NationStates Jolt Archive

Warning: Long Post


I will attempt to show you what in our Constitution and Federalist papers intended and why our electoral college will never be changed (especially since it would take an ammendment by 2/3 then 3/4 of the states, and why this will never happen even with 80+% of the general population wanting such). Remember our president(and any constitutional changes) is elected by the people of the several states not by the people directly.

As stated from our Constitution: Article. II. Section. 1.
Clause 1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Clause 3: The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this Purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President. (See Note 8)

Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

First we have to understand the dynamics of the electoral college. Some people have stated that under the electoral college, we could have over 55% of the popular vote for one candidate, while the other only having 30-45% and still able to become our president. This is true but it could be an even greater number of this countries population for someone else and still the majority of states will prevail. That is because the importance lies within the people of the several states over the several people from the few states. In our founding fathers infinite wisdom they realized that each state was already protected from the encroachment of the national authority. This is why it takes 2/3 and then 3/4 of the states to ratify any Constitutional law over 2/3 and 3/4 of the general populace to do such.

Suppose we have 80% of the entire Countries population inside 1 state California. It was far more efficient in government for the minority of 1 state to utilize their states legislatures to set up barriers to the encroachment of the National Authority. As allowed in our federalist papers: "Nor however difficult it may be supposed to unite two thirds or three fourths of the State legislatures, in amendments which may affect local interests, can there be any room to apprehend any such difficulty in a union on points which are merely relative to the general liberty or security of the people. We may safely rely on the disposition of the State legislatures to erect barriers against the encroachments of the national authority."

This would be far easier than it would be for the majority of states now the 49 to set up their barriers to the National Authority. This process protects the minority of the populace while protecting the majority of the states. They realized that it was far more important to protect the diversity of 49 states over the diversity of 1 state. So yes the electoral college does favor a minority over a majority while at the same time protecting many ways of life over a single way of life. Also we must remember that our government was formed as a republican form of government not a democracy: "ACCORDING to the formal division of the subject of these papers, announced in my first number, there would appear still to remain for discussion two points: ``the analogy of the proposed government to your own State constitution,'' and ``the additional security which its adoption will afford to republican government, to liberty".

This is why a Republican is favored in our Constitution over a Democrat(from a platform view). As someone else has stated "it seems to favor the Republicans over all others" Of course it does, because they favor states rights more than the Democrats (well they are suppose to). And the people of the several states run this country not the several people from the few states. If Democrats were more in favor of states rights (some Democrats are) over a centralized government, they would prevail more often (than they already do) when the states (for presidential elections & COnstitutional changes) have the say.

This is diverse, because we know that a state such as California, even if they were 80% of the population, already have their way of life protected inside that state and are contiued to do so under states rights. While leaving the minority of 20% of the population but 49 different ways of life protected from that single way of life the majority would like the rest of us to live by.

This country protects the minority from the majority, while allowing the majority to be protected from the minority. Truly as Perfect and fair as man can be.

I am in search of understanding someone who wants to do away with the electoral college. Why do they think a majority of people with one way of life should rule over fewer people with many more diverse way of lives? Look at our history and we will find that 2 people from different states with different ways of life are far more important than 3 people from the same state that live the same kind of life. Diversity and Tolerance rule. This ensures that free will, remains you're free will over someone elses wishes.
Oh yea.... bump

You'll abolish the Electoral College over my dead body. The US is a Republic of sovereign states. Each state's election is separate and is combined equitably at the federal level via the state's parliamentary weight. Counting the votes as a single block coast to coast with a simplistic "majority rules" would be blatantly unfair. "Mob Rules" social democracy would bring nothing but civil war.
We all saw the red/blue map in 2000, with the Democratic support coming fairly exclusively from large urban centers and wide swaths the center of America going to the Republicans. The urban liberal will no more consent to being ruled at the behest of the "fly-over country" conservative than vice-versa. One side or the other "takes your state" and your state's vote is fairly represented to the Feds.

The electoral inversion is a statistically rare occurence, but still causes the moronic debate over abolishing the electoral college everytime it happens.

OK, I'll play Devil's Advocate.

The Electoral College, despite what you've posted, was set up to ensure that the American populace not elect someone that didn't deserve the office of the president. In the late 1700's and early 1800's, that was the common theme behind the creation of this system. The American people could not be counted on to vote knowledgably.

With the saturation of today's world with news, information, and misinformation, it takes great dedication to be someone who doesn't know at least something about those running for the office of the president. While it could be argued about the relative intelligence of those who choose to vote now as opposed to then, very few people vote blindly anymore.

So in terms of the initial reasoning behind the electoral college, the logic is no longer valid to today's world.

However, the most common argument against the electoral college is how the votes are distributed. Let's put it out there in simple terms:

Montana has 3 electoral votes, one for each senator and one for its member of the House of Representatives. Delaware also has 3 electoral votes for the same reasons. The minimum number of votes a state can have is 3, because each state is required to have 2 senators and 1 member of the House.

Now, let's understand how a state is granted a member for the House of Representatives. Every 10 years the government completes their census and judging by the population shifts, accords each state with the representatives that state deserves. However, a state can not be unrepresented. They must therefore receive at least 1 seat in the House. As there will always be 2 Senators from each state, that's not an issue...yet. Since the number of House members stays constant, states end up shuffling their representative slots between each other. Therein lies the problem with the electoral college.

A state with 3 electoral votes (8 of them at present) will always enjoy 3 electoral votes, no matter how small their population becomes. Of course, they have the chance to get more as their population grows but that's not the issue here. The issue is that these states are now receiving more representation in the presidential elections than their population should enjoy.

To put it in simpler terms, let's use Alaska as an example. Alaska boasts a population of 648,818 people. Alaska has 3 electoral votes. That means that for each of their votes, 216,272.67 people are represented. Delaware, with its 3 votes, boasts a population of 817,491 people. For each of their electoral votes, 272,497 people are represented. Now, let's move on to California with its 55 votes. California, with a population of 35,484,453 people, is easily the largest state. Yet, for each of their electoral votes, a whopping 645,171.87 people are represented!

What does this mean? That means that Alaska's meager population carries THREE TIMES the importance in terms of each electoral vote than California's voters. That means that Alaska is receiving unjust representation according to the breakdown of electoral votes.

Now, were Alaska's representation ratio for electoral vote applied to California's population, California's electoral votes would jump from 55 to 164! That is a jump of 111 electoral votes! That's the representation that California is losing out on because of the electoral college.

That same standard could be applied across the board. New York, would jump from 31 to 89 electoral votes if Alaska's ratio were applied to them. They are losing out on 58 votes. Florida is losing out almost as much as New York. Even Montana, with its current 3 votes, would jump to nearly 5 votes if Alaska's ratio were applied to them.

That is what is wrong with the electoral college system. Because each state is mandated 3 electoral votes because of its Congressional representation, and because there is a finite number of electoral votes that must be distributed to each of the states, smaller states end up getting a significantly larger representation for their voters than larger states. While some would point to the fact that Alaska's 3 little votes mean little in comparison to California's 55, it is still grossly unjust to California's voters that their voters are being slighted by the system.

I am in search of understanding someone who wants to do away with the electoral college. Why do they think a majority of people with one way of life should rule over fewer people with many more diverse way of lives? Look at our history and we will find that 2 people from different states with different ways of life are far more important than 3 people from the same state that live the same kind of life. Diversity and Tolerance rule. This ensures that free will, remains you're free will over someone elses wishes.
Oh yea.... bump

Ok; I'll try to explain why I personally would like to see the electoral college displaced. The electoral college minimized the opinion of many people, and deletes the simple but logical adage of one person one vote. Instead what happens is that states that are underpopulated (for example South Dakota) gain more electoral college votes proportionally speaking than other states. So, for example, California has a larger population than the last 14 states combined; but the 14 states (when combined) have more electoral votes than California.

Still, there's another problem. Imagine you're a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Alabama and you want to vote for the president of your party. Doing so is meaningless because your vote doesn't realistically count. California will still go Democrat, no matter how you vote, and Alabama will still go Republican, no matter how you vote. This, in fact leads to another problem, this actually gives California Democrats, New York Democrats, and Texas Republicans more power than any other group. Millions of California Republican votes go towards the popular vote, but they don't count at all when it comes to the electoral college.

Sure, the Constitution put the electoral college in place, but does that necessarily prove it right? The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, and it was used in a very federalistic system were state rights were truly an issue. That's not true anymore; the Civil War signified that states don't have the right to leave the union, amendments have changed the Constitution in many critical aspects, and the president is now elected in most states through a popular vote in their state; so why not change the electoral college and join the 21st century? Are we not all Americans? How many people really consider themselves Alabamians, or Georgians, or Pennsylvanians when traveling around? We're Americans, in an age where federalism has been eroded, and the electoral college does nothing more than erode the concept of democracy.

Ok; I'll try to explain why I personally would like to see the electoral college displaced. The electoral college minimized the opinion of many people, and deletes the simple but logical adage of one person one vote. Instead what happens is that states that are underpopulated (for example South Dakota) gain more electoral college votes proportionally speaking than other states. So, for example, California has a larger population than the last 14 states combined; but the 14 states (when combined) have more electoral votes than California.

Still, there's another problem. Imagine you're a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Alabama and you want to vote for the president of your party. Doing so is meaningless because your vote doesn't realistically count. California will still go Democrat, no matter how you vote, and Alabama will still go Republican, no matter how you vote. This, in fact leads to another problem, this actually gives California Democrats, New York Democrats, and Texas Republicans more power than any other group. Millions of California Republican votes go towards the popular vote, but they don't count at all when it comes to the electoral college.

Sure, the Constitution put the electoral college in place, but does that necessarily prove it right? The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, and it was used in a very federalistic system were state rights were truly an issue. That's not true anymore; the Civil War signified that states don't have the right to leave the union, amendments have changed the Constitution in many critical aspects, and the president is now elected in most states through a popular vote in their state; so why not change the electoral college and join the 21st century? Are we not all Americans? How many people really consider themselves Alabamians, or Georgians, or Pennsylvanians when traveling around? We're Americans, in an age where federalism has been eroded, and the electoral college does nothing more than erode the concept of democracy.

American by birth, West Virginian by the grace of God! Thank you very much.

Ok; I'll try to explain why I personally would like to see the electoral college displaced. The electoral college minimized the opinion of many people, and deletes the simple but logical adage of one person one vote. Instead what happens is that states that are underpopulated (for example South Dakota) gain more electoral college votes proportionally speaking than other states. So, for example, California has a larger population than the last 14 states combined; but the 14 states (when combined) have more electoral votes than California.
Still, there's another problem. Imagine you're a Republican in California, or a Democrat in Alabama and you want to vote for the president of your party. Doing so is meaningless because your vote doesn't realistically count. California will still go Democrat, no matter how you vote, and Alabama will still go Republican, no matter how you vote. This, in fact leads to another problem, this actually gives California Democrats, New York Democrats, and Texas Republicans more power than any other group. Millions of California Republican votes go towards the popular vote, but they don't count at all when it comes to the electoral college.
Sure, the Constitution put the electoral college in place, but does that necessarily prove it right? The Constitution was written over 200 years ago, and it was used in a very federalistic system were state rights were truly an issue. That's not true anymore; the Civil War signified that states don't have the right to leave the union, amendments have changed the Constitution in many critical aspects, and the president is now elected in most states through a popular vote in their state; so why not change the electoral college and join the 21st century? Are we not all Americans? How many people really consider themselves Alabamians, or Georgians, or Pennsylvanians when traveling around? We're Americans, in an age where federalism has been eroded, and the electoral college does nothing more than erode the concept of democracy.

Thunderland pointed out some very good points, but many of you're arguments are of the thinking that a majority of people is what matters in this country. It does not matter, it is the majority of states or 2/3 and 3/4 that really matters. The deal with someone being displaced from within their own state that you are arguing about (a Republican in Cali). Is exactly why a majority of people should not rule as a country in whole. Then the minority becomes displaced, not only in a single state but inside an entire country.

When we talk of Constitutional and Presidential matters we are taking each of the 50 states as a seperate entity in it self. The entire mass in population of this entire country is not what matters, it is the masses among each seperate state that matters. We realized that mob rule is what happens with majority rules. But when you take 50 different states with 50 differing way of lives and attempt to gain a majority of or 2/3 and then 3/4 of these differing minded states for one issue. They will differ on several different issues at hand, therefore creating very little of an overall authority. Therefore creating the most out of free will for every person in this country. You get 50 flavors here in the states, over just one. That is diversity.

Throw Oregon and California together and tell me why they are so different politically yet so close to one another physically. It is the differences in how people live among their own state that makes this country so great. Diversity is what rules in America. The Diversity of a minority far outweighs the importance of a single narrow minded majority here in the USA.

My only problem with the electoral college is that there is almost no point in me voting in my state, unless I vote Republican.

However, if the states all went to a percentage based electoral college vote, I would be just fine with the system.

My only problem with the electoral college is that there is almost no point in me voting in my state, unless I vote Republican.

However, if the states all went to a percentage based electoral college vote, I would be just fine with the system.

Damn, I forgot about that point. I wanted to bring that up too.

My only problem with the electoral college is that there is almost no point in me voting in my state, unless I vote Republican.
However, if the states all went to a percentage based electoral college vote, I would be just fine with the system.

This seems to be fair right off hand. I think the reason why this never came up was because of the complexity of the Electoral college already?

Thunderland pointed out some very good points, but many of you're arguments are of the thinking that a majority of people is what matters in this country. It does not matter, it is the majority of states or 2/3 and 3/4 that really matters. The deal with someone being displaced from within their own state that you are arguing about (a Republican in Cali). Is exactly why a majority of people should not rule as a country in whole. Then the minority becomes displaced, not only in a single state but inside an entire country.

When we talk of Constitutional and Presidential matters we are taking each of the 50 states as a seperate entity in it self. The entire mass in population of this entire country is not what matters, it is the masses among each seperate state that matters. We realized that mob rule is what happens with majority rules. But when you take 50 different states with 50 differing way of lives, when a majority of or 2/3 and then 3/4 of these differing minded states comprimises under the same wants or needs for this country. They will differ on several different issues at hand, therefore creating very little of an overall authority.

Throw Oregon and California together and tell me why they are so different politically yet so close to one another physically. It is the differences in how people live among their own state that makes this country so great. Diversity is what rules in America. The Diversity of a minority far outweighs the importance of a single narrow minded majority here in America.

Ok, but what does that have to do with electing the president? I understand that the minority must be defended when enacting laws, but when it comes to the president, it's an either-or choice (realistically). Why must we protect the minority from the majority when there are only two choices? That makes no sense. Of course the minority is going to be displaced when you only have two choices. It's better than the alternative in that situation (the majority being displaced). When the majority is displaced, we call that an oligarchy, not a democracy.

And why do states matter? They don't matter in just about any other major decision, so why in picking the president? States can be redrawn million of different ways from their current configuration and have different electoral college configurations.

As for your 50 states, 50 different way of lives argument, what's the difference between having the states and not? Aren't lifestyle differen within states? Surely, liberal St. Louis is not like the rest of Missouri; nor is upstate New York, politically speaking, like New York City. There are many different ways of life in America with or without state distinctions. In fact, you can argue that diversity is actually hurt by the electroal college. The mid-west is almost always jumbled together, and the differences between these states are underestimated or oversimplified, simply because they are always red states. Diversity will exist wheter the electoral college is in this country or not. That's because there are alot of cleavages that exist (rural-urban, religious, race, class, etc.). Again, you say that we take every state as its own entity, but the question is, why should we? And who is the 'we' that realized mob rule was bad? Who was the 'we' that decided that rule by the majority should even be called mob rule? If it was the Founding Fathers, most of those guys were wealthy, slave owning Americans who could not be called common Americans; I think most Americans would disagree with that assesment, especially now.

Your analysis would be relevant, if it occurred 150 years ago; but times have changed. I agree that the minority must be protected, but it's not like we don't have safeguards against abuse of power by the majority; the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, and other institutions are in place to do this. The President's election, is not one of the reasons, nor is it a good way, of protecting the minority from the majority. When it comes to electing a President in the United States of America there are two choices: you pick what the plurality of America picks, or you pick what less than the plurality picks.

Neither is exactly the most pristine form of democracy, but one is surely more democratic than the other.

I am European and as such not completely aware of the finer points on how the electoral college came into existence.
However I truely feel that an ineffective system should be replaced and/or changed so it fullfills it's current role. While the electoral college might have been a good idea 250 years ago it seems quite disruptive to the democratic process in the present USA.
Take my own country as an example. When we became democratic over 150 years ago there were similar thoughts. Two cabinets were formed. Every male above 21 years could vote for the legislative parliament. It was felt that these "youngsters" were incapable of fully appreciate the national values so a second cabinet with rights of veto was formed where you had to be 39 and male to vote.
Over the time increased social awareness have rendered these precautions obsolete and they have been removed along the way. Today we have one parliament where everybody above 18 have a right to vote - even convicted felons.

There are simply too many Americans who do not vote. Somehow I link that to the electoral college. I mean why bother? Your voice isn't heard anyhow. I think that contrasts the democratic ideals the USA claims to ophold - that every citizen have a right to be heard.
With that said there are also some redeeming factors to the electoral college. It assures that areas with sparse population gets a fair share.
Again I refer to my own county. Here we have electoral barrows with a number of seats in parliament. These are disproportionate to the population density and assures rural areas always gets candidates in parliament.
Once the votes for barrow candidates are accounted for the surplus votes are added to a national pool. From this pool a number of national candidates are elected for parliament. This assures that no vote is in vain. Due to practical implications a party must either gain a barrow candidate or 4% of the total votes so technically a vote may be in vain, but still....

I am certain that a similar system (or an adaptation suitable for a Federation) would increase the political diversity in America and increase the populations political awareness. That cannot possibly be a bad thing as I see it.

This seems to be fair right off hand. I think the reason why this never came up was because of the complexity of the Electoral college already?

Some states do have a percentage based system. I think the problem is that the rest are worried they will lose some of their power if they don't vote in the electoral college as a solid block. I disagree and in fact think they would better represent their constituency if they voted percentage-wise based on what the voters want. After all, that was the whole reason for the states starting to hold popular elections for the president, wasn't it?

Ok, but what does that have to do with electing the president? I understand that the minority must be defended when enacting laws, but when it comes to the president, it's an either-or choice (realistically). Why must we protect the minority from the majority when there are only two choices? That makes no sense. Of course the minority is going to be displaced when you only have two choices. It's better than the alternative in that situation (the majority being displaced). When the majority is displaced, we call that an oligarchy, not a democracy.

It only matters because they are taking into fact that there are 50 different states (populations dont matter, choices is what matters) with each one of them having their own stance for each issue. There is not any two states that are 100% identical to another. That is why states with fewer people but coming from a mass of several different states matters more than any amount of population from a few states. Because they are more diverse, therefore creating more choices.

And why do states matter? They don't matter in just about any other major decision, so why in picking the president? States can be redrawn million of different ways from their current configuration and have different electoral college configurations.

They matter in every single decision, especially in picking a President that will be the President of the several states of this union. It is so hard to have one state agree with you on any issue for the exact same reasons you have. This is a good thing.


As for your 50 states, 50 different way of lives argument, what's the difference between having the states and not? Aren't lifestyle differen within states? Surely, liberal St. Louis is not like the rest of Missouri; nor is upstate New York, politically speaking, like New York City. There are many different ways of life in America with or without state distinctions. In fact, you can argue that diversity is actually hurt by the electroal college. The mid-west is almost always jumbled together, and the differences between these states are underestimated or oversimplified, simply because they are always red states. Diversity will exist no matter what the electoral college is in this country. That's because there are alot of cleavages that exist (rural-urban, religious, race, class, etc.). Again, you say that we take every state as its own entity, but the question is, why should we? And who is the 'we' that realized mob rule was bad? Who was the 'we' that decided that rule by the majority should even be called mob rule? If it was the Founding Fathers, most of those guys were wealthy, slave owning Americans who could not be called common Americans; I think most Americans would disagree with that assesment, especially now.

Yes you are right diversity is hurt somewhat by the electoral college. This is because how far should we allow free choice to go? Should we stop it right at the entire country, the entire state? Or should each community be able to go even further all the way down to each individual? That becomes anarchy and this is why we have set limits upon all to follow in the set order. Apparently most Americans still agree with this assesment or you would see us turning away from how we have been running this country since the Constitutions conception. Constitutional law is the supreme law of the land.

Your analysis would be relevant, if it occurred 150 years ago; but times have changed. I agree that the minority must be protected, but it's not like we don't have safeguards against abuse of power by the majority; the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court, and other institutions are in place to do this. The President's election, is not one of the reasons, nor is it a good way, of protecting the minority from the majority. When it comes to electing a President in the United States of America there are two choices: you pick what the plurality of America picks, or you pick what less than the plurality picks.

My analysis is as relevant today as it was when it was written. Tell me how you suggest to ever see the electoral college disapate? Tell me how this could ever happen? Tell me why this has not happened? Tell me why the electoral college is attacked during every close election yet all arguments fall on deaf ears? Because our system works and it is here to stay possibly? Obviously.

Some states do have a percentage based system. I think the problem is that the rest are worried they will lose some of their power if they don't vote in the electoral college as a solid block. I disagree and in fact think they would better represent their constituency if they voted percentage-wise based on what the voters want. After all, that was the whole reason for the states starting to hold popular elections for the president, wasn't it?

See I like this system. The only problem I could see coming from it would be from within the state itself. People will argue that since the minority counts for something in the Presidential election, why don't we break it down to each county within the state for our own governor? Then you know people will want this for each city mayor from districts and so on. I could see a big can of worms being opened up. Then again some will argue we already opened it lol

You'll abolish the Electoral College over my dead body. The US is a Republic of sovereign states. Each state's election is separate and is combined equitably at the federal level via the state's parliamentary weight. Counting the votes as a single block coast to coast with a simplistic "majority rules" would be blatantly unfair. "Mob Rules" social democracy would bring nothing but civil war.
We all saw the red/blue map in 2000, with the Democratic support coming fairly exclusively from large urban centers and wide swaths the center of America going to the Republicans. The urban liberal will no more consent to being ruled at the behest of the "fly-over country" conservative than vice-versa. One side or the other "takes your state" and your state's vote is fairly represented to the Feds.

The electoral inversion is a statistically rare occurence, but still causes the moronic debate over abolishing the electoral college everytime it happens.
hey uh, cpt oblivious, the electoral college doesnt magically make those people in the big cities not vote, teh yare still voting, and STILL voting democrat. and if htey ahve more votes than the little rural people, the electorla votes go to their candidate, not the little rural favorites. electoral college is still rule by the majority, its just majority of a state instead of national majority, which is asinine, it means if you live i na democratic state and vote republican, and the republican wins, your vote didnt get him elected, you vote DIDNT COUNT

some people here have this inane idea that the elctoral college is fair because it makes small states have more voting power because each persons vote is worth more. can you say ILLUSION. the president wins by gathering the most electoral votes, not the votes from the people with the most vote worth

It only matters because they are taking into fact that there are 50 different states (populations dont matter, choices is what matters) with each one of them having their own stance for each issue. There is not any two states that are 100% identical to another. That is why states with fewer people but coming from a mass of several different states matters more than any amount of population from a few states. Because they are more diverse, therefore creating more choices.

Again, why do they matter? Why does anything you're saying matters? You're telling me it matters, but why? Because someone 250 years ago told us so?
And are you saying that states are more diverse than individual people? That's ridiculous. Every single person has their own stance on an issue. There is no person that is 100% identical to another person either.

Why do people not matter? And if choice is what matters, why not let people choose the choices?



They matter in every single decision, especially in picking a President that will be the President of the several states of this union. It is so hard to have one state agree with you on any issue for the exact same reasons you have. This is a good thing.


Okay, this doesn't undermine my argument at all. It's difficult to have cities agree with issues, or people to agree over an issue. Hey, we're arguing over the electoral college. It doesn't take Arkansa and Wyoming to argue over it. So why do states matter when people can do the exact same thing, only on a smaller, more precise scale?


Yes you are right diversity is hurt somewhat by the electoral college. This is because how far should we allow free choice to go? Should we stop it right at the entire country, the entire state? Or should each community be able to go even further all the way down to each individual? That becomes anarchy and this is why we have set limits upon all to follow in the set order. Apparently most Americans still agree with this assesment or you would see us turning away from how we have been running this country since its conception. Constitutional law is the supreme law of the land.

Or, just as likely, so many Americans feel so disenfranchised by a system in which you're vote can be meaningless (Massachusetts, Texas, California) that you don't feel like voting or trying to overthrow the system. After all, we do need to work, spend time with our family, and relax. It takes an amazing amount of political organization, money, and energy to change things in an existing system. The easiest way is to vote, but voting in many places has no real impact on the national level. You live in Cali? You're electoral votes are democratic, no choice about it; you live in the Bronx, well, thanks to redistricting and jerrymandering your district will always be democratic, and so will your Representative. It's difficult to say that most Americans would agree with your assesment.


My analysis is as relevant today as it was when it was written. Tell me how you suggest to ever see the electoral college disapate? Tell me how this could ever happen? Tell me why this has not happened? Tell me why the electoral college is attacked during every close election yet all arguments fall on deaf ears? Because our system works and it is here to stay possibly? Obviously.

Never, ever say something is obvious when there can be a disparate solution or explanation.

I can't argue with you about revoking the electoral college; that is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible. It's not obvious that the system is working; what is obvious, is that it takes an unbelievable amount of work to change the current system. It took a war to abolish slavery, it took years and years of violence, riots, protests, chaos, and deaths to pass the Civil Rights Act; it took years of violence, strikes, and organization for Unions to be recognized; it took years of scientific proof to make the government band against tobacco; and it took 3,000 lives for the American government to realize that terrorists were our biggest threats. The system, no matter how inconsequential the item, is difficult to change.

The electoral college, barring a disaster, is here to stay, I agree with you; but that's not our argument. We are arguing over the merits of the electoral college, a completely different subject. And your analysis on the merits of the electoral college is an anachronism.

Again, why do they matter? Why does anything you're saying matters? You're telling me it matters, but why? Because someone 250 years ago told us so?
And are you saying that states are more diverse than individual people? That's ridiculous. Every single person has their own stance on an issue. There is no person that is 100% identical to another person either.

I am sure we both agree that there must be limits? That is why each individual does not matter outside of you're state. Our states secure freedoms that our country may not want you to have. That is why we have each state all 50 of them with differing laws and beliefs. This is the best way to secure that diversity, without a overall force telling you how you must live. Through our states.

Why do people not matter? And if choice is what matters, why not let people choose the choices?

We do, we have 50 of them in place of 1.


Okay, this doesn't undermine my argument at all. It's difficult to have cities agree with issues, or people to agree over an issue. Hey, we're arguing over the electoral college. It doesn't take Arkansa and Wyoming to argue over it. So why do states matter when people can do the exact same thing, only on a smaller, more precise scale?

Which would be what though, I thought you were arguing for one federal authority that the 50 states must abide by? Are you saying that each individual community, neighborhood, person be able to make every decision they want? That becomes anarchy. We need limits and states are a medium to those limits.

Or, just as likely, so many Americans feel so disenfranchised by a system in which you're vote can be meaningless (Massachusetts, Texas, California) that you don't feel like voting or trying to overthrow the system. After all, we do need to work, spend time with our family, and relax. It takes an amazing amount of political organization, money, and energy to change things in an existing system. The easiest way is to vote, but voting in many places has no real impact on the national level. You live in Cali? You're electoral votes are democratic, no choice about it; you live in the Bronx, well, thanks to redistricting and jerrymandering your district will always be democratic, and so will your Representative. It's difficult to say that most Americans would agree with your assesment.

But it is even more difficult to say most Americans disagree with my assesment. Considering our past and present.

Never, ever say something is obvious when there can be a disparate solution or explanation.

True that was arrogance & ignorance.

I can't argue with you about revoking the electoral college; that is, indeed, difficult, if not impossible. It's not obvious that the system is working; what is obvious, is that it takes an unbelievable amount of work to change the current system. It took a war to abolish slavery, it took years and years of violence, riots, protests, chaos, and deaths to pass the Civil Rights Act; it took years of violence, strikes, and organization for Unions to be recognized; it took years of scientific proof to make the government band against tobacco; and it took 3,000 lives for the American government to realize that terrorists were our biggest threats. The system, no matter how inconsequential the item, is difficult to change.

This is the understanding I am asking for and in need of understanding. Why change something that if you change it, could enable a federal authority more power on non National Security issues. This is what our FF wanted to stay away from with the idea of states.

The electoral college, barring a disaster, is here to stay, I agree with you; but that's not our argument. We are arguing over the merits of the electoral college, a completely different subject. And your analysis on the merits of the electoral college is an anachronism.

But this is an opinion. We could even have polls all over the place signifying a want for an abolishment of the Electoral college. It still does not mean America wants to abolish it, polls don't mean shit. Votes and how we use it and where we use it, but most of all the fact that we are able to use it, is what truly matters.

My only problem with the electoral college is that there is almost no point in me voting in my state, unless I vote Republican.

However, if the states all went to a percentage based electoral college vote, I would be just fine with the system.


This would be a diaster.

1) think of all the recounts in a close elections. There would be calls for recounts everywhere to try and pick up an electorial vote here or there.

2) Politicians would spend their time in big states trying to mobilize more turnout. Why spend time and money in a small state whee you might pick up an extra electorial vote when you can spend that same money + time in a larger state and maybe get an extra 3 or 4 electors.

I am sure we both agree that there must be limits? That is why each individual does not matter outside of you're state. Our states secure freedoms that our country may not want you to have. That is why we have each state all 50 of them with differing laws and beliefs. This is the best way to secure that diversity, without a overall force telling you how you must live. Through our states.

No, I don't agree that there must be limits. Most Parliamentary systems (unitary systems) don't have limits; states don't exist in that type of system. There's no real reason it wouldn't work in the United States (at least for the presidential election). A simple popular vote can work in the United States. Hey, if that happened all the polls that are taken might actually mean something.



We do, we have 50 of them in place of 1.


Why do we need 50 choices instead of just one? Isn't that more confusing and illogical than need be. Most people oversimply complex things, not make the simple complex. The choice is pretty simple. Either we select A or B, why make that more complicated by having a convoluted system to select A or B?



Which would be what though, I thought you were arguing for one federal authority that the 50 states must abide by? Are you saying that each individual community, neighborhood, person be able to make every decision they want? That becomes anarchy. We need limits and states are a medium to those limits.


No, I'm arguing that we should be able to select our president. I didn't mention, or if I did I didn't mean to, other decisions. The choice of who our commander in chief should be, however, should be left in the hands of the people. Simple, one person, one vote. It doesn't get much more simplistic than that. It wouldn't take a huge federal authority to do this. People can still vote in their states, but instead of getting electoral votes, you just add the number of votes. Whoever has more votes wins! If the race is very close, you can do a re-count. It's the least we can do when selecting the man (or woman) who will represent our country for the next four years.

We don't need limits for this; this is quite simple. We already have the infrastructure in place, most news organizations tell us the popular vote anyways, even though it's meaningless. Not that difficult to do at all.


But it is even more difficult to say most Americans disagree with my assesment. Considering our past and present.


Yeah, it might be more difficult, but it doesn't make it necessarily wrong. Our past shouldn't count; times have changed radically, and the definition of democracy has changed. American democracy was avant-garde in the 1800s, now it's not seen as the best democratic system by most nations (they follow parliamentary). As for the present, again, I argue that it is difficult to change the system, and this in of itself, hinders people's will to change the system. I'm not saying people hate the electoral college system, I just believe most people would rather have a popular vote, especially if both systems are explained to them.


This is the understanding I am asking for.


As I said before, I sincerely doubt the electoral college system is going anywhere. There isn't enough incentive to change it.


But this is an opinion. We could even have polls all over the place signifying a want for an abolishment of the Electoral college. It still does not mean America wants to abolish it, polls don't mean shit. Votes and how we use it and where we use it, but most of all the fact that we are able to use it is what matters.

True, it is an opinion, but it is opinion backed by analysis. I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but at least it has truth to it.

This would be a diaster.

1) think of all the recounts in a close elections. There would be calls for recounts everywhere to try and pick up an electorial vote here or there.

2) Politicians would spend their time in big states trying to mobilize more turnout. Why spend time and money in a small state whee you might pick up an extra electorial vote when you can spend that same money + time in a larger state and maybe get an extra 3 or 4 electors.

Maybe I think the rights of the people to actually have a voice are more important than the politicians rights. Besides, there will still be recounts if it is close - nothing is really going to change that. Hell, this year there will most likely be a reelection or electors picked by the state legislators since pretty much every election is going to be challenged. Doesn't change the fact that, if I am going to vote at all, I should have a voice.

This would be a diaster.

1) think of all the recounts in a close elections. There would be calls for recounts everywhere to try and pick up an electorial vote here or there.

2) Politicians would spend their time in big states trying to mobilize more turnout. Why spend time and money in a small state whee you might pick up an extra electorial vote when you can spend that same money + time in a larger state and maybe get an extra 3 or 4 electors.
your name is excellent
*knocks on your head "is anyone home?"

THEY ALREADY ONLY GO TO SWING STATES AND STATES WITH ALOT OF ELECTORAL VOTES, they always at least visit other states one or two times, but thats only a FRACTION of how many times they visit swing states, because ONLY SWING STATES MATTER. why go to a state with few electoral votes? or one where your electiona is guaranteed?

No, I don't agree that there must be limits. Most Parliamentary systems (unitary systems) don't have limits; states don't exist in that type of system. There's no real reason it wouldn't work in the United States (at least for the presidential election). A simple popular vote can work in the United States. Hey, if that happened all the polls that are taken might actually mean something.

But we are not that type of system nor has the states showed any interest in such a system. Remember the people of the several states run this country.


Why do we need 50 choices instead of just one? Isn't that more confusing and illogical than need be. Most people oversimply complex things, not make the simple complex. The choice is pretty simple. Either we select A or B, why make that more complicated by having a convoluted system to select A or B?

These 50 choices are 50 different ways of life. That is why we want 50 over one because we prefer to live our life with choices over just that one. That becomes not a choice therefore you lose that free will to make other choices (the 49 left over). The only reason there is 2 choices in our presidential election is because of a lack of want to change in enough people (similiar to how there is a lack of want to change the electoral college).

No, I'm arguing that we should be able to select our president. I didn't mention, or if I did I didn't mean to, other decisions. The choice of who our commander in chief should be, however, should be left in the hands of the people. Simple, one person, one vote. It doesn't get much more simplistic than that. It wouldn't take a huge federal authority to do this. People can still vote in their states, but instead of getting electoral votes, you just add the number of votes. Whoever has more votes wins! If the race is very close, you can do a re-count. It's the least we can do when selecting the man (or woman) who will represent our country for the next four years.

We do select our President. We select them through our states, you are making it sound as if the states should not make any distinction between one another. That is why we elect (presidents) and enact Constitutional purposes through the people of the several states, not the several people of one country. The United States means there are States that unite for a cause without losing that individuality of each state.


We don't need limits for this; this is quite simple. We already have the infrastructure in place, most news organizations tell us the popular vote anyways, even though it's meaningless. Not that difficult to do at all.

If the states say they don't want the limits then they wont have the limits.


Yeah, it might be more difficult, but it doesn't make it necessarily wrong. Our past shouldn't count; times have changed radically, and the definition of democracy has changed. American democracy was avant-garde in the 1800s, now it's not seen as the best democratic system by most nations (they follow parliamentary). As for the present, again, I argue that it is difficult to change the system, and this in of itself, hinders people's will to change the system. I'm not saying people hate the electoral college system, I just believe most people would rather have a popular vote, especially if both systems are explained to them.

I agree to disagree my friend.

True, it is an opinion, but it is opinion backed by analysis. I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but at least it has truth to it.

My opinion is backed by the history of this country, the truth in that far outweighs the truth of an analysis, no? What is the standing of this country to all others? If not any greater it is no worse off as well, no?

This seems to be fair right off hand. I think the reason why this never came up was because of the complexity of the Electoral college already?
No, because to do so would make the power of smaller states irrelevant. Look at Colorado: they want to change their electoral votes, but since Colorado is so close, it would always be going 4-5 by whichever might happen to have the larger margin at the time. This makes Colorado insignificant, as opposed to a candidate coming there and paying it loads of attention to get those 9 votes.

Don't misconstrue this as an argument in favor for the electoral college: why should we care more about those in Colorado than those in Texas? We shouldn't -- and yet under the electoral college, we do. That's just messed up. I'm vehemently against the electoral college, but I'm realistic enough to know that the smaller states have enough say to ensure it never gets changed.

But we are not that type of system nor has the states showed any interest in such a system. Remeber the several states run this country.


I'm not saying that we should become a unitary system; what I'm saying is that we should borrow one aspect from their type of system and implemented in ours. We should allow a popular vote choose the president for our nation. That's not converting to a unitary system; but my statement does prove that a federalist system is not the only type of system that works.



These 50 choices are 50 different ways of life. That is why we want 50 over one because we prefer to live our life with choices over just that one. That becomes not a choice therefore you lose that free will to make other choices (the 49 left over). The only reason there is 2 choices in our presidential election is because lack of a want to change in enough people (similiar to how there is a lack of want to change the electoral college).


If that's how you meant your statement, then a popular vote would mean 102 million different choices with 102 million different ways of life. And that's not why there are only two choices. Maybe you should look into some political studies, but the truth is that the 2 choice system tends to arise a lot when you have a plurality based system. That's why Britain only has two major parties even though it's a parliamentary system. A plurality based system almost forces people to pick between the lesser of two evils, because a vote for someone else is a wasted vote.


We do select our President. We select them through our states, you are making it sound as if the states should not make any distinction between one another. That is why we elect (presidents) and enact Constitutional purposes through the people of the several states, not the several people of one country. The United States means there are States that unite for a cause without losing that individuality of each state.


Okay, again, you are saying something, but not giving a reason as to why this is better or worse than anything else. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE DISTINCTIONS AMONG STATES AND NOT PEOPLE? If it's because of your 50 choice statement, you're wrong. At the end of the day we only have two choices. No matter how you want to break it down, this election is between Bush and Kerry. States don't matter, they're an imaginary entity that have no voice other than the voice of their citizens. The electoral college system mutes some of those citizens, giving just the majority an opinion during the presidential election.


If the states say they don't want the limits then they wont have the limits.


So you're argument is: "If the powerful don't want their power, they'll just give it up." Come on? When does that happen. It's always the weak who fight for more power, not the powerful who fight to give up their power. It's unrealistic to expect states to give up their power and interests. That doesn't make the current system a good one.


I agree to disagree my friend.


Okay


My opinion is backed by the history of this country, the truth in that far outweighs the truth of an analysis, no? What is the standing of this country to all others? If not any grerater it is no worse off as well, no?

No, because you're making an assumption, which I believe is wrong: that the America of 100, 50, or even 25 years ago is the same as the America of today. Plus, what history backs you up? I've tried to really think of a time when the electoral college was under attack and America stood up to defend it. If you're historic proof is that it hasn't changed, again that can be explained by the difficulty of changing the system. The only major changes were changes that were morally reprehensible, not just morally ambivalent (like the electoral college). People only rose against the government when the government policy did not just irk people, but truly angered them. Apathy does not prove support. True, it does not prove disagreement nor does it not disprove support, but it doesn't prove your point.

Your last statement, has nothing to do with this argument. That is a totally different argument that I don't think we should get into. It does not matter how America compares to other nations, only whether we can improve America or not.

Don't misconstrue this as an argument in favor for the electoral college: why should we care more about those in Colorado than those in Texas? We shouldn't -- and yet under the electoral college, we do. That's just messed up. I'm vehemently against the electoral college, but I'm realistic enough to know that the smaller states have enough say to ensure it never gets changed.

The deal with abolishing or doing away with the ec would mean that you want to do away with states rights as well. And in any way at all at least history has shown is not acceptable outside of national security issues.

Anything that devalues the meaning of the seperate nature that states have for one another is giving states less power. Therfore giving up a bit of states rights, that is why we will never see the required needs to do such. I just don't see to many especially not 2/3 of them to even considering such, can anyone? Who gives up power that you have at a current time, for any reason? Especially since the majority of states and well over 2/3 are of the smaller in nature and more rural.

The reason I liked someones suggestion about doing a % based EC is because it is obtainable and possible. Although this will still be left up to the state itself to decide upon, as it should be and has been under states rights. People often seperate the 50 states as being just one country, rather it is more of 50 nations (states) united within 1 nation for one common goal. This is why we are 1 nation because the 50 states of this 1 nation respect one another.

That is also why I think (personaly) a united europe could be a most significant and positive act. The resistance of the people in Europe that do not want to form a union is the same resistance America had during the ratification of our Constitution by the states. It was a brilliant act, as I believe if every nation (states) is respected will be for Europe.

Maybe I think the rights of the people to actually have a voice are more important than the politicians rights. Besides, there will still be recounts if it is close - nothing is really going to change that. Hell, this year there will most likely be a reelection or electors picked by the state legislators since pretty much every election is going to be challenged. Doesn't change the fact that, if I am going to vote at all, I should have a voice.

The people DO have a voice. You have to look at the government as a WHOLE, not pick at individual pieces.

Senators and House members are directly elected by the people. These are the groups that make the laws. To balance out the majority, we have a president who is not directly elected by the people. This way, the minority still has some representation.

With proportional electors, how would the people in less populous rural states have any representation? The 2 guranteed Senators helps a lot, but by itself it isnt enough.

The people in states with large urban populations has a huge advantage in the house, they are on par in the senate. That leaves the President to balance things out.

Yes, they will still be recounts, but on a far more limitted scale. 1 or 2 states maybe. With proportional electors, there would be recounts in almost every state. Think of the chaos that would create.

your name is excellent
*knocks on your head "is anyone home?"

THEY ALREADY ONLY GO TO SWING STATES AND STATES WITH ALOT OF ELECTORAL VOTES, they always at least visit other states one or two times, but thats only a FRACTION of how many times they visit swing states, because ONLY SWING STATES MATTER. why go to a state with few electoral votes? or one where your electiona is guaranteed?

1) it isnt a question of just visiting, it is also about lobby for and enacting laws that benefit one group of people over another.

2) in the system we have now, if the people of a state feel ignored by the president then they will eventually start to vote for another canditate. They will make themselves into states where the presidential candidates must cater to.

Edit: oh by the way, have you made that video of you dancing around as the town idiot yet? Even CBS is not standing by their documents anymore.

I'm not saying that we should become a unitary system; what I'm saying is that we should borrow one aspect from their type of system and implemented in ours. We should allow a popular vote choose the president for our nation. That's not converting to a unitary system; but my statement does prove that a federalist system is not the only type of system that works.

We could present the most brilliant plan in the entire world, it still won't pass unless the required states elect it to pass.

If that's how you meant your statement, then a popular vote would mean 102 million different choices with 102 million different ways of life. And that's not why there are only two choices. Maybe you should look into some political studies, but the truth is that the 2 choice system tends to arise a lot when you have a plurality based system. That's why Britain only has two major parties even though it's a parliamentary system. A plurality based system almost forces people to pick between the lesser of two evils, because a vote for someone else is a wasted vote.

We are not understanding each other. Each person has their individuality without a country or states or anything else. However lawfully speaking we have individuality through laws from within our own states. Those laws (as long as Constitutional) are our way of lives. When you look at Oregon and compare it to California, neither are close to each other when you look at the gun laws, taxes and other major issues within each of those respective states. This is the individuality I speak of from within states. the laws that differ from one state to another. Arguing over states having to much power is like arguing with a wall. You still have to get the rest of the states to understand and agree with you're argument.

Okay, again, you are saying something, but not giving a reason as to why this is better or worse than anything else. WHY IS IT IMPORTANT THAT WE MAKE DISTINCTIONS AMONG STATES AND NOT PEOPLE? If it's because of your 50 choice statement, you're wrong. At the end of the day we only have two choices. No matter how you want to break it down, this election is between Bush and Kerry. States don't matter, they're an imaginary entity that have no voice other than the voice of their citizens. The electoral college system mutes some of those citizens, giving just the majority an opinion during the presidential election.

You do not see this? I am not arguing this, this is fact within our Constitution.
I do not have to argue to keep what we already have. People must argue to change what we have. We differ on our opinions maybe but the facts will not differ to faovor either of us because we would like them to. The fact is, is that states are not an imaginary entity, if anything it is the exact opposite. That is why we still have the several states and that is why the people of the several states run this country not the several people of this one country.
The states matter more than maybe you would like, but that does not change the power each state holds.

So you're argument is: "If the powerful don't want their power, they'll just give it up." Come on? When does that happen. It's always the weak who fight for more power, not the powerful who fight to give up their power. It's unrealistic to expect states to give up their power and interests. That doesn't make the current system a good one.

I agree with you here, the states will never give up their power. So, I am glad they will retain every bit of power they have. Me being glad that they will never give up and you being hopeful that they do not retain still don't change anything at all.

No, because you're making an assumption, which I believe is wrong: that the America of 100, 50, or even 25 years ago is the same as the America of today. Plus, what history backs you up? I've tried to really think of a time when the electoral college was under attack and America stood up to defend it. If you're historic proof is that it hasn't changed, again that can be explained by the difficulty of changing the system. The only major changes were changes that were morally reprehensible, not just morally ambivalent (like the electoral college). People only rose against the government when the government policy did not just irk people, but truly angered them. Apathy does not prove support. True, it does not prove disagreement nor does it not disprove support, but it doesn't prove your point.

You stated the answer on you're own at the end of this paragraph. What history or current stance backs you up to think the states want to change the electoral college?

Your last statement, has nothing to do with this argument. That is a totally different argument that I don't think we should get into. It does not matter how America compares to other nations, only whether we can improve America or not.

Again 'we' is the several states. So you have to convince 2/3 and then 3/4 to improve their nation the way you see it.

1) it isnt a question of just visiting, it is also about lobby for and enacting laws that benefit one group of people over another.
and that still happens

2) in the system we have now, if the people of a state feel ignored by the president then they will eventually start to vote for another canditate. They will make themselves into states where the presidential candidates must cater to.
no, they wont. people are ignorant, if they were smart they wouldnt blindly vote for their party. why do you think all of the republicans sit around spewing rhetoric and not listenig to any fact not from their own party

Edit: oh by the way, have you made that video of you dancing around as the town idiot yet? Even CBS is not standing by their documents anymore.
ann coulter has never, and will never, make a article without villifying liberals. i already pointed that out in the LAST post. thanks for proving the republican ignorance i speak of

The people DO have a voice. You have to look at the government as a WHOLE, not pick at individual pieces.

Senators and House members are directly elected by the people. These are the groups that make the laws. To balance out the majority, we have a president who is not directly elected by the people. This way, the minority still has some representation.

I'm not arguing that.

With proportional electors, how would the people in less populous rural states have any representation? The 2 guranteed Senators helps a lot, but by itself it isnt enough.

The rural people *still* won't have much representation though. If the majority of a state's people are in the city, then the city will win out - even if all the rural voters have a different view - so their view is not represented. Conversely, what if it is half and half? Suppose 49% of the voters in a state want one candidate and 48.9% of the voters want another candidate (and 2.1% want a third). You have just denied 51% of the voters in that state representation by the president - and the electors of that state have not come anywhere near representing their constituency.

Yes, they will still be recounts, but on a far more limitted scale. 1 or 2 states maybe. With proportional electors, there would be recounts in almost every state. Think of the chaos that would create.

There would still only be recounts in states that seemed close. If the proportionalities are really that close - then it *should* be recounted.

We could present the most brilliant plan in the entire world, it still won't pass unless the required states elect it to pass.



We are not understanding each other. Each person has their individuality without a country or states or anything else. However lawfully speaking we have individuality through laws from within our own states. Those laws (as long as Constitutional) are our way of lives. When you look at Oregon and compare it to California, neither are close to each other when you look at the gun laws, taxes and other major issues within each of those respective states. This is the individuality I speak of from within states. the laws that differ from one state to another. Arguing over states having to much power is like arguing with a wall. You still have to get the rest of the states to understand and agree with you're argument.



You do not see this? I am not arguing this, this is fact within our Constitution.
I do not have to argue to keep what we already have. People must argue to change what we have. We differ on our opinions maybe but the facts will not differ to faovor either of us because we would like them to. The fact is, is that states are not an imaginary entity, if anything it is the exact opposite. That is why we still have the several states and that is why the people of the several states run this country not the several people of this one country.
The states matter more than maybe you would like, but that does not change the power each state holds.



I agree with you here, the states will never give up their power. So, I am glad they will retain every bit of power they have. Me being glad that they will never give up and you being hopeful that they do not retain still don't change anything at all.



You stated the answer on you're own at the end of this paragraph. What history or current stance backs you up to think the states want to change the electoral college?



Again 'we' is the several states. So you have to convince 2/3 and then 3/4 to improve their nation the way you see it.

Ok, we're not arguing the same thing here. I agree with you, the electoral college system is here to stay. Still, my argument is that that doesn't make the electoral college system the best system, hell it doesn't even make it a good one. I'm not arguing about killing the federalist system; I am simply arguing that a popular vote would be better than our current system of electing the president. You don't seem to be refuting this, you just continue to say that it won't change. Again, I agree with that, but that doesn't make it morally or logically better.

You turned my question around on history, but you didn't answer it. Isn't that convenient? Again, yes, apathy doesn't disprove that people might like the electoral college, but it doesn't prove it either. It doesn't come close to proving it. Stating that the status quo has stayed the status quo doesn't show that the status quo is good. That's a logical fallacy. My analysis doesn't rely on history, yours does, so I don't need to use history to prove my point. My point refers more to the definition of democracy, and the underlying beliefs in most democracies that people are equal (and thus people's votes should be equal). But I'll give some examples of rumblings against the electoral college.

First comes the Burr vs. Jefferson fiasco, where after Burr attempted to become president even though he running for vice president. The electoral college process was changed so that the voters for electoral college would vote for a president and a vice president.

The second change came through the states, were they changed the rules of how the electoral college voters would be picked. Why did this occur? Because the people and their notion of democracy changed. They wanted direct control of who they wanted for president. Originally electoral college voters were selected by each state legislature; eventually that changed so that the people would elect the electoral college voters (the system we have now).

In 1877 the Democrats and Republicans rigged the presidential election, allowing Hayes to win the presidency in return for removal of Union troops still in Southern states and a post in the cabinet for the Democrats. As you can imagine, this led to protests, and general anger among the population and journalists.

Those are just three examples. Two led to changes in the electoral college system. Other changes are obvious, like allowing blacks to vote, women to vote, and people under 21 and over 18 to vote. What do most of these changes have in common? They seem to want the expression and beliefs of individual people to be heard, not the expressions and ideals of states.

Anytime a protest or organization feels that it needs to march, use violence, or use another means of vocalizing its ideals shows a small failure of the electoral process because the electoral process failed to allow them to voice their opinions through the electoral process.

Note: I'm talking about organizations not holding extreme views (for example, the NAACP during the Civil Rights Act).

Those are just three examples. Two led to changes in the electoral college system. Other changes are obvious, like allowing blacks to vote, women to vote, and people under 21 and over 18 to vote. What do most of these changes have in common? They seem to want the expression and beliefs of individual people to be heard, not the expressions and ideals of states.

Ok I 'obviously' :) agree with our history and how the people want to be heard. The only thing I am trying to get across to people (not you, you 'obviously' understand) is that how we did go about changing all of the items you listed and what it takes to enable that change.

What do all these changes have in common?
The several states chose for that change. Anything is possible but is it probable? If we were to ask a slave if they could ever imagine a day where they would be treated as an equal inside of this country. Would it seem possible or even probable? The states secure our freedoms and under the required process can secure freedoms for every American. That is why I see states and its rights as being so great.

the electoral college was yet another compromise to placate the slave states at the constitutional convention. they wanted to have sway over the presidential election in proportion to their population (well, 3/5ths of a good chunk of it) without actually having that many people vote. it was totally not about protecting small states against large states, and totally was about slavery. in the words of james madison (from his notes on the convention (http://www.thisnation.com/library/madison/july-19.html#N0060-66)):

The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.

bumpsessess because i'd like to see somebody deal with the pro-slavery origin of the electoral college

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfink.htm