The Electoral College

barefooter · 03-07-2003, 03:05 PM

This is more of an American issue...

So why the Electoral College? The best argument that I can see- and support- for it is that, while one candidate may not win the popular vote *obvious pause*, the candidate who does WIN may not represent more than a few key states (i.e. NY, CA).

In other words, why should twelve- give or take a few- states dictate who is President for the other thirty-eight?

On the other hand, why shouldn't the candidate with the most votes be elected? More people wanted that candidate in office, right?

*eeesh*

guitarplayer4jc · 03-07-2003, 04:22 PM

I've never quite understood the logic behind the EC either.

**+Donny** · 03-07-2003, 09:47 PM

I see basis for it. Representatives of the Hebrew people would form a sort of EC and elect the chief magistrate in the OT.

Xkcer Man · 03-08-2003, 12:08 AM

Think of the Miama-Dade county recount and then expand it to the whole country. That would not be pretty.

elijah77jc · 03-08-2003, 12:20 AM

whoa

we have a government and economics thread?!?!

hey, something i know a little bit about

the electoral college was first created because the founding fathers didn't really trust the American people to make this major decision (who gets to be president) at the time the average american was fairly uneducated so their fears were justified.

now though i'm kinda happy for it because i would much rather have dubya as president than al gore

Travis · 03-08-2003, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by elijah77jc
the electoral college was first created because the founding fathers didn't really trust the American people to make this major decision (who gets to be president) at the time the average american was fairly uneducated so their fears were justified.

They still are...

***Art*** · 03-08-2003, 04:16 AM

The college no longer serves it's original purpose, which was to allow the electors to go against the will of the people for the good of the people. Electors are allowed to vote against what the people say. They just don't anymore.

I like the system at the moment, because Gore would be a terrible thing for this country.

Xkcer Man · 03-08-2003, 09:18 AM

Actually, they still have the option of changing their vote, but it's not very good for their political career. I believe that an elector from Tennessee either abstained or changed their vote in a recent election. But yes, it is very rare.

guyforGod · 03-08-2003, 02:06 PM

The electoral college makes every vote essentially carry the same importance. Look at the distribution of counties that Bush won in the last Presidential election. For such a small area to get Gore elected by the popular vote would be a horrible disservice to peple living in the other areas.

***Art*** · 03-08-2003, 05:05 PM

Xkcer - Yes, I never said that they weren't able to... just that they don't actually do it.

GuyforGod - That map makes me think of Spiderman.

Xkcer Man · 03-08-2003, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by guyforGod
The electoral college makes every vote essentially carry the same importance.

Not really. Voters in Wyoming get much more bang for their buck (vote). They have 3 electors for a population of 479,602. That's one elector per 159,876 people. California, on the other hand, has 54 electors and 33,145,121 people, making for a 613,799 to 1 ratio. This gives a Wyoming citizen almost 4 times as much voting power as someone from California.

Quote:

Originally posted by guyforGod
Look at the distribution of counties that Bush won in the last Presidential election. For such a small area to get Gore elected by the popular vote would be a horrible disservice to peple living in the other areas.

The president doesn't represent rocks, blades of grass, or clumps of dirt, so the amount of land area makes very little difference in who should be president. Also, rural areas have been voting Republican for at least the last 35 years, so I think it's obvious if square mileage were a factor in elections, few national candidates would be Democrats. That chart does little more than give a false sense of security to rural voters.

guyforGod · 03-08-2003, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Xkcer Man
The president doesn't represent rocks, blades of grass, or clumps of dirt, so the amount of land area makes very little difference in who should be president. Also, rural areas have been voting Republican for at least the last 35 years, so I think it's obvious if square mileage were a factor in elections, few national candidates would be Democrats. That chart does little more than give a false sense of security to rural voters.

The point is that if there were no electoral college and there was only a popular vote for the national election, then the candidates would focus most of their time on the larger cities. They would focus their attention on their wants and needs, and give less attention to the "little guys" that live in those states with smaller populations. Besides, the total population of the counties that Bush won was more than those which Gore won, but not by much. I fail to see how this map gives any sort of false sense of security. care to elaborate on that?

Xkcer Man · 03-09-2003, 08:28 AM

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

Travis · 03-09-2003, 08:34 AM

Brian's right. Without the EC whomever the big citites support will win (and that will always be the liberals).

Xkcer Man · 03-09-2003, 02:59 PM

I agree. I think the electoral college does a better job than the popular vote would do.