|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
muttpacker 
Group: Members
Posts: 339
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 30 2012, 8:30 pm |
|
   |
I realize there's a great chance that this discussion was held without my knowledge and is, therefore, redundant.
If that's the case, I apologize for that. But I respectfully request that we indulge ourselves anyway with a discussion of the relative merits of going without the Electoral College on the grounds that it is antiquated, denies the validity of the election held in November in favor of the one in December, has no legal requirements that electors actually vote as their constituents have voted and has no requirements regarding who can serve as an elector.
--------------
Ignorant is temporary. Stupid is permanent. Choosing to be ignorant is stupid.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39553
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 30 2012, 8:36 pm |
|
 |
There are legal requirements and restriction, just at the state level Rather than the federal in line with election proceedings being left to the tastes to arrange.
http://www.archives.gov/federal....ictions
I'd, at least, like to see prportionaliy be established throughout the states, something that would not involve the lengthy and problematic process of a contitutional amendment. That would approach a popular vote, most desirous but less easily reached v
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 30 2012, 10:16 pm |
|
|
http://forums.backpacker.com/cgi-bin....1160857
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
muttpacker
Group: Members
Posts: 339
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 30 2012, 10:29 pm |
|
|
Frankly, I'm in favor of a Constitutional Amendment that would address voting as an institution. There currently exists no "Constitutional Right" to vote. I respect the notion that the intent of the Electoral College was to give State's appropriate influence over the process, but a federal standardization, as part of the aforementioned amendment, wouldn't be out of line with my intent.
A standardized ballot and accounting of who is actually allowed to vote (ie felons, et al) would be appreciated. An elimination of voter registration would also be a welcome change. As would the decision to make federal elections a national holiday. And allow online voting from 12:01 AM to 11:59 PM (just mail everyone allowed to vote a single-use PIN#) as part of the national standard, as well as the simple use of our SS# as our "registration".
Essentially what I'd prefer is a system where every American citizen actually has a voice in every presidential election. We live in an age when that kind of effort and undertaking is, frankly, trivial. And the idea that "swing states" (I'm talking to you, Ohio) virtually control elections is, I'm certain, contrary to the intent of that queer convention we call "The Electoral College."
--------------
Ignorant is temporary. Stupid is permanent. Choosing to be ignorant is stupid.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
tamarac
Group: Members
Posts: 236
Joined: Jan. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 30 2012, 10:31 pm |
|
|
The electoral college concept for America was developed for our representative republic of 230 plus years ago with a nation of about 3 million people. We now have 350 million.
Does anyone think this system is now still valid? Why? Don't complex, vast, diverse societies require a better system of representation? Farmers vote for people who represent farmers, business owners vote for people who represent business owners and minorities vote for people who represent minorities.
Why is the value of the state of North Dakota squashed by the value of the state of California? We all know the answer.
Because money is more important than people, and their individual votes.
Comfortable with that? Then maybe take a Philosophy class.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4795
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 31 2012, 8:08 am |
|
|
There was no easy communications when the EC was established. The EC allowed representatives to travel and present the results. It is no longer needed with today's instant communications.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Drift Woody
Group: Members
Posts: 5301
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 31 2012, 1:16 pm |
|
|
The EC has outlived its necessity, and I doubt the Founders would like its effect on presidential elections today. There is nothing in the Constitution about winner-take-all of the EC votes in state; that's a later development whereby each state tried to make itself a bigger prize and therefore receive more attention/consideration. The end result has been to negelct all but the "swing states" and thereby drastically reduce the breadth of attention & consideration.
--------------
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children.
-- Native American proverb
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
buzzards
Group: Members
Posts: 1744
Joined: Apr. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 31 2012, 3:15 pm |
|
|
The EC serves a purpose-to give smaller states a little bit more leverage, just like a bicameral legislature. That's why Wyoming gets the same number of Senators as California, and why a vote in WY and other small states carries incrementally more weight in a presidential election than one in a large state. And the discussion and pro/cons on this setup reach all the way back to the Constitutional Convention of 1787.
Of course, it takes a lot of Wyomings or Alaskas or Delawares to add up to a California or New York.
Interesting that the Supreme Court has been very rigid in striking down state redistricting plans that gave extra weight to rural areas under the one-man-one-vote doctrine, but of course cannot touch the EC due to the pesky fact that it is in the Constitution.
--------------
Now shall I walk or shall I ride?
Ride, said pleasure,
Walk, Joy replied,
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
muttpacker
Group: Members
Posts: 339
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 31 2012, 8:34 pm |
|
|
We have a Senate to protect the interests of the individual states. The House is intended to represent the totality of the population, but cannot because the amount of votes necessary to achieve a single electoral vote varies so dramatically. That effectively adds to the value/power of less populated states' votes at the expense of silencing millions of voters in larger states. No wonder WY receives so much federal funding per capita! We have essentially set up a system where the population of a medium-sized city gets electoral votes at a rate 4x those of CA.
--------------
Ignorant is temporary. Stupid is permanent. Choosing to be ignorant is stupid.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
pass-thru
Group: Members
Posts: 1307
Joined: Jul. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 31 2012, 9:47 pm |
|
|
It is more likely to produce a clearly defined result. As difficult as the 2000 situation was, imagine dealing with National recounts. In a tight election, the uncertainty of sorting through recounts across the country just isn't worth it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
pass-thru
Group: Members
Posts: 1307
Joined: Jul. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 01 2012, 8:35 am |
|
|
....
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
muttpacker
Group: Members
Posts: 339
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Nov. 01 2012, 9:46 am |
|
|
Yeah... Those electronic voting machines make recounts so damn difficult. We couldn't possibly expect to have the vote actually be accurate. Besides, what's the point? (SARC!)
--------------
Ignorant is temporary. Stupid is permanent. Choosing to be ignorant is stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
