Why is there an Electoral College

[synthesis2]

It started in the 1700's when people didn't have access to information and understanding as to what is going on with the canidates but with everything we have today to make a good informed decision, it simply dosent make any sense.

Examples: If you live in Texas and are a democrat your vote dosen't count

If you live in California and are a republican your vote dosen't count

I have never heard a good argument as to why a popular vote dosen't work in today's society.

If the majority of the people want one person but the electorial college says the other is the winner why is that right?

Look I really don't care who wins in the end with divided house/senate very little is going to happen, we all know that.

My rant is why we can't finally go to a vote that makes sense.

[BucEyedPea]

No it works. Jeezzaz the left vented their rage in 2000 against the Constitution too. Why so many haters for our Founding document?

[synthesis2]

We had slavery back then, that isn't the right thing, we have a popular vote for local officials, there is no reason we should not have one for the president

[tiptap]

By your reasoning every vote for a losing candidate is wasted.

[synthesis2]

yes but at least if you are in texas and are a democrat and you vote you know that your vote is going to count toward the end result, where as it stands right now you get absolutly zero credit, vis versa in cailfornia

[tiptap]

We see similar affects in Congressional redistricting by state governments.

[Deberg_1990]

I dont understand why there isnt more of a push to abolish it? Especially since 2000 and the POTUS elections being so close.


I agree, its pointless. Theres this myth out there that a direct election would force the candidates to concentrate on only big cities, but how is that any different than what we have now where they only campaign in like 7 or 8 swing states? IN fact, id argue that the EC makes alot of voters stay home and not care, if they know their vote doesnt matter.

Ill take an election process with a TRUE "Every Vote Counts" any day of the week.

The Electoral College is a Joke.

[tiptap]

As said before, small population states will never go along because they lose their lopsided presence in the elections compared to population.

[BucEyedPea]

No it is not pointless. It's a check and balance so states get representation. The president represents the nation as a whole. Abolishing the EC just throws elections to the cities. That's not representing the nation as a whole. The people's house is for that kind of popular representation.

This attitude stems from a lack of understanding of why our govt was formulated, not as a democracy, but a republic with the weakest branch being the presidential branch —intentionally. It has also led to more weight being placed on presidential elections as if one man holds all this power. Well, that there, is also due to too much powers taken by presidents. They don't, or are not supposed to even craft legislation. That power was usurped starting with Wilson a progressive. It's just not our form of govt.

I'd like to keep it that way. I don't trust the mis-education from our schools, reinforced by the media, to educate people properly on this matter.
Our Founders were much wiser than any modern minds on this topic.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by tiptap

As said before, small population states will never go along because they lose their lopsided presence in the elections compared to population.

No it's not lopsided....it creates a balance. You would like the cities to have lopsided representation instead.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by synthesis2

We had slavery back then, that isn't the right thing, we have a popular vote for local officials, there is no reason we should not have one for the president

The slavery issue is irrelevant. Your putting natural rights and a human right into the same category of thing which is an error of logic. They are not even remotely similar.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No it's not lopsided....it creates a balance. You would like the cities to have lopsided representation instead.

BEP, the start of this thread was about voter representation, direct democracy, win by the amount of votes garnished. If populations are in cities than it is lopsided, based upon population, to give representation to Wyoming or Rhode Island above their population numbers.

And as I said it won't happen because of that lost of power relative to population for those states. I am personally ambivalent about the Electorial College.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

No it is not pointless. It's a check and balance so states get representation. The president represents the nation as a whole. Abolishing the EC just throws elections to the cities. That's not representing the nation as a whole. The people's house is for that kind of popular representation.

This attitude stems from a lack of understanding of why our govt was formulated, not as a democracy, but a republic with the weakest branch being the presidential branch —intentionally. It has also led to more weight being placed on presidential elections as if one man holds all this power. Well, that there, is also due to too much powers taken by presidents. They don't, or are not supposed to even craft legislation. That power was usurped starting with Wilson a progressive. It's just not our form of govt.

I'd like to keep it that way. I don't trust the mis-education from our schools, reinforced by the media, to educate people properly on this matter.
Our Founders were much wiser than any modern minds on this topic.

The rest isn't too bad, but the bolded sentence is bullshit. Not that more nad more power hasn't been aggregating to the executive over the last 100 years or whatever, but to say that it was intentionally made the weakest branch is a joke, especially when compared to the judiciary.

[BucEyedPea]

Well, Amn, according to originalist construction you are WRONG!

[tiptap]

Formation of a Cabinet was legislated? Yet there you go Washington