Once again, the Electoral College needs to go.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Presidential campaigns are nation-wide, via TV, internet, and other media. Despite all the people who do go to rallies, the simple fact is that most people don't, and never see any of the candidates live. And yet they inform themselves (more or less) and vote. If every vote counts, every vote is precious. "Where the candidates campaign" is a lame excuse to keep an archaic, un-democratic practice in a democracy.

Far better to experiment, eh, rather than stick with what has worked far longer than most countries have existing with their current goverment.

Your dismay over Gore losing is really not a sufficient reason to fuck with it. I've given you plenty of reasons to against it. And until states like Florida can run a proper election, it's impossible to think about implementing a nationwide vote.

It's not an "experiment", it's one-man, one-vote. Period.
And I've been against the EC since Gore was in Vietnam and I was getting A's in AP Social Studies in high school as a precursor to being a government major as an undergrad. Not sure why you feel the need to inject a snotty ad hominem.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

It's not an "experiment", it's one-man, one-vote. Period.
And I've been against the EC since Gore was in Vietnam and I was getting A's in AP Social Studies in high school as a precursor to being a government major as an undergrad. Not sure why you feel the need to inject a snotty ad hominem.

Because if you remove 2000 from the discussion, there's just about nothing to warrant making a drastic change.

I'll see your poli sci degree as well, and raise that I was there out of interest, not as a prelaw student.

[CyniQ 0]

Quote

It's not an "experiment", it's one-man, one-vote. Period.
And I've been against the EC since Gore was in Vietnam and I was getting A's in AP Social Studies in high school as a precursor to being a government major as an undergrad. Not sure why you feel the need to inject a snotty ad hominem.

The problem with abolishing the EC has nothing to do with the education of the public. The difficulty resides with the campaigning process. What do candidates talk about on the trail?

The end of the EC would be the END OF AGRICULTURAL SUBSIDIES.

What do you who oppose the EC plan to eat?

Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not an "experiment", it's one-man, one-vote. Period.
And I've been against the EC since Gore was in Vietnam and I was getting A's in AP Social Studies in high school as a precursor to being a government major as an undergrad. Not sure why you feel the need to inject a snotty ad hominem.

Because if you remove 2000 from the discussion, there's just about nothing to warrant making a drastic change.

I'll see your poli sci degree as well, and raise that I was there out of interest, not as a prelaw student.

Again with the ad hominem childishness. I was a govt major out of interest, and I worked in govt before going back to more grad school. Not that I really owe you an explanation. When you're willing to have a mature discussion, drop me a line.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Presidential campaigns are nation-wide, via TV, internet, and other media. Despite all the people who do go to rallies, the simple fact is that most people don't, and never see any of the candidates live. And yet they inform themselves (more or less) and vote. If every vote counts, every vote is precious. "Where the candidates campaign" is a lame excuse to keep an archaic, un-democratic practice in a democracy.

Good thing we're not a democracy, then, isn't it?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Good thing we're not a democracy, then, isn't it?

Right, like nobody understood what I mean. Fine, next time I'll say it the long way.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Good thing we're not a democracy, then, isn't it?

Right, like nobody understood what I mean. Fine, next time I'll say it the long way.

We understood what you meant, but using a lame "democracy" excuse gets the response it deserves. With your collegiate studies you SHOULD understand the reasoning behind it, but you've evidently forgotten why.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Andy9o8 0]

The original reasons for the EC are arcane and outdated. The modern rationalizations of it are lame.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The original reasons for the EC are arcane and outdated.

stupid things tied to state's rights (the EC is based on our state's rights modeling), like keeping most laws away from the feds and closer to the individuals affected; keeping the lawmakers closer to the individual; the whole self determination/individual rights thing

things like that - right?

I can see why those things would be considered arcane and outdated by people that want the feds to control all aspects of our lives.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

The founding fathers weren't all that wise about democracy - they were starting with the same outdated paradigms of feudalism that existed in England before the American Revolution. The concept of each person voting probably seemed incredibly ludicrous to them.

That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read in my entire life. The founding fathers of the United States of America were well educated and informed about democracy. They founded the USA as a republic, not a democracy, for this reason. Direct democracy is something to be feared since it is nothing more than mob rule. Under a system of direct democracy there is nothing to prevent the majority from voting away the rights of the minority. The individual is the smallest minority.

Quote

Today, citizens are well-educated enough to be able to make the decisions for themselves, and well-connected enough to be able to get to a voting booth and vote.

Yes, let people make decisions for themselves. Not for others. The rights of individuals to their life, liberty, and property, must be protected.

Quote

Back in the day, the average person was not so smart, didn't know what was going on in the government,

What are you basing these claims on? Do you really think that the mental capacity of the average person has increased over the last couple of hundred years in the United States of America? I think the average person today doesn't know what is going on in government, if they did they would probably be outraged.

[Andy9o8 0]

This really has nothing to do with modern-style liberalism or conservatism. It has to do with basic principles of electoral democracy.

The principal reason why the EC was formed was because the Founders frankly did not trust the general electorate - both in terms of qualifications to make the decision, and in terms of susceptibility to undue influences. For example, Alexander Hamilton expressed this in Federalist 68:

Quote

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

The phrasing is lofty, but the underlying sentiment felt by the American aristocracy that we now refer to as the Founders is clear: the great un-washed masses cannot be trusted not to screw it all up without a "reliable" buffer. I think that is arcane and, at the risk of again being wrist-slapped for using the word, un-democratic. If citizens can be trusted to directly (i.e., without buffers) elect their state governors and US senators in state-wide elections, they can also be trsuted to elect their presidents directly, too.

Oh, and guys: play the ball, please, not the player.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The original reasons for the EC are arcane and outdated. The modern rationalizations of it are lame.

The original reasons for all of our rights are outdated, aren't they? The right to due process was put in there because kings had tendencies to take things without the opportunity for the peasant to prevent it.

The worry about kings stomping on citizens is arcane and outdated. The concerns about a government doing it remain.

The Electoral College makes sense in light of the underlying policies. You may disagree that these policies are sensible today. I think that in light of the overreaching power of the federal government that the arcane policies can at least provide some bamce.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I think that in light of the overreaching power of the federal government that the arcane policies can at least provide some bamce.

Depends on how you define "bamce". I wouldn't begin to try.

But seriously, I'm very sensitive to the need to balance federal power with the rights and powers of the states and individual citizens. I just don't see how direct election of the president potentially dilutes the voice and will of the individual citizen voter more than the EC does.

[nerdgirl 0]

Largely concur. Thanks for quoting Hamilton.

To me, it's an example of problems with the idealized doctrine of original intent. Sometimes what is the thought of as the late 20th/early 21st century vision of original intent is not supported by the primary data ... otoh, sometimes it is. E.g., another perenial SC 'favorite,' here I would lean toward a more literalist reading of 2nd Amendment *as well as*/*in addition to* cognizance of changes in views on standing armies.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

Maintaining the Electoral College will in effect maintain the dominance of the two party system, where a significant portion of the voting population is really under or miss represented.

perhaps, though England is a parliamentary democracy that still has a two party system.

.

There are 7 officially recognized parties with elected members in the British parliament (as well as a bunch of independents). The third place party alone has 63 MPs or 10% of the total. That's hardly "a two party system".

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

The original reasons for the EC are arcane and outdated. The modern rationalizations of it are lame.

The original reasons for all of our rights are outdated, aren't they? The right to due process was put in there because kings had tendencies to take things without the opportunity for the peasant to prevent it.

The worry about kings stomping on citizens is arcane and outdated. The concerns about a government doing it remain.

The Electoral College makes sense in light of the underlying policies. You may disagree that these policies are sensible today. I think that in light of the overreaching power of the federal government that the arcane policies can at least provide some bamce.

How does the EC limit the overreaching power of the federal govt.?

It IS arcane, undemocratic and cumbersome, there is no disputing that.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[CyniQ 0]

Quote

How does the EC limit the overreaching power of the federal govt.?

It IS arcane, undemocratic and cumbersome, there is no disputing that.

The dissolution of the EC would likely result in dramatic increases in social programs (welfare) with popular support in urban areas and decreases in programs and systems largely unknown by the MAJORITY, like farm subsidies that allow us to EAT.

On the other hand... if you believe that it would result in an increase in the number of political parties. Well, then, you could take a look at the world's largest democracy, India. And note that they can't get shit passed through legislature due to the balance of power being distributed between 15+ political parties.

Maybe that wouldn't be so bad after all.

Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

and decreases in programs and systems largely unknown by the MAJORITY, like farm subsidies that allow us to EAT.

subsidies of all kinds just underpin failing management styles - don't care if it's farm subsidies, eco-based subsidies, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, airline bailouts, etc

get rid of them all and let industries survive on their own

one thing about food - everyone has to eat, prices would stabilize with or without any help from big brother

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[CyniQ 0]

Quote

Quote

and decreases in programs and systems largely unknown by the MAJORITY, like farm subsidies that allow us to EAT.

subsidies of all kinds just underpin failing management styles - don't care if it's farm subsidies, eco-based subsidies, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, airline bailouts, etc

get rid of them all and let industries survive on their own

one thing about food - everyone has to eat, prices would stabilize with or without any help from big brother

I'm not a fan of subsidies of ANY type myself. Normally I would agree with you. And... admittedly, I'm not an expert. But some say that without subsidies for certain crops that farmers, being good businessmen, would only plant the most profitable crops causing the prices of cauliflower and asparagus (my personal fav) to then skyrocket.

But the bottom line in THIS discussion, IMO, is that we can't have the good folks of NYC and LA making those kinds of decisions for the rest of us. And that's (possibly, for the sake of argument) what a pure democracy would get us.

Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

the great unwashed masses cannot be trusted

Bull.

"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens" is no more elitist than "A president, selected by the citizens".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

being good businessmen, would only plant the most profitable crops causing the prices of cauliflower and asparagus (my personal fav) to then skyrocket.

which would then open a market for farmers to plant cauliflower and asparagus - being good businessmen

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Maintaining the Electoral College will in effect maintain the dominance of the two party system, where a significant portion of the voting population is really under or miss represented.

perhaps, though England is a parliamentary democracy that still has a two party system.

.

There are 7 officially recognized parties with elected members in the British parliament (as well as a bunch of independents). The third place party alone has 63 MPs or 10% of the total. That's hardly "a two party system".

And when is the last time a party outside of Labor or the Conservatives was relevant? Has the majority party ever relied on these third parties to form the government?

Better yet, address the rest of my post where I note not a single Representative in Congress is from outside the two parties.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Again with the ad hominem childishness. I was a govt major out of interest, and I worked in govt before going back to more grad school. Not that I really owe you an explanation. When you're willing to have a mature discussion, drop me a line.

Hey, when you're actually willing to address the flaws we would have to deal with in a direct election, drop me a line. So far it seems like you're only capable of trying to shame us into playing the (repeated) discussion your way.

No question there were anti democratic thoughts in the Founders, but I think the practical considerations of the 18th Century dictated a state by state vote with an EC like meeting to finalize. Nevermind that many states would never have ratified the Constitution with a direct vote.

Still looks like a grass is green longing, rather than fully thought out.

[CyniQ 0]

Quote

Quote

being good businessmen, would only plant the most profitable crops causing the prices of cauliflower and asparagus (my personal fav) to then skyrocket.

which would then open a market for farmers to plant cauliflower and asparagus - being good businessmen

And speculators. Maybe we should just put every known substance/resource on the CBOT?

I'm as free market as the next guy but the system is in place for a reason.

Tout est pour le mieux dans le meilleur des mondes possibles.

[kallend 1,635]

Quote

Quote

How does the EC limit the overreaching power of the federal govt.?

It IS arcane, undemocratic and cumbersome, there is no disputing that.

The dissolution of the EC would likely result in dramatic increases in social programs (welfare) with popular support in urban areas and decreases in programs and systems largely unknown by the MAJORITY, like farm subsidies that allow us to EAT.


.

Farm subsidies - welfare for the wealthy.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.