[guyforGod]

Originally posted by Xkcer Man
The map is almost entirely red, so one could almost think Bush had an enormous victory, yet Bush barely won the election.

gotcha... i wasn't using it to show that Bush dominated... I was merely trying to illustrate the small amount of the country (located around the large cities) that voted democrat in that election....

apologies if i came across arguing otherwise...

[barefooter]

Originally posted by Travis
Without the EC whomever the big citites support will win (and that will always be the liberals).

Which is why I support the EC....Not because I'm a conservative, and God knows that I'm not a Republican, but because I don't want a flaming-liberal elected. Like any Democratic candidate in the last twenty years.

[JerryLove]

The electoral college was not made to equalize cities with rural areas... it's a state's rights issue.

The Democratis and the Republicans, the right and left, goes bact to the federalists and the (forget the name). One group saw the US as a country with states as subdivisions (democrats tadys), the other say the country as independats states joined together (republicans today).

Certainly, when a state entered the union, one thing on it's minds was "how will I get a say in national decisions"... notice that the UN doesn't vote by population... ever wonder why? Why, if I was (say) Nigeria, would I want to join a group where all of Africa, Eirope, and America could agree, and still loose to China and India. It's the same with states.

For Wyoming to have any say at all, when New-York had so many people, a simple popular vote would not do. The electoral college system gives a nod to both population, and the ability of individual states.

You'll see the same thing on capitol hill... The senate has 2 reps per state, regardless of population. This is from the idea that the national governement is actually a government of 50 states, not of 280 million people. Even the house, which does (like the EC) take population into account, still gives minimum representation (and is equalized even more by the senate).

It's basicaly the remenant of a 225 year-old idea based around the idea of state soverntry.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by JerryLove
The electoral college was not made to equalize cities with rural areas... it's a state's rights issue.

The Democratis and the Republicans, the right and left, goes bact to the federalists and the (forget the name). One group saw the US as a country with states as subdivisions (democrats tadys), the other say the country as independats states joined together (republicans today).

Anti-federalists?
I don't quite agree with the word picture that Federalists and the Anti-federalists are democrats or republicans today. Both of them are too extremely conservative to fit either modern day parties, really.

[JerryLove]

The federalists were big-government... they believe in a strong federal government with strong governmental powers. The anti-federalistss believed in a minimalist national governement and strong states... While not idential, they are the clear successors.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by JerryLove
The federalists were big-government... they believe in a strong federal government with strong governmental powers. The anti-federalistss believed in a minimalist national governement and strong states... While not idential, they are the clear successors.

No, they are not. Both of those parties disappeared off the face of the earth. Along with their stances.
In the first place modern day Democrats (who would be the federalists in your opinion) do not advocate at all what the Federalists would have advocated. Just take a look at the Federalists papers and you will see that. The Federalists wanted a strong central government because of the military implications involved with the alternative basically. If anything that would describe modern day republicans. Democrats were heavily inundated with socialists undertones (this is meant in the most matter of fact way... I am not trying to compare democrats to Communist countries and that we should be against them and blah blah blah) in the late 19th and early 20th century. The stance basically turned from a weak central government (which was the democrat perspective under Jackson) to a view that government should supply the needs of the people.
In the second place, the only group that could remotely be compared to the Anti-federalists would be the Libertarians. Republicans want a large government in the area of defense etc.

I think it is erroneous to claim that the lines of Federalist -> Democrat and Anti-federalist -> Republican exist. The meanings synonmous with "Republican" and "Democrat" have changed drastically so many times I could hardly say that we can say "Republicans" or "Democrats" 150 years ago are the founders of the modern day party.

Anyway, this is off-topic for this thread. Sorry for the rabbit-trail.