How Do You All Feel About the Electoral College System?
Is this concept fair or no...?
shareDon't know. I've never heard of the Electorial College System"
share
MovieChat Forums > Politics > How Do You All Feel About the Electoral ...
Yes, it's fair. It's a fair means of balancing the interests of proportional representation with the co-sovereignty of the states, in the same way that the structure of Congress is balanced.
shareIt's fair because it gives states with small populations a fighting chance in choosing who will run the country every 4 years. Our founding fathers came up with that concept because Direct Democracy (such as majority vote) was little better than letting the mob rule the nation. The only reason you hear people screaming and throwing tantrums about the Electoral College every few years (usually on the Left), is because their candidate didn't win. You don't hear a peep out of them during years when their candidate does win through the Electoral College.
shareYou're repeating revisionist history.
The real reason had to do with slavery. In a direct election, the South would've lost every time because a huge percentage of the Southern population was slaves who couldn't vote.
The Electoral College allowed slave-owning states to count slaves as 3/5 human which gave them a majority which is why a Virginian won eight of the first nine presidential elections. Virginia had the largest population especially when you include its slaves.
There were Founding Fathers who wanted a direct vote but the slave states wouldn't go along with it so the Electoral College became the compromise.
The mob rule concept doesn't really hold water because the majority of people couldn't vote, anyway. Only white male landholders and business owners.
The Electoral College isn't used the way it was originally intended, anyway. Electors don't use autonomy to vote for the president. They just vote according to the voting results in their state. It makes more sense to dump the E.C. and vote the way every true democracy in the world votes - one person, one vote.
The needs and political wants of people who live large cities are different from rural areas.
If it were to go to a true population vote, Presidental hopefuls would campaign and craft policies once in office that would cater to city centers only, ignoring rural areas.
I live in NY State, the current Governor is doing just that, ignoring upstate NY and crafting bills that would appeal to the large voting base of NYC.
You know that the suburbs and rural areas outside of NYC as well as Staten Island are overwhelmingly Republican. You also know that until 2018 most of the state legislature was Republican and also had help with those turncoat Democrats who voted with them.
Instead of blaming the governor, you should be asking what have your Republican leaders and representatives were doing for you when they were the majority. Chances are that your local leader(s) are still Republican so I'll ask, how are they helping you?
Anything outside of one person/one vote is not a democracy.
And BOOM goes the dynamite. Great post.
shareThanks.
shareCuomo's policies also help the surrounding burroughs. Those within a hours drive of NYC, many of his policies had them in mind (tax breaks, tolls.etc).
That was my point.. and why the electoral college is needed. Major city centers AND it's surrounding borroughs would reap the lion's share, with tax breaks and policies catered to them.
You talk to anybody in Dunkirk,Jamestown,Watertown,Buffalo,Rochester about Cumo and they will all say the same thing, it as if their opinion and vote does not exist.
A Presidental campaign without a electoral college would be the exact same thing.
Suburbs are really turning 50/50 in regards to Dem/GOP voting. There was a article in 'The Atlantic (?)' or The Economist (I forget which) that said that the suburbs were the new battleground for votes, neighbors often avoided political conversation because they were unsure which way their neighbor leaned.
You're complaining about the minority not being represented, but you're fine with the majority not being represented which is the case with the Electoral College. That makes no sense. Totally anti-democratic.
"Suburbs are really turning 50/50 in regards to Dem/GOP voting."
Trump really hit NY suburbanites with a large tax hit when he limited the SALT deduction to only $10k after many in the suburbs voted for him. You still have local leader(s). What are they doing for you?
"it as if their opinion and vote does not exist."
That's true across the country. The only ones with great representation are multi-millionaires and billionaires.
Which specific laws have passed which favors NYC at the expense of the surrounding areas? Tax breaks and tolls are very vague. Tolls are going up in NYC, taxes are high everywhere and NYC and surrounding areas are extremely expensive and need relief.
The real reason had to do with slavery. In a direct election, the South would've lost every time because a huge percentage of the Southern population was slaves who couldn't vote.
The Electoral College allowed slave-owning states to count slaves as 3/5 human which gave them a majority which is why a Virginian won eight of the first nine presidential elections.
Wrong. The 3/5ths compromise wasn't about the Electoral College but normal Congressional representation, though it consequently had some impact on the EC. A bigger impact was the Connecticut Compromise, in which small states like Connecticut and Delaware successfully argued for equal representation in the Senate. Big states like Virginia and indeed most of the Southern states, which were growing faster than the Northern states at the time and favored more democratic representation, preferred proportional representation in the Senate (Virginia Plan).
The small state push by Connecticut and others to get equal Senate representation is more relevant to the Electoral College "balance of interests" principles being discussed.
The mob rule concept doesn't really hold water because the majority of people couldn't vote, anyway. Only white male landholders and business owners.
"Only"? That was more than any other country in the world had. And the Founding Fathers frequently discussed the dangers of mob rule. Limiting it was a great concern of theirs when crafting the Constitution.
The Electoral College isn't used the way it was originally intended, anyway. Electors don't use autonomy to vote for the president. They just vote according to the voting results in their state. It makes more sense to dump the E.C. and vote the way every true democracy in the world votes - one person, one vote.
You mean tiny nations and/or ones that have let themselves be taken over by dictators at various times? Heck, in parliamentary systems they don't directly vote for the Prime Minister at all. The legislature does.
No, you’re missing the point. The Electoral College, especially with the winner take all systems, is more important now than ever due to the size and geographic/interest diversity of the US. It means parties have to take into account states they would otherwise ignore when formulating their platforms and policies. Without the Electoral College they could focus vote mining in more concentrated regions and alter their stances accordingly. It would probably no longer be in numerous states’ interests to remain in the union and there’s a good chance the nation would break apart.
share
it creates an imbalance 1 person = 3/5th vote. if you think that's fair then the system is fair
shareIt's vital to keeping it in all these states' interests to remain in the union. They won't tolerate being property of California and Boswash. Abolishing the electoral college would likely mean national dissolution.
shareThat's very true. Without the Electoral College, states like California and New York (which are deep blue, high-population states) would be determining all our presidents, and the Democraps would rule America forever. Doesn't sound very fair, does it?
(Cue crickets from the idiot lefties on this site).
Yes. Any questions?
shareIf we brought back the 3/5 compromise the southern states would lose a lot of House seats and Electoral College votes.
shareStates are free to determine how their Electoral College votes are allotted. I think Maine and Nebraska are not winner-take-all states.
I don't know the answer to this: how were Electoral College votes determined in the beginning?
I was taught that for a long time Senators were elected by their state legislatures, until whatever constitutional amendment mandated a popular vote.
Were Electoral College votes allotted in a similar way, without a popular vote?
Electors were supposed to decide, not the popular vote. The electors were chosen by popular vote (landowning white males only) though.
share