Comtemplative reader freedom2learn asks, "does anyone care to give their thoughts on the electoral college - reform - eliminate - leave it as is???".
Since the 2000 election, disgruntled democrats have been attempting to circumvent the Constitution(since they can't get elected with it) by eliminating the electoral college, so presidents would be elected by simple majority. Here're my thoughts on that: The electoral college exists as a way of forcing the candidates to pay at least marginal attention to smaller, less consequential states. Otherwise, the candidates would only campaign in California, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and maybe Ohio and Michigan because those are the most densely populated states. Notice anything coincidental about those states that might explain democrat's desire to be rid of the troublesome electoral college? Those very populated states are where the labor unions and fruity liberal base primarily reside. In additon, without the electoral college, democrat candidates could concentrate their efforts on the population centers, places where there tend to be large blocks of hand-out, dependency-driven voters. Look at the 2004 presidential election results map and see where the blue counties lie, unless you live there, good luck seeing a democrat campaigning in your area. The electoral college forces candidates to appeal to as many voters as possible....that makes it a good system. Perhaps it could be tweeked in some way but to abandon it altogether would be disastrous for the country.
12 comments:
I don't like the split decisions some states can make, where if 51% of the state is one way and the other 49% the other way, the votes from that state go 50/50. I don't like that. Majority rules, it goes to the winner unanimously.
so then why not simple majority rule for the whole country? should not the theory for local elections then apply to the federal level? that's what you conseratives are always preaching about...states rights, local control and all that. if it's good for the states, then why isn't it good for the country?
Majority rule to the whole country isn't fair to the smaller states. States like Alabama would be virtually non-existent in the voting as compared to California or New York. The electoral college is what is in place to give some representation to the smaller states.
if majority rule isn't fair to the smaller states, then why is it fair to smaller groups of people at the local level? majority rule always leaves somebody unrepresented whether local or federal. i don't see your distinction other than it lets republicans win elections in which they don't have a plurality of votes.
The founding fathers of our country put a system in place that protects all people. Each electorate elects a body to represent their state. Each state has different rules on how that is done. Ultimately these people get together and elect the President, based on their public election. This was done originally, because voters in the rural areas were based on land ownership, whereas in the more urban areas, many could vote without property ownership. States like Virginia dominated early politics, because of proximity to both market types, as well as their locale to the seat of the government. As the country grew, it became ever-increasingly important to maintain a distinct voting ability of all newer states, with less identity, as compared to the older more established states. Thus the electoral college. A system set up to basically force all voices to be heard. Members wer based on state population (similarly to the HOR) but with equal voting power (SEN). Nice
jim bob, would you change the system at all, like many people want, or leave it as is?
Anon, you do know that each state has distinct zones to represent each representative from your state right? You don't vote for every representative from your state, only one. I'd say thats pretty representative of your local area.
Anonymous: I think that the Constitution of the United States is daily proved to be a very well written document. Therefore, knowing that the same intelligent men that drafted that document were behind the Electoral college system, I would favor leaving it alone. I however do think that a potential review of the #'s per state might need to be institutated. Some of the states have an inordinate number of electors compard to population the state now has.
I think they change the number of electors every ten years after the national census is completed. I could be wrong but I remember reading that somewhere.
I think you are correct Kevin and that would be good for those of us in the South since yankee carpet-baggers are streaming down here by the droves. After the next census, I'll bet our electors increase which forces national candidates to pay more attention to us. But like jim bob said, that's how the framers designed it and it makes sense.
Corn hole politics if I ever heard it .
dukakis, please to explain?
Post a Comment