votes, as would any winner-take-all system.
In any state that is heavily Democratic or Republican, voters in the outnumbered party can stay home, correctly understanding that their votes will not count.
Another flaw with this method of voting is that the designated electors are not legally obligated to abide by the popular vote.
Plus I'd like to add... someone stated that they heard no complaints until Gore lost... however, in 1977-78 a constitutional amendment was introduced but failed because of opposition from smaller states. So this is nothing new and I have been arguing the point since college.
I've said all I care to say on the topic.
Oh and to whoever said... because I don't recall and can't look back at the rest of what was written at the moment... to keep class out of it; anyone who thinks this has nothing to do with money and resources is kidding themselves. It always comes down to money. The "haves" trying to keep it and the "have-nots" trying to get it. And like one person here spoke of city people sucking up all the rsources and leaving people in rural areas with out a say- is the fear. Resources, money, whatever- you better believe it isn't poor folk with the resources to fight in 1977-78 or now to keep the electoral college.
OK- I'm really finished with this topic.
I hold no ill will and I appreciate the dialogue.

Your point about the poor not having a say is exactly why we need to keep the vote as decentralized as possible. If it weren't for cities being split into areas represented by a city counsel member, poorer areas of the city would end up with nothing. As it stands, most cities spend a lot more in those areas than in the richer parts of town.

I didn't mean to call you a bigot, I was referring to class warfare as bigotry. Yes, money talks, and always will. The bigotry of class warfare isn't about the money, it's about lumping all "the rich" together as greedy, self interested misers, and all "the poor" as victims of "the rich".

No, not everyone in big cities would try to suck up all the resources of the country, but those in the country wouldn't be able to stop those in the city who did.

Yes, there are states where the majority has such a wide margin that the minority party feels like they have no say... but that isn't true.

Utah is probably the biggets example of this. It is about 75% Republican. However, they have had several Governors, State Legislators and Mayors who are democrats. Several Housemembers and Senators have also been democrats.

So, no, that point doesn't really hold water much.

Hello JuLuvYa,

This is an excerpt from the first link that I posted in my first response to this thread. When one understands how the Electoral vote is assigned, how can it seem like the popular vote is irrelevant when, in all but Maine & Nebraska, the 'winner takes all'? Please read through the excerpt and let me know how the system devised by the Founding Fathers could be perceived as unfair by anyone who takes the time to learn how the system works. Since this is an essay from the 1960s, I'm also providing a link to a more current explanation of how the Electoral votes are assigned.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/today.htm

"This was no easy task. At least seven different proposals for presidential selection reached the floor of the Convention, and votes taken were often reversed by later votes. Finally, it was decided to leave the matter to the Committee on Style, headed by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania. That Committee’s proposal, accepted by the Convention on September 8, 1787, provides that:


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….The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by ballot for two persons….[These votes shall be certified and sent to the seat of Government where they shall be opened and counted by the President of the Senate.] The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if the number be a majority of the whole number of the Electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list, the House shall choose the President. But in choosing the President, the representation from each state shall have one vote.


Given the theoretical and practical debates that took place at the Convention, coupled with the actual language that was finally adopted, three things are clear:



The Convention rejected presidential selection by the Congress because it believed that such a system would make the chief executive too dependent on the legislature – a violation of separation of powers.


The concern of the smaller states was ameliorated because most delegates firmly believed that the Electoral College would rarely produce a President; that election would ultimately be thrown to the House of Representatives where the power of the small states was guaranteed because each state, regardless of size, would have one vote....


Direct election of the President by the people never received much consideration, probably for two reasons. First, direct election would not have safeguarded the power of the small states. Second, most delegates doubted the capacity of the people to evaluate talented and capable leaders beyond the borders of their own states.

"...during the 1830s, the states began to use at-large, winner-take-all elections to choose presidential electors. In the winner-take-all system, the party carrying the state, by however small a popular plurality, wins all of the state’s electors. The minority party, or parties, gets none. Today, all states except Maine and Nebraska use this at-large, winner-take-all system."

In a single election, you are right, and I'd be up for ideas on how to make it more equal.. maybe by apportioning the electoral votes by district instead of state... but if you look over time, you see that no state has ever dominated the whole election process.

Have any of the states with the fewest electoral votes ever been considered the key factor in an election? That's a serious question there. I don't think they have, but you may know something I don't.

That is a very good question, and I doubt it's ever happened, but theoretically, it could.

The point isn't whether or not a state can be the deciding factor though. Each electoral vote puts one candidate closer to winning.

It also all goes back to the fact that we don't have 1 national election, we have 50 state elections. Going to a straight "popular" vote would destroy that... and that would not be good.

Hello MntlWard & ParaTed,

Actually, yes it has happened.

" 1876: Nearly unanimous support from small states gave Rutherford B. Hayes a one-vote margin in the Electoral College, despite the fact that he lost the popular vote to Samuel J. Tilden by 264,000 votes. Hayes carried five out of the six smallest states (excluding Delaware). These five states plus Colorado gave Hayes 22 electoral votes with only 109,000 popular votes. "

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question472.htm

Additionally, in the '04 election, the 7 electoral votes of Iowa, and the 5 electoral votes of NM were very much in play, right up 'till the end. This was because of legal challenges within the states.

For example: As a NM resident, and an active participant in precinct oversight, our vote was highly contested long after the election had come and gone. There was a great deal of verified Democrat shenanigans within certain precincts. Specifically, an entire confirmed, sealed box of votes, from a largely Republican district, mysteriously disappeared, and was not found until more than a week after the election.

And, here's the biggie: our Democrat Secretary of State provided only 10% of the required ballots to the county with the largest percentage of Republican voters. Nearly three hours (or almost 1/4 of the voting day) passed before the correct # of ballots were brought to the polling precincts. Many NM voters could not, or would not wait around for three(+) hours to cast their vote.

In fact, by the time our 5 Electoral votes were tossed to Kerry, there were still a number of challenges to the state results still in play. They were never ALL fully resolved. The decision to certify the count (made by our Dem machine) before all challeges had been rule on, was made largely because Congress had already returned to work, and one of our Congressional Rep seats was still contested, and therefore vacant.

Had the charges been duly heard, NM's Electoral votes might very well have gone to Bush. This would have downplayed the Florida E.C. vote giving rise to a clear Bush win.

Thanks Ladyluna, that was great!

But the point was to keep our republic FROM becoming a true democracy.