Voting to be updated?

irtrogdor · 09-08-2007, 09:51 PM

i was learning about the voting process in school this year, i think its about time it was updated. honestly, now that we have computers, we have outgrown the whole "voting by state" thing. now i think they should just add up the votes as a total and base the percentages off of that.

what do you think?

Insane Drummer · 09-08-2007, 10:10 PM

What do computers have to do with it?

It has nothing to do with ability to count up the votes. It comes out of the conditions that set up the electoral college and the system of voting. Many of the framers wanted A. To keep states firmly as such. and 2. Thought that direct democracy was not the way to run a government (several prominent statesmen around the founding of the constitution spoke privately (and sometimes publicly) that America suffered from an "excess of democracy")

Ax · 09-08-2007, 10:13 PM

A direct democracy would be terrible. Seriously... It partially elminates the problem of mob mentality and the popularity vote, or well, ideally anyways. There's more to it, but that's a very shallow summary...

Insane Drummer · 09-08-2007, 10:13 PM

So you approve of the electoral college then? Even when it allows people to win the presidency but lose the popular vote?

Ax · 09-08-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

So you approve of the electoral college then? Even when it allows people to win the presidency but lose the popular vote?

I think it needs to be updated, but it's better than a direct election.

irtrogdor · 09-09-2007, 07:26 AM

ah, see, i thought it had to with computers because when they invented the system they have now, the communications of the time weren't as good, so it would have been easier to just add up the votes in small amounts and rounding them off to state level.
i don't really know anything about politics though, i was just wondering about the whole thing because it seems like it would avoid any confusion if the votes were close. like bush vs. gore.

normajean777 · 09-13-2007, 10:14 PM

The electoral college forces candidates to campaign in every state, and act like every state in worth something. Otherwise candidates may just focus where they can get the most votes (as opposed to going everywhere and focusing on everyones interests). The democrats could just campaign in California and New York, leaving many people from small states unrepresented. The Republicans would, . . . . who knows, I think they'd still have to go everywhere.

Anyway thats how its been explained to me, but the theory and overall arguement for the electoral college could be something else.

Bryan · 09-14-2007, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Insane Drummer

So you approve of the electoral college then? Even when it allows people to win the presidency but lose the popular vote?

yes, because the people don't elect the president. the states do. States are allowed to determine their own method for how they choose to vote.