NationStates Jolt Archive

I feel that it is not needed anymore. American citizens are well educated enough to select their own president. And most people still remember the 2000 elections in which Democrat Al Gore actually won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote(:rolleyes: ) as a result a president was elected not by the American people but by an elitist organization....and that isnt very democratic. What are your views on this topic?

American citizens are well educated enough to select their own president.

Excuse me?

Oh boy, here we go again.

Prepare for lots of posts that say "America is not a democracy, and isn't supposed to be" and "Al Gore's loss proves the wisdom of our founding fathers."

:rolleyes:

Excuse me?

huh? :confused:

Excuse me?
Yeah, I second that.

Have you seen the man we were told to put into office run around and muck up the country these days? Oh the bad times are coming...Oh no wait,they're already here...aww...they're eating my pie...

Oh boy, here we go again.

Prepare for lots of posts that say "America is not a democracy, and isn't supposed to be" and "Al Gore's loss proves the wisdom of our founding fathers."

:rolleyes:
Well, it wasn't.

Yeah, I second that.

Have you seen the man we were told to put into office run around and muck up the country these days? Oh the bad times are coming...Oh no wait,they're already here...aww...they're eating my pie...
That is the cruelest and most unusual punishment I've ever seen.

I think the electoral college should remain, but states should divide their votes in proportion to how many people voted for each candidate within the state.

America is a democracy, but barely. The American Public's vote counts, but just barely. Plus the government is so corrupt and is so good at manipulating the truth that it just doesn't matter who is elected. It's like a abomination of sh*t that needs to be stopped and cleaned. It's that simple. I am sick of this government that controls me and I wish I had another country that I could go to.


Why does America suck so much? Plus why do I have to live in it?:headbang:

America is a democracy, but barely. The American Public's vote counts, but just barely. Plus the government is so corrupt and is so good at manipulating the truth that it just doesn't matter who is elected. It's like a abomination of sh*t that needs to be stopped and cleaned. It's that simple. I am sick of this government that controls me and I wish I had another country that I could go to.


Why does America suck so much? Plus why do I have to live in it?:headbang:

There's a question: why do you have to live in it? Why can't you run away to Canada?

There's a question: why do you have to live in it? Why can't you run away to Canada?


I like Canada but I'd rather live in the Netherlands or Switzlerand. I like their governments. A lot.

I like Canada but I'd rather live in the Netherlands or Switzlerand. I like their governments. A lot.



At least your allowed to say your country sucks. In other nations someone over hears that. Your not seeing the light of day in a long time or never again.

At least your allowed to say your country sucks. In other nations someone over hears that. Your not seeing the light of day in a long time or never again.
This is just like the "Hitler isn't so bad...Look at what Stalin did!" argument. There's a lot of those around these days.

My opinion is that it is a stupid idea. The "Founding Fathers" basically didn't trust the majority to organise a proper election, so they devised a system where you'd only have to get one guy to vote and represent the whole local community.
Obviously it's not necessary these days (it works without in most other countries), it's another step in the process that costs money and resources, and it can lead to strange results like the one mentioned in the OP.

That being said, I'm of the opinion that Americans can do whatever they want with their country...only in foreign policy do I seriously move in for my opinions.

There's a question: why do you have to live in it? Why can't you run away to Canada?

Exactly!!

Not to go with a false dilemna, but

Love it or leave it

You have the privilege of living in the greatest country in the world and you should be damn proud

I think it's stupid.

For example, in a strict state that always votes democrat. What if you want to vote for the republican candidate? Since the state already voted democrat, your vote doesn't count.

If the government says "every vote counts", then REMOVE the electoral college and ocunt ONLY the popular votes (if not, what's the point in counting the popular votes?).

I voted that it should be removed. But it's nice since I'm in college I can choose to vote in my home state or in the state I go to college (even though this is completly unfair). Thus allowing me to move my vote to the state in which it is most important. I voted in my home state of Ohio in 2004. I have sinced switched residency to Pennsylvania to save money on taxes so won't be able to switch back and forth anymore.

Exactly!!

Not to go with a false dilemna, but

Love it or leave it

You have the privilege of living in the greatest country in the world and you should be damn proud

You know, I consider myself a conservative, so this isn't a liberal attack. But I'm sort of tired of this attitude. Even if our country is the best in the world that doesn't mean it can't be better. People are perfectly free to criticize it as much as they want. All countries stink to some degree, shouldn't someone pick what they think is the best one to live in and then do what they can to make it better (which includes suggesting ways to make it better).

Of course I do agree is someone is saying all these other countries are better it would make more sense if they moved there. Plus I'm not defending people who cry about how much the US stinks without actually giving reasons. People need to point out their grievences, give suggestions for improvement, and then actually do something about it.

I think the electoral college should remain, but states should divide their votes in proportion to how many people voted for each candidate within the state.

If ya did that then every election would be tossed into the House of Representatives.

Do you want every election to be decided by whatever party holds the most states in the House?

I think the electoral college should remain, but states should divide their votes in proportion to how many people voted for each candidate within the state.

Some states do.

Electoral actions such as this are controled by the individual states.

It would be nice also, if all states had Electoral Honesty laws in place too; but again, only some states do; and such is determined by the individual states.

I feel that it is not needed anymore. American citizens are well educated enough to select their own president. And most people still remember the 2000 elections in which Democrat Al Gore actually won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote(:rolleyes: ) as a result a president was elected not by the American people but by an elitist organization....and that isnt very democratic. What are your views on this topic?

Minor point - we live in a republic, not a democracy.

Not only did our Founding Fathers establish a republic, they greatly feared democracy. James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Although such an attitude will surprise most Americans, it is accurate.

The United States Constitution does not contain the word democracy. It does "guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government...." Also, when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, we say, "to the Republic for which it stands," and not "to the Democracy."

The difference between a republic and a democracy was once widely understood in America. The U.S. War Department (superseded by the Department of Defense) taught that difference in a training manual (No. 2000-25) published on November 30, 1928. This official U.S. government document, used at the time for the training of American military personnel, said of democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation

or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

It went on to state: "Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.' "

Several states have gone to the method of electoral vote by congressional district w/ the majority getting the +2 senatorial votes.

Between that, mobocracy, and the current EC, I like that method.

I'm in favor of the electoral college for the same reason I'm in favor of every state having at least one representative and only two senators. That way the small states still get represented, at least somewhat.

Oh boy, here we go again.

Prepare for lots of posts that say "America is not a democracy, and isn't supposed to be" and "Al Gore's loss proves the wisdom of our founding fathers."
Al Gore's loss proves the wisdom of our founding fathers!

( Just didn't want you to be disappointed! ) :D

If a candidate promised everyone in New York, Texas and California that he would send them all millions of dollars at the expense of the rest of the nation, and those three states voted for him 100%, while the others had a mixture of votes, those three states would carry the man to victory under a strictly winner-take-all by the votes election. The electoral college, reguardless of it's origional intentions, is a great safeguard to make sure that a few states can't carry a president. You need to campaign across America, because you need to win as many states as possible.

the electoral college is proportional representation.and i think it should stay, and i think we here in britain should remove the monarchy and become a democratic repbulic, or the 51st state..

the electoral college is proportional representation.and i think it should stay, and i think we here in britain should remove the monarchy and become a democratic repbulic, or the 51st state..

How come so many british people have such a problem towards the royal family? Leave them be; their virtually powerless anyway.

Why does America suck so much? Plus why do I have to live in it?:headbang:

Well, you don't have to. In fact, if you'll sign a binding document stating that you'll never come back, I'll buy you one-way air fare to anywhere in the world. :p

the electoral college is proportional representation.and i think it should stay, and i think we here in britain should remove the monarchy and become a democratic repbulic, or the 51st state..

You can't do that, as that honor goes to Canada. However, you can become the 52nd state (like you aren't already). :p

Well, you don't have to. In fact, if you'll sign a binding document stating that you'll never come back, I'll buy you one-way air fare to anywhere in the world. :p

It would be easier to fly him to a foreign country - go with him - and take him to the American Embassy where he can turn in his passport and renounce his citizenship.

Then, even if he wants to come back, he won't be able to.

I think the electoral college should remain, but states should divide their votes in proportion to how many people voted for each candidate within the state.
Umm, doesn't that kinda negate the the electoral college in favor of a streamlined form of popular election?

Al Gore's loss proves the wisdom of our founding fathers!

( Just didn't want you to be disappointed! ) :D
Hm... I've never liked the electoral college. To be honest, when Kerry came close to winning the college votes, I was still frustrated with it and wanted it gone.

Hm... I've never liked the electoral college. To be honest, when Kerry came close to winning the college votes, I was still frustrated with it and wanted it gone.

Dude, Kerry didn't even come close to winning the electoral college vote. Not even Ohio would've helped him. If he did take the State, Bush would still be President because the US House had more state delegations that were republican dominated than the Democrats.

Minor point - we live in a republic, not a democracy.

Not only did our Founding Fathers establish a republic, they greatly feared democracy. James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

of course, madison misused the word 'republic' and changed terms mid-article in that one:

"...a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place..."

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

he starts off with 'pure democracy', by which he means direct democracy, and 'republic', which he misuses (he actually means representative democracy). he ends with 'democracy' vs. 'republic', with no distinction made between direct, representative, or any other form of democracy.

i will never understand why the u.s. insists on continuing to enforce compromises made to get long dead slave owners to join the union.

the electoral college was created so that slave states could benefit from the 3/5 compromise in terms of presidential electoral power too. if there had been direct elections, than the places with the widest suffrage would have had a distinct advantage (for example, new jersy, which granted women the right to vote). but if voting power was based on census numbers, not on votes, then southerners would have a better chance to elect homegrown presidents without being forced to let slaves vote.

Dude, Kerry didn't even come close to winning the electoral college vote. Not even Ohio would've helped him. If he did take the State, Bush would still be President because the US House had more state delegations that were republican dominated than the Democrats.Not according to the channel I was watching.

of course, madison misused the word 'republic' and changed terms mid-article in that one:

"...a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person."

"A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place..."

"The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."

he starts off with 'pure democracy', by which he means direct democracy, and 'republic', which he misuses (he actually means representative democracy). he ends with 'democracy' vs. 'republic', with no distinction made between direct, representative, or any other form of democracy.
Madison's a bit of a dick in that respect, and I don't think we can take his word as writ as to what the hell was going on in the minds of federalists when they drew up the constitution. I prefer to fall back on secondary sources here and say that the constitution never intended for a direct (or even quasi-direct) form of government. The electoral college was never intended to be the end all be all election system, the results were supposed to almost always go to the house of representatives, which in and of itself was supposed to be an elite house, filled with the wealthy.

i will never understand why the u.s. insists on continuing to enforce compromises made to get long dead slave owners to join the union.

.

Or the long-dead non-slave owners, for that matter! :p

the house of representatives, which in and of itself was supposed to be an elite house, filled with the wealthy.

Then they succeeded! :p

Or the long-dead non-slave owners, for that matter! :p

Yea since it was more for the benefit of northern small states instead of the south. For the South, it was the 3/5ths compromise.

How come so many british people have such a problem towards the royal family? Leave them be; their virtually powerless anyway.
I think their taxes pay for the royal family or some such. I mean, it is'nt like the Queen has a job :p

Yea since it was more for the benefit of northern small states instead of the south. For the South, it was the 3/5ths compromise.
That would be the "senate".

That would be the "senate".

Actually... no. It would be for representation in the US House.

Article I section 2 clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the serval States which may be included within this Union, according to the respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, THREE FIFTHS of all other Persons.

Article I Section 2 deals with the United States House of Representatives.

Actually... no. It would be for representation in the US House.
The small states didn't get any boosted representation from the southern compromise clauses, that came from the senate. If anything, the three fifths compromises lowered the representation that they got.

The small states didn't get any boosted representation from the southern compromise clauses, that came from the senate. If anything, the three fifths compromises lowered the representation that they got.

No, it increased it, but only in the sense that it reduced the number of southern representatives relative to the northern ones.

The small states didn't get any boosted representation from the southern compromise clauses, that came from the senate. If anything, the three fifths compromises lowered the representation that they got.

The electoral College was for the benefit of the Small States. It gave them a voice in the election. BTW: The electoral college amendment was passed in 1804.

This actually reformed the electoral college if I read it right since Article II Sections 1-3 deal with electors.

Its because, people in a group, tend to become easily mislead, gullible, and stupid. Why do you think democrecy is called "mob rule"?

I live in California, in 2004, 10 out of the nearly 60 counties voted for (The other guy, I cant even remember his name)
But CA is one of the "blue"ist states, people who live in major cities along the coast, severily outpopulate the other counties, and get to decide things for the rest of the state.
Why should some guy living on a beach in LA, get to vote on legislation that effects farmers hundreds of miles away from him?

Thats the reason for the electorial college, to minimize the impact of the larger, higher population states, and give the rest of the country a say.

Isnt it curious, that high population areas tend to be liberal, while low population areas tend to be conservative? I wonder if its the independent nature of people, that moves them to more secluded areas, or maybe being around so many people can tend to warp your mind.....

The electoral College was for the benefit of the Small States. It gave them a voice in the election. BTW: The electoral college amendment was passed in 1804.

This actually reformed the electoral college if I read it right since Article II Sections 1-3 deal with electors.
No it doesn't. Not anymore so then the senate/house setup does.

No it doesn't. Not anymore so then the senate/house setup does.

Go back and re-read the Constitution.

The electoral College was for the benefit of the Small States. It gave them a voice in the election.

nah, that argument never came up in the context of the electoral college. the options were direct election (opposed because virginia wouldn't obtain its rightful position as the place where leaders come from, and because it wouldn't lead to a national leader), selection by the legislature (opposed mainly because it made the executive subject to parlimentary intrigues or some shit), selection by the state legislature (opposed because it gave little states more say than virginia, the rightful leader of the nation), and the electoral college (fine, because it would get washington elected and nobody strenuously objected).

Go back and re-read the Constitution.
Don't tell me to 're-read the constitution". I have it mostly memorized. The electoral college doesn't increase the power of small states any more then the senate does. If anything, it provides less of a boost, as the number of electoral votes is tied into the number of senators and representatives combined.

Don't tell me to 're-read the constitution". I have it mostly memorized. The electoral college doesn't increase the power of small states any more then the senate does. If anything, it provides less of a boost, as the number of electoral votes is tied into the number of senators and representatives combined.

Your right. It does do that however, the smaller states wouldn't sign on unless they had a full distinct voice in the process of electing a president. The South wouldn't sign on unless they were able to count their slaves.

Welcome to the Constitution. It is nothing but compromises.

Your right. It does do that however, the smaller states wouldn't sign on unless they had a full distinct voice in the process of electing a president. The South wouldn't sign on unless they were able to count their slaves.

Welcome to the Constitution. It is nothing but compromises.
Again, you're confusing what the electoral college was with what it is now. The electoral college was supposed to be nothing more then a nominating platform, with the house doing the actual electing. The argument about small state/large state representation in the electoral college was nonexistant compared to some of the other arguments.

Again, you're confusing what the electoral college was with what it is now. The electoral college was supposed to be nothing more then a nominating platform, with the house doing the actual electing. The argument about small state/large state representation in the electoral college was nonexistant compared to some of the other arguments.

Again. Go back and re-read the Constitution. Especially the XII amendment and Article II sections 2 and 3.

Again, you're confusing what the electoral college was with what it is now. The electoral college was supposed to be nothing more then a nominating platform, with the house doing the actual electing. The argument about small state/large state representation in the electoral college was nonexistant compared to some of the other arguments.

Again. Go back and re-read the Constitution. Especially the XII amendment and Article II sections 2 and 3.

Again. Go back and re-read the Constitution. Especially the XII amendment and Article II sections 2 and 3.
I have. Article 2 sections 2 and 3 state that "Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.", which has nothing to do with this, and amendment XII is irrelevent to our consideration of the original intent of the founders.

I would never consider moving to Canada, their laws regarding "hate speech" are so draconian it's insane.

I think the electoral college is a good method of insuring against the rule of the mob.

I think the electoral college should remain, but states should divide their votes in proportion to how many people voted for each candidate within the state.

Agreed. Or, to prevent the same imbalance within each state that the Electoral College is meant to correct at the national level (i.e. dominance by population-dense areas), each Congressional District could choose its own elector, while the overall state vote should determine the disposition of the two leftovers. (To remain true to proportionality, it might take a supermajority of, for instance, 65% to capture both of the "state-wide" electors, while otherwise the vote would be split.)

If ya did that then every election would be tossed into the House of Representatives.

That is a strong claim, and far from obvious. Please explain.

Do you want every election to be decided by whatever party holds the most states in the House?

Sure, why not? Then again, I prefer a parliamentary model anyway.

Whoops. Section1 clause 2 of Article II.

Whoops. Section1 clause 2 of Article II.
Again, I fail to see how this is relevent to the fact that equal represenation was never an issue or the point of the creation of the electoral college.

If that post was in reply to mine, it was incredibly (and, apparently, intentionally), unhelpful.

You seem to think that if Electoral representation were determined proportionately in each State, then because each State has the same number of Electors as it does Congressional representation, the resulting Electoral vote would mirror the vote for Congress.

This conclusion, however, relies on a whole set of assumptions which you refuse to state and justify. For instance, it assumes that voters necessarily (or often enough) vote the same party for Congress and President.

Madison's a bit of a dick in that respect, and I don't think we can take his word as writ as to what the hell was going on in the minds of federalists when they drew up the constitution.

Besides which, there are really two Madisons: the Madison of the Federalist, strongly influenced by Alexander Hamilton... and the very different man that Madison became when his friend Thomas Jefferson was around to set him straight.

Compare the Madison of the Federalist to Madison as later President and partisan ally of Jefferson.

Again, I fail to see how this is relevent to the fact that equal represenation was never an issue or the point of the creation of the electoral college.

For representation in the US House, see Article I section 2 clause 3 and Section 3 clause 1 and Amendment XVII (Which should be repealed but that is my opinion)

For the electoral College, see Article II Section 1 Clauses 2 and 3 as well as the XII Amendment.

As to the debate, it is a relatively known fact that the small states objected to a popular vote for president.

I feel that it is not needed anymore. American citizens are well educated enough to select their own president. And most people still remember the 2000 elections in which Democrat Al Gore actually won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote(:rolleyes: ) as a result a president was elected not by the American people but by an elitist organization....and that isnt very democratic. What are your views on this topic?

The members of the Electoral College almost always follow results of the popular vote. Only four times in 200+ years of elections in America has the electoral college's decision differed. The most recent was in 2000.

Here's a fact regarding the Constitution and the Popular vote.

James Wilson originally proposed the President be chosen by popular vote, but the delegates agreed (after 60 ballots_ on a system known as the Electoral College. Although there have been 500 proposed amendments to change it, this "indirect" system of electing the president is still intact.

This comes from the booklette The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About it.

For representation in the US House, see Article I section 2 clause 3 and Section 3 clause 1 and Amendment XVII (Which should be repealed but that is my opinion)

For the electoral College, see Article II Section 1 Clauses 2 and 3 as well as the XII Amendment.

As to the debate, it is a relatively known fact that the small states objected to a popular vote for president.
I know the god damn constitution, stop patronizing me. The federalists didn't want a popular vote for president period, it had nothing to do with small states v. large states. The entire point of the college was to act as a vetting process for presidential candidates, then the house would elect the president.

I know the god damn constitution, stop patronizing me. The federalists didn't want a popular vote for president period, it had nothing to do with small states v. large states. The entire point of the college was to act as a vetting process for presidential candidates, then the house would elect the president.

Funny. I'm not seeing that anywhere in the Constitution. The only time the House is involved is if no candidate gets the majority of the votes.

Are you sure you know the Constitution as well as you think you do?

Show me where the House Elects the President. The only time they do is when NO Presidential candidate gets the majority of the electoral votes.

Don't tell me to 're-read the constitution". I have it mostly memorized. The electoral college doesn't increase the power of small states any more then the senate does. If anything, it provides less of a boost, as the number of electoral votes is tied into the number of senators and representatives combined.

It obviously benefits the small states.

It's the two "senator" EC votes that make the difference.

Look at it this way. The number of Representatives from each State gives us a rough proportionality in terms of population, because of how Congressional Districts are determined.

A large State, like California, already has 53 Representatives, therefore 53 Electors. Adding the 2 "sentator" electors only increases their vote by less than 4%.

A small State, on the other hand, like Montana, only has one Representative, therefore 1 Elector. Adding 2 more increases their vote by fully 200%!!

The concern during the Constitutional Convention was that small States which, at the time, controlled many important seaports, would not be interested in an executive in whose election they have very little say. The Electoral College system, with its disproportionate addition of two "senatorial" votes, benefits small States.

and the electoral college (fine, because it would get washington elected and nobody strenuously objected).

It didn't really matter, because everyone pretty much knew Washington would be elected, anyway.

Indeed, if this were not the case we might have a very different, much weaker Executive. It was only the fact that the subtext of the "how much power should the President have" discussion was that everyone was thinking "how much power should Washington have." Given that Washington was almost universally respected, this common assumption softened classical republican fears of a strong executive.

It obviously benefits the small states.

It's the two "senator" EC votes that make the difference.

Look at it this way. The number of Representatives from each State gives us a rough proportionality in terms of population, because of how Congressional Districts are determined.

A large State, like California, already has 53 Representatives, therefore 53 Electors. Adding the 2 "sentator" electors only increases their vote by less than 4%.

A small State, on the other hand, like Montana, only has one Representative, therefore 1 Elector. Adding 2 more increases their vote by fully 200%!!

The concern during the Constitutional Convention was that small States which, at the time, controlled many important seaports, would not be interested in an executive in whose election they have very little say. The Electoral College system, with its disproportionate addition of two "senatorial" votes, benefits small States.
But doesn't change the overall game very much. Those two extra votes everyone gets, which keeps the proportion roughly the same. The electoral college isn't meant to level the playing field.

But doesn't change the overall game very much. Those two extra votes everyone gets, which keeps the proportion roughly the same. The electoral college isn't meant to level the playing field.

Bush v Gore 2000.

Nuff said.

But doesn't change the overall game very much. Those two extra votes everyone gets, which keeps the proportion roughly the same. The electoral college isn't meant to level the playing field.

Apparently, people disagree with that sentiment.

Funny. I'm not seeing that anywhere in the Constitution. The only time the House is involved is if no candidate gets the majority of the votes.

Are you sure you know the Constitution as well as you think you do?

Show me where the House Elects the President. The only time they do is when NO Presidential candidate gets the majority of the electoral votes.
Ever bothered to read some of the thoughts of the federalists?

Not anticipating the development of a two-party system, the Framers believed that electors would cast votes for a large range of candidates from various states and that nearly every election would go to the House of Representatives for a final decision

http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Special_Exhibits/electoral.html

Ever bothered to read some of the thoughts of the federalists?

Yep. I love The Federalist, No. 78. Its one of my favorites :)

http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Special_Exhibits/electoral.html

Is that quote from this section: 3. What happens if the Electoral College vote is inconclusive?

If so then you lose!

I love it how you just tried to cherry pick this from this department.

Also under that section, here's the opening paragraph:

In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner.

Jeez. Learn to read CWS! You honestly don't have a clue.

Yep. I love The Federalist, No. 78. Its one of my favorites :)



Is that quote from this section: 3. What happens if the Electoral College vote is inconclusive?

If so then uou lose!

I love it how you just tried to cherry pick this from this department.
You really need to learn how to read. The original intent of the electoral college was to act as a vetting process, and the presidency would be decided in the house. Which is exactly what the document says.

Does the electoral college help small states? Yes. Was that the point of the electoral college? No.

You really need to learn how to read. The original intent of the electoral college was to act as a vetting process, and the presidency would be decided in the house. Which is exactly what the document says.

Does the electoral college help small states? Yes. Was that the point of the electoral college? No.

Go back and re-read the clerks website and learn.

Go back and re-read the clerks website and learn.
Oh please, Mr. Corneliu, do show me where I am wrong rather then making some pathetically stuck up and arrogent statement.

Oh please, Mr. Corneliu, do show me where I am wrong rather then making some pathetically stuck up and arrogent statement.

I did. Several Times. I even used your own website against you. Apparently your not reading or your reading comprehension is down below par.

But I'll post it again.

Article II section 1 clause 3 deals with the electoral college. Read it.

Amendment XII deals with the Electoral College as well.

Your own website debunks your arguement in that 3 section opening paragraph: In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner.

It only goes to the House if there is a deadlock or no one gets the majority of the electoral college votes. That is why the framers put that in the electoral college procedures. They did expect there will be more elections that'll be deadlocked and thus tossed into the House but the House WAS NOT the method to elect the President. It is only used IF there was a deadlock in the Electoral College.

Bush v Gore 2000.

Nuff said.

Exactly. If each and every one of those (generally small, population-wise) "Red States" did not have an additional two votes, out of all proportion to their population, Bush would NOT have won, with or without Florida.

I did. Several Times. I even used your own website against you. Apparently your not reading or your reading comprehension is down below par.

But I'll post it again.

Article II section 1 clause 3 deals with the electoral college. Read it.

Amendment XII deals with the Electoral College as well.

Your own website debunks your arguement in that 3 section opening paragraph: In the case of an Electoral College deadlock or if no candidate receives the majority of votes, a “contingent election” is held. The election of the President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation casts one vote for one of the top three contenders to determine a winner.

It only goes to the House if there is a deadlock or no one gets the majority of the electoral college votes. That is why the framers put that in the electoral college procedures. They did expect there will be more elections that'll be deadlocked and thus tossed into the House but the House WAS NOT the method to elect the President. It is only used IF there was a deadlock in the Electoral College.
I never said it was. You're not paying attention. I said that the founders thought that almost every election would deadlock and get thrown into the house.

I never said it was. You're not paying attention. I said that the founders thought that almost every election would deadlock and get thrown into the house.

Now your starting to cover your ass from The House decided the Presidency.

The entire point of the college was to act as a vetting process for presidential candidates, then the house would elect the president.

You were saying that you never said it?

You really need to learn how to read. The original intent of the electoral college was to act as a vetting process, and the presidency would be decided in the house. Which is exactly what the document says.

Does the electoral college help small states? Yes. Was that the point of the electoral college? No.

Well, there was more than one intent... People seem too polarized to realize that.

Was it to act as a vetting process? Yes. Absolutely. There is no question about that.

Were the additional two votes, disproportionate to population, included as a compromise to benefit smaller states? Yes. Absolutely. There is no question about that.

If it were only to act as a vetting process, proportional representation would have been the natural result, e.g. representation equal to House membership. The additional two votes were added only in order to benefit smaller states.

Now, today.... Since most states require, by law, that electors vote according to the popular vote, the vetting issue is essentially a moot point.

A system in which States alloted EC votes according to Congressional Districts, with the two remaining votes decided by State-wide vote, would be more fair to rural areas within States, while also retaining the need for truly national campaigns.

Abolishing the system would only increase the influence of the already powerful population centers of the country.

is that the electoral college isn't truly representative. I know the difference between a democracy and a republic. I also know that a majority should be the determining factor in any self respecting, PATRIOTIC government. As a patriotic American, the attitude of the present White House administration, the attitude of the majority of the House and the Senate, is one of the most grievous developments this nation has, or will ever see. This is not representation. The electoral college had a good purpose, in it's time. The actions of the federal government of today PROVE, that time is gone.

Now your starting to cover your ass from The House decided the Presidency.



You were saying that you never said it?
Now you're just being a quibbler. The intention of the founding fathers was for the house to decide most elections. In reality, under the ideal system the founding fathers put forth, the number of presidents elected solely by the electoral college would be equivalent to the number of presidents that have been elected by the house. Saying that the intention of the founding fathers, then, was for the house to decide elections is as correct as saying the electoral college elects the president.

Recall the founding fathers believed that every state would just vote for their favorite son (or at least give one vote to their), so there would be quite a large number of candidates and almost none of them would get a majority.

Now you're just being a quibbler. The intention of the founding fathers was for the house to decide most elections.

And now you have stated it. No that was not what they wanted. However, they thought there was going to be many elections that would wind up deadlocked so they put in a provision for the house to break the deadlock. They wanted the electoral college to decide the election. If not, then it gets tossed into the house.

That is what they had in mind.

In reality, under the ideal system the founding fathers put forth, the number of presidents elected solely by the electoral college would be equivalent to the number of presidents that have been elected by the house. Saying that the intention of the founding fathers, then, was for the house to decide elections is as correct as saying the electoral college elects the president.

The intention was for the House to break the deadlock that they forsaw be it over numerous candidates or just between two candidates. If there was going to be a deadlock, as they have forseen, they needed a way to break that deadlock hence why the House Decides the President and the Senate decides the Vice President.

And now you have stated it. No that was not what they wanted. However, they thought there was going to be many elections that would wind up deadlocked so they put in a provision for the house to break the deadlock. They wanted the electoral college to decide the election. If not, then it gets tossed into the house.

That is what they had in mind.

No, it isn't. If there intention was for the electoral college to decide the election, they could have just made it so a plurality of votes decide. They didn't.


The intention was for the House to break the deadlock that they forsaw be it over numerous candidates or just between two candidates. If there was going to be a deadlock, as they have forseen, they needed a way to break that deadlock hence why the House Decides the President and the Senate decides the Vice President.
They intended for there to be numerous candidates. Notice how they say only the tied vote getters/the top five will move onward to the house. That's very similar to a runoff election, for a good reason, because it is one.

No, it isn't. If there intention was for the electoral college to decide the election, they could have just made it so a plurality of votes decide. They didn't.

No they said that a candidate needs a majority of the electoral votes. If a candidate doesn't get that then it goes to the United States House where the top 3 are voted upon by them. That is how they set it up.

They intended for there to be numerous candidates. Notice how they say only the tied vote getters/the top five will move onward to the house. That's very similar to a runoff election, for a good reason, because it is one.

Its the top three not the top five. It was the top five until Amendment XII was adopted in 1804.

No they said that a candidate needs a majority of the electoral votes. If a candidate doesn't get that then it goes to the United States House where the top 3 are voted upon by them. That is how they set it up.

I know what it says, thank you very much. My contention is that the founding fathers thought that no candidate (besides rule making exceptions, such was washington) would break 50%.


Its the top three not the top five. It was the top five until Amendment XII was adopted in 1804.
Seeing as how we're talking about original intent, your point is moot.

I know what it says, thank you very much. My contention is that the founding fathers thought that no candidate (besides rule making exceptions, such was washington) would break 50%.

And yet, it has happened in every election except for two! Interesting isn't it?

Seeing as how we're talking about original intent, your point is moot.

Actually it really isn't. They had to change it after the election 1800.

And yet, it has happened in every election except for two! Interesting isn't it?

Because the founding fathers were wrong. Interesting, isn't it? Doesn't change the fact that the founding fathers never intended for the electoral college to elect presidents to the extent that they do today.




Actually it really isn't. They had to change it after the election 1800.
If you can show to me how the election of 1800 somehow changed the minds of the writers of the constitution back in the 1780's, I'll admit that the 12th amendment is relevent to the state of mind of the writers of the constitution while it is being written.

Because the founding fathers were wrong. Interesting, isn't it? Doesn't change the fact that the founding fathers never intended for the electoral college to elect presidents to the extent that they do today.

They fully intended it to elect the President of the United States. If they didnt, they never would've made the system in the first place.

If you can show to me how the election of 1800 somehow changed the minds of the writers of the constitution back in the 1780's, I'll admit that the 12th amendment is relevent to the state of mind of the writers of the constitution while it is being written.

It was because of the contraversy that erupted during the 1800 election between Jefferson and Burr with Hamilton playing a role in that election. And not just the 1800 election but the 1796 one too.

The original plan, while working extremely well in the absence of political parties and organized presidential campaigns, broke down almost immediately once they developed. In 1796, for instance, rumors of conspiracies led to some Federalist electors only using one of their two votes so that their Presidential candidate John Adams came in first, but the Democrat-Republican candidate for President Thomas Jefferson placed second. Thus, the President and Vice President were from different parties. Although a situation like that is arguably not a problem, the situation that occurred in 1800 was most certainly a problem: Republicans (that is, the 18th- and early 19th-century party, later known as Democratic Republicans, that eventually became the modern Democratic party) Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied the vote. Jefferson was the intended presidential contender, while Burr was the Vice Presidential one. However, electors did not differentiate between the two, nor could they under the system of the time, and all electors supporting them cast one vote for each. The electors for the Federalists, however, arranged it so that one elector voted for the Federalist presidential candidate but not for the Vice Presidential candidate. They voted instead for another person altogether. The election was thrown into the House of Representatives, which was controlled by the Federalists. The House voted 35 times, with Alexander Hamilton offering his support to Thomas Jefferson with the condition that Jefferson support certain Federalist policies and office-holders. Jefferson won on the thirty-sixth ballot after Delaware's only Representative, James Bayard—a Burr supporter—abstained in exchange for the terms Hamilton had originally offered. Burr became Vice President. For this, and numerous other reasons, Burr held a grudge against Hamilton, whom he later killed in a duel.

They fully intended it to elect the President of the United States. If they didnt, they never would've made the system in the first place.

No, they made the system to whittle down candidates. That's why it exists in the first place.


It was because of the contraversy that erupted during the 1800 election between Jefferson and Burr with Hamilton playing a role in that election. And not just the 1800 election but the 1796 one too.
Which has nothing to do with the state of mind of the framers of the constitution in the 1780's.

Now you're just being a quibbler. The intention of the founding fathers was for the house to decide most elections.
Do you have anything other than your own flawed analysis of the system with which to support this rather bold assertion?

Recall the founding fathers believed that every state would just vote for their favorite son (or at least give one vote to their), so there would be quite a large number of candidates and almost none of them would get a majority.

They did have that expectation, which is precisely why they insisted on the rule that only one of each State's votes could go to one of their own citizens. They expected that, at worst, half of all votes would be decided 13 ways... leaving 13 "free" votes for deliberation.

What you forget is that the electors were capable of deliberating on the candidates; and moreover, they had a motive for arriving at a decision: they wanted to be the ones to decide who would be President. The last thing they wanted to was to hand it over to the House.

Madison believed that "ambition will be made to counteract ambition" in the American system, and he expected ALL men to act from ambition: including the electors themselves.

Do you have anything other than your own flawed analysis of the system with which to support this rather bold assertion?

Did you miss the quote? That's a rather well known fact...
My "flawed analysis" seems to be rather similar to that of the United States of America's position on this matter.


Not anticipating the development of a two-party system, the Framers believed that electors would cast votes for a large range of candidates from various states and that nearly every election would go to the House of Representatives for a final decision
http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Special_Exhibits/electoral.html

Which has nothing to do with the state of mind of the framers of the constitution in the 1780's.

This poses a more interesting question, viz. "who are the Framers?"

It seems easy enough to claim that a list of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention should be sufficient. However, there are problems with this view.

First, it is not at all clear that there was a unified vision of the Constitution as it developed in the Convention. It was a morass of compromises with no clear vision, and many of the important details were worked out in committee.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly: those "Framers" may have written it, but it was the sovereign people of the United States, in ratification conventions, who affirmed that the document should be their basis of government.

Is there understanding of what they were ratifying not at least as important as the understanding of those who wrote it? Perhaps even more so?

Of course, this further problematizes the notion of the "Framer's intent". How do we even get at the interpretation of "the people" who ratified the document?

The Federalist is helpful, because it presents a rationale for the document that may not have existed as it was written. It unifies the theory and, because it was so widely read, is suggestive of the presentation made to the people. Now, do Madison and Hamilton argue in the Federalist that most elections would be decided by the House of Representatives? Of course not.

This poses a more interesting question, viz. "who are the Framers?"

It seems easy enough to claim that a list of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention should be sufficient. However, there are problems with this view.

First, it is not at all clear that there was a unified vision of the Constitution as it developed in the Convention. It was a morass of compromises with no clear vision, and many of the important details were worked out in committee.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly: those "Framers" may have written it, but it was the sovereign people of the United States, in ratification conventions, who affirmed that the document should be their basis of government.

Is there understanding of what they were ratifying not at least as important as the understanding of those who wrote it? Perhaps even more so?

Of course, this further problematizes the notion of the "Framer's intent". How do we even get at the interpretation of "the people" who ratified the document?

The Federalist is helpful, because it presents a rationale for the document that may not have existed as it was written. It unifies the theory and, because it was so widely read, is suggestive of the presentation made to the people. Now, do Madison and Hamilton argue in the Federalist that most elections would be decided by the House of Representatives? Of course not.

Take it up with the US government then. I'm sure they'd be glad to get into a debate with you.

Did you miss the quote? That's a rather well known fact...
My "flawed analysis" seems to be rather similar to that of the United States of America's position on this matter.


http://clerk.house.gov/histHigh/Special_Exhibits/electoral.html

Unfortunately, for that assertion they reference Sidney Milkis, who -- while he is an exemplary political scientist -- is no expert on American political thought, certainly not that of the Founders.

Appeals to authority only work when the authority is valid; for instance, representative of the opinion in his field. Milkis is not a political theorist.

Unfortunately, for that assertion they reference Sidney Milkis, who -- while he is an exemplary political scientist -- is no expert on American political thought, certainly not that of the Founders.
Again, if you believe you know better then the US government when it comes to the history of US government, why don't you ask them and see if you can correct it. Until then, I'm going to stand by what the US government says.

Again, if you believe you know better then the US government when it comes to the history of US government, why don't you ask them and see if you can correct it. Until then, I'm going to stand by what the US government says.

The site you reference is written by the employees of politicians, for politicians. It is not written by historians or political theorists. And again, they refer to a source who does not speak with authority for political theorists. He is not a political theorist, and he does not represent their opinion.

(Again, however, I do not mean to detract from Sidney's reputation as a political scientist. He is wonderful at what he does... It's just that he does not do theory.)

Of course, if you want to bring authority to bear (and, for my part, I don't), we can do that. I am a political theorist, and I have studied with two of the finest theorists this country has to offer in the field of American political thought: Rick Matthews and the late Carey McWilliams.

I feel that it is not needed anymore. American citizens are well educated enough to select their own president. And most people still remember the 2000 elections in which Democrat Al Gore actually won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote(:rolleyes: ) as a result a president was elected not by the American people but by an elitist organization....and that isnt very democratic. What are your views on this topic?
American citizens are NOT well-educated.
Dr. Miller's data reveal some yawning gaps in basic knowledge. American adults in general do not understand what molecules are (other than that they are really small). Fewer than a third can identify DNA as a key to heredity. Only about 10 percent know what radiation is. One adult American in five thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, an idea science had abandoned by the 17th century.

However, the EC deceives Americans and can falsely report an election. But the flipside is that it might make elections a popularity contest. A solution would be to vote by party and they select who will be in office after the election. As seen in some European democracies and Iraq.

No, they made the system to whittle down candidates. That's why it exists in the first place.

No they did not.

Which has nothing to do with the state of mind of the framers of the constitution in the 1780's.

Obviously it did since most of the people at stake WERE THE FRAMERS!!!!!

Read federalits number ten and you might get it, might. There are a couple reasons I am for it. Main one, tyrrany of the majority. Tyrrany of Majority is bad the biggest reason being eventual violation of rights of the minority. This would happen eventually because times change and the desire to do some such thing would arise. Read on Liberty by John Stuart Mills and Democracy in America by DeTouqeville. Next states rights. Although states rights are fading I do not hold this to be a good thing, balance of powers, read Montesquie. As for your point about Bush not really winning, Bill Clinton never had the popular vote. Abraham Lincoln won his first election with less than 40% of the popular vote. I wish otherwise but bad things happen with direct democracy.

The electoral college may not make sense to many people, but there are other institutions that have their own "electoral colleges" and everyone seems to support them just fine.

Let's take football. What if someone said the whole playoff thing was unfair and the superbowl champion should be decided by which team scored the most points during the season? That way, a team that played well, but lost most of their games could conceivably be superbowl champion.

Doesn't really sound like something sensible people would support either.

You guys act like 2000 was the first time this happened. In 1876 and 1888 in addition to 2000 the Electorate sent a candidate that did not win the popular election.

Personally, I am conflicted over the electoral college, how would the English feel if you asked them to get rid of the Royal Family? It's a tradition here in America and unless you are an American you can not understand that. My biggest objection to the Electoral College is that the Electors are not required to vote as their voters whom they represen do. Seems like every year the Elector from Washington D.C. casts a "No Vote" to protest Washington's lack of a Congressional Representative.

The electoral college may not make sense to many people, but there are other institutions that have their own "electoral colleges" and everyone seems to support them just fine.

Let's take football. What if someone said the whole playoff thing was unfair and the superbowl champion should be decided by which team scored the most points during the season? That way, a team that played well, but lost most of their games could conceivably be superbowl champion.

Doesn't really sound like something sensible people would support either.

Wow, not even Evil Knieval could make that jump.

Besides, football is dominated more by defense than offense. The Minnesota Vikings and Indianapolis Colts have had the two most dominating offenses over the last few years (Since 1998 approx.) but in those 8 years the two teams have a combined 0 Super Bowl Appearances, the closest was Minnesota's overtime loss to Atlanta in the 1998 NFC Championship Game. Look at the Colts this year, their defense, not their offense is leading the team, and they are 9-0 and for once are actually considered legitimate Super Bowl contenders, especially now that they have beaten the Patriots.

-snip-
I assume the NFL works a little like the AFL here...the teams play each other, and get points for it, and then the best 8 or so teams continue in the play-offs.

I think that makes the first matches much less important, because even being the eighth is just as good as being first.

The Football Bundesliga (or any other Football league) instead works like this: no points for a defeat, one point for a draw and three for a win. Then you have a table and whoever is at the top after the last game wins. And if you have two teams with the same points the goal difference matters.

Hmm...I wonder what sense that makes as an analogy...

especially now that they have beaten the Patriots.

Nevermind the fact that half the Patriots roster is either injured or dead. If the Colts couldn't beat them in that situation, they never would.

American here.

I want Run off Elections--no more electoral college--and I want a "None of the Above" choice.

I also happen to be a Conservative, not any happier about the current administration as anyone else.

I prefer an Israli styly "coalition" government. If one party doesn't end up with an overwhleming majority of the votes they have to literally share, thus, for the most part, ensuring that the slim minority doesn't get trampled by an agenda they didn't want. The "winner-take-all" system we have in this country sucks ass.

Personally, I don't think we're ready to totally get rid of the electoral college yet. A lot of Americans are educated enough to make their own decisions, but many many are not.

It does, however, need reform. Winner-takes-all is a terrible system, and does not represent the popular vote. Instead, I think it should all be in proportion. For example, if half the state votes one way, and half votes the other, the electoral votes should be split down the middle to more accurately represent the will of the people.

The EC deceives Americans and can falsely report an election. But the flipside is that it might make elections a popularity contest. A solution would be to vote by party and they select who will be in office after the election. As seen in some European democracies and Iraq.

The small states didn't get any boosted representation from the southern compromise clauses, that came from the senate. If anything, the three fifths compromises lowered the representation that they got.

Correct...

To reiterate. The 3/5ths compromise boosted representation in slave-holding states, by allowing the population of non-citizens [slaves] as a ratio (3/5's) to be included in determining representation in the House. The 3/5's compromise was of no intrinsic value to non-slave-holding small states.

The Senate acts as a "Boost" for small states, by making all "representation" equal.

The Electoral College, however, is based off of representation in both the Senate and House.

couple things:

1) The USA is a republic of states. We are all Americans, yes, but we are also citizens of our respective states. If memory serves, the electoral college was created at least partially to reserve some power for the states and state sovereignty.

2)If the electoral college were obliterated, politicians would cease to care about the less populous states. Iowa would no longer be important... the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc... would hold no importance whatsoever for presidential candidates. As things stand now, the electoral votes of those states can decide an election.

You really need to learn how to read. The original intent of the electoral college was to act as a vetting process, and the presidency would be decided in the house. Which is exactly what the document says.

Does the electoral college help small states? Yes. Was that the point of the electoral college? No.


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:

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.


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 choose 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 choose the President. But in choosing 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 choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

1. Electors meet, and vote for two by ballot.
2. Create a list of all voted for. Sign and deliver to Senate.
3. Senate and House meet, and count and certify the votes.
4. If no majority, the House then chooses by vote from the top five candidates from the Electoral.

Section in blue modified by the following:


The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists 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 for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing 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. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Alteration: The President and Vice President are kept on the same ballot.

Section in blue modified by the following:


Section 1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.


Section 3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.

Section 4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.

Section 5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.

Section 6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission.

Section in blue modified by the following:


Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

No where was the House given the capacity to elect the President, except when no candidate received majority in the Electoral College.

Originally, voting occured in the Electoral College; the President of the Senate, before the House and Senate [joint Congress] would count and certify the election. The House would vote, only when no candidate received majority in the Electoral College.

Modification by Amendment XII to the system, only placed the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates on the same ticket. Whereas before, each had their own ballot, and could effective be voted into either presidential or vice presedential position.

So you want to get rid of the Electoral College and vote directly for pres eh!

Well, welcome to canada eh!

Here we get to vote on the House of Commons! Majority wins right?? Well not really! Because the way the seats are divided up, the number of seats won in Ontario, our most ppopulas provience, determines who will form the goverment. :eek: :eek: :mad:

No other provence really counts!:mad:

I would keep it if I where you!

I feel that it is not needed anymore. American citizens are well educated enough to select their own president. And most people still remember the 2000 elections in which Democrat Al Gore actually won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote(:rolleyes: ) as a result a president was elected not by the American people but by an elitist organization....and that isnt very democratic. What are your views on this topic?

Well the whole lawsuit from that woman in Florida because "she pushed the wrong lever" because "she couldn't understand the voting machine" is reason enough to keep it. People are still too stupid.

I like Canada but I'd rather live in the Netherlands or Switzlerand. I like their governments. A lot.

Australia is probaly the further Western nation from america and our goverment while 'Conservative' is more left than the democrats

Minor point - we live in a republic, not a democracy.

Not only did our Founding Fathers establish a republic, they greatly feared democracy. James Madison, known as the father of the U.S. Constitution, wrote in "Essay #10" of The Federalist Papers: "... democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

Although such an attitude will surprise most Americans, it is accurate.

The United States Constitution does not contain the word democracy. It does "guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government...." Also, when we recite the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, we say, "to the Republic for which it stands," and not "to the Democracy."

The difference between a republic and a democracy was once widely understood in America. The U.S. War Department (superseded by the Department of Defense) taught that difference in a training manual (No. 2000-25) published on November 30, 1928. This official U.S. government document, used at the time for the training of American military personnel, said of democracy:

A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation

or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

It went on to state: "Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They 'made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic.' "

Does that mean they would vote for REPUBLICIANS instead of DEMOCRATS since democracy is
A government of the masses.

Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of 'direct' expression.

Results in mobocracy.

Attitude toward property is communistic - negating property rights.

Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation

or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.

Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy."

1) The USA is a republic of states. We are all Americans, yes, but we are also citizens of our respective states. If memory serves, the electoral college was created at least partially to reserve some power for the states and state sovereignty.
No, not really.


2)If the electoral college were obliterated, politicians would cease to care about the less populous states. Iowa would no longer be important... the Dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, etc... would hold no importance whatsoever for presidential candidates. As things stand now, the electoral votes of those states can decide an election.
You obviously don't pay attention to the nominees trips. How many times do politicians go to non-swing states? Maybe once or twice so they don't look bad? Bush visited Ohio what? Seven more times than Texas? States are not important if they arn't swing states. If the electoral college was removed, nominees would have more of an incentive to go to that state because every person's vote would count, not just the majority's. And yes, their votes can decide winners, if you get all of them. Three votes is not important when places like Texas and California and Florida have nearly ten or more times more each.

So you want to get rid of the Electoral College and vote directly for pres eh!

Well, welcome to canada eh!

Here we get to vote on the House of Commons! Majority wins right?? Well not really! Because the way the seats are divided up, the number of seats won in Ontario, our most ppopulas provience, determines who will form the goverment. :eek: :eek: :mad:

No other provence really counts!:mad:

I would keep it if I where you!
We should throw out the electoral college only if we are willing to have national elections decided by the populations of California, New York, and Florida. This is where the population is concentrated and will clearly have the largest effects on any national vote.

America is a democracy, but barely. The American Public's vote counts, but just barely. Plus the government is so corrupt and is so good at manipulating the truth that it just doesn't matter who is elected. It's like a abomination of sh*t that needs to be stopped and cleaned. It's that simple. I am sick of this government that controls me and I wish I had another country that I could go to.


Why does America suck so much? Plus why do I have to live in it?:headbang:

You don't. There is a WHOLE WORLD out there to emigrate to. Exercise your right to leave, if you really want to.

I am sick of this government that controls me and I wish I had another country that I could go to.


By all means leave, with an attitude like that you're not wanted here

We should throw out the electoral college only if we are willing to have national elections decided by the populations of California, New York, and Florida. This is where the population is concentrated and will clearly have the largest effects on any national vote.
You do realize how the Electoral College works, right? You get an electoral vote for every member of Congress, and in the House of Representatives, you get Representatives based on population. The Dakotas, Rhode Island, or anywhere else with five or less electoral votes will never decide any election in reality. This is not a nation of states - this is a nation of people. The states only become too powerful in the electoral college. With a straight popular vote, all votes count. That means all those Republicans in California, New York, and Florida - their votes go straight to the main pool, just like everyone else's.

You do realize how the Electoral College works, right? You get an electoral vote for every member of Congress, and in the House of Representatives, you get Representatives based on population. The Dakotas, Rhode Island, or anywhere else with five or less electoral votes will never decide any election in reality. This is not a nation of states - this is a nation of people. The states only become too powerful in the electoral college. With a straight popular vote, all votes count. That means all those Republicans in California, New York, and Florida - their votes go straight to the main pool, just like everyone else's.
I understand exactly how the Electoral College works. Maybe I didn't make it plain enough. The Electoral College should be eliminated, only if we are willing to take away representation for all the smaller states and hand it over to areas of the country where the population is concentrated enough to make a majority. All those small states add up.

American here.

I want Run off Elections--no more electoral college--and I want a "None of the Above" choice.

Did you know that not voting is the same as voting "None of the Above" but saves the taxpayers (us) millions of dollars? Crazy shit aint it?

I assume the NFL works a little like the AFL here...the teams play each other, and get points for it, and then the best 8 or so teams continue in the play-offs.

I think that makes the first matches much less important, because even being the eighth is just as good as being first.

The Football Bundesliga (or any other Football league) instead works like this: no points for a defeat, one point for a draw and three for a win. Then you have a table and whoever is at the top after the last game wins. And if you have two teams with the same points the goal difference matters.

Hmm...I wonder what sense that makes as an analogy...

But the person that gets first place gets home field advantage while the person in eighth place has to win the Super Bowl by winning three games on the road. And if my memory serves me correct there is not a eighth place in the NFL. There are four division winners and two wild cards. The two teams with the best records get a first week bye (another reason why first and "just good enough to make it" are not equal).

And I too wonder if this makes any sense as an analogy. Let's try to figure it out.

Let's see, the home team are the proponents of the Electoral College and has lost only one game during the season. The away team are the opponents of the electoral college who finished 10-6 and made the post season by winning in the weakest division in the NFL *cough 2004 Green Bay Packers cough*. The home team obviously has home field advantage, which for the purpose of this analogy we will compare that to the votes needed to call for an amendment to the constitution to call for an end to the electoral college. The home town fans will then represent the state conventions, legislators, whatever method used to ratify the amendemtn. Finally we get to the officials, which represent the fact that the rules favor the home team because everybody loves a home town officiating crew, except anyone who is not a fan of the home team.

Did that make any sense at all? I don't even understood but by god it made sense at the time.