NationStates Jolt Archive

I know how it works, this isn't a thread asking for explanations of it. What I am curious about is why it is set up the way it is set up. Specifically why the winer of a state carries all the votes from that state and why it is needed in the first place.

Why not have a straight-up, normal, democratic vote, with the candidate getting the most votes elected President of the USA? It seems simpler, fairer and cheaper. The only reason I have ever been given about its existance is that it prevents a large state from 'forcing' a President which is only popular in the large states. And so? Isn't that the whole point of a democracy? I don't understand the motivation.

I know how it works, this isn't a thread asking for explanations of it. What I am curious about is why it is set up the way it is set up. Specifically why the winer of a state carries all the votes from that state and why it is needed in the first place.

Why not have a straight-up, normal, democratic vote, with the candidate getting the most votes elected President of the USA? It seems simpler, fairer and cheaper. The only reason I have ever been given about its existance is that it prevents a large state from 'forcing' a President which is only popular in the large states. And so? Isn't that the whole point of a democracy? I don't understand the motivation.

This is not a democracy. Why should we let NY and CA determine who leads the nation?

Why should you let Rhode Island determine who leads the nation? Doesn't the idea of "one man, one vote" presuppose that each vote is equal? Weighing the votes in the electoral college means each vote is unequal.

The Founding Fathers did not set up a democracy. They knew well that a democracy can only survive as long as people don't realize that, through the power of the majority, they can vote themselves into the pocketbooks and into the lives of the minority du jour.

What they devised was a Representative Republic. And, it has worked very well for the last 228 years.

So why is the USA not using that as a model in setting a similar system up in Iraq, or used it in West Germany or Japan? Surely the same reasoning can be applied there.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

Pretty cool info ;)

So why is the USA not using that as a model in setting a similar system up in Iraq, or used it in West Germany or Japan? Surely the same reasoning can be applied there.


Well I don't know about W. Germany or Japan, but I read somewhere that the Iraqi system was actually created by the Iraqi "elite" as opposed to the US.


edit: here's one of the few links I could find on the subject (that wasn't in arabic ;) )

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-02-28-iraq_x.htm

This is not a democracy. Why should we let NY and CA determine who leads the nation?
Sorry? Mind explaining the reasoning behind this?

Governments would rather deal with other governments than with actual people.
The Electoral College underrepresents the population of the United States
by overrepresenting the grouped populations of each individual state.
The fact that some states end up with more real power than others
is another issue, yes, but if you're going to go with a system by which
citizens are not permitted to directly elect their national leader,
there's gonna be some messiness.

Governments would rather deal with other governments than with actual people.
The Electoral College underrepresents the population of the United States
by overrepresenting the grouped populations of each individual state.
The fact that some states end up with more real power than others
is another issue, yes, but if you're going to go with a system by which
citizens are not permitted to directly elect their national leader,
there's gonna be some messiness.Isn't that the problem? The people aren't permitted, and the messiness is there.

This is a response to the "it's not a democracy....large states...blah blah, control election..." Argument. If you think about it, the electoral college does the same thing, just with smaller numbers. A populous state has more electoral votes than a sparsely populated state. What's worse is that they are required to vote entirely one way! That means if the people of Southern CA, say have different majority idea than the people of Norther CA, it doesn't matter.

So what we have to deal with is a porportionate vote that takes a general idea of what most of the people of the state think. To me that's not representative, nor does it make it better than a popular vote, becuase big states STILL have more of a say, anyway.

Please let me know if I've missed something fundamental here.

Thank you.

What I am curious about is why it is set up the way it is set up. Specifically why the winer of a state carries all the votes from that state and why it is needed in the first place.

it was set up originally so that slave populations in southern states and women would count towards electing the president and vice president without actually letting slaves or women vote. otherwise northern states (and new jersey in particular, which let women vote until 1807) would have a definite advantage over the south. just another pro-slavery compromise.

I thought slaves were allowed to vote, what with the "a 3/5s of all others" bit of the Constitution. "others" being slaves.

This is not a democracy. Why should we let NY and CA determine who leads the nation?

NY and CA wouldn't rule the nation. The candidates wouldn't campaign there. CA, the largest state, always goes to the dems, next is TX, which alwyas goes to the GOP, then NY (Dems), and next FL. That is the biggest state that could go either way. 5th biggest is IL, always to the Dems. And besides, state boundaries wouldn't matter w/o the electoral college.

I thought slaves were allowed to vote, what with the "a 3/5s of all others" bit of the Constitution. "others" being slaves.
They weren't allowed to vote, they just got counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes (and electoral votes were given out accordingly).

This is not a democracy. Why should we let NY and CA determine who leads the nation?

Strangely, I'm not sure if this is an argument for or against the electoral college.

By your other posts I assume you are a conservative, and therefore support the electoral college.

So...under the electoral college California and New York have a large amount of power in determining the presidency. And they always vote Democrat...so would this mean you are against the electoral college? Because of the 30-40% of Republicans in each huge state whose votes are disregarded?

Then again, the same goes for Texas, where a huge number of Democratic voters are disregarded.

And then, we have states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, where the voters wield huge power in determining the presidency.

Democracy at work...

In fact, the only reason the electoral college seems to work is that the number of disregarded Republicans is fairly close to the number of disregarded Democrats, nationally.

I believe it has only not worked twice in history? Rutherford Hayes, who lost the popular vote but bought the election by bargaining with the Southerners...and George W. Bush, who can thank the Supreme Court for stopping the recounts.

Frankly, I find it insulting that my vote does not count, and another person's does. But if it works for you, fine.

This is not a democracy. Why should we let NY and CA determine who leads the nation?

They do anyway! Except, the 49% minority gets thrown out in the trash, so the majority of each populous state is EVEN MORE influential than it would be otherwise. I agree that the two houses of Congress are an invention of genius, but the electoral college doesn't do the same thing at all.

And as long as you're asking that, why should we let the state whose governor is brother to one of the candidates determine who leads the nation? *coughvoteriggercough*

Now, as far as why.... dammit, I can't find my pocket Constitution. But if I remember correctly, it states that each state will appoint a number of Electors equal to the number of representatives in Congress that that state is given. The states then decided that it would be easiest to simply use the congressional representatives themselves. Technically, therefore, it's not we but our Congress that elects the president. Since then, of course, laws have been passed that say the Electors must abide by the popular vote of their state, so our votes really do count. What I would guess is that back then, the presidential election was treated quite the same way as a bill being passed - the people left it to their representatives, being too apathetic, uneducated, or otherwise unwilling to vote themselves. Later we wanted more direct power and thus came up with the system we have today.

They weren't allowed to vote, they just got counted as 3/5 of a person for census purposes (and electoral votes were given out accordingly).
Actually your slaves added their 3/5's votes to whatever you voted. I have 15 slaves, I vote democrat, I got 10 vortes (me and those 9) for democrats.
It made the Southerners get great votes.