Poll: Should the Electoral College be abolished?

[REDWAVE]

This strikes me as kind of interesting. As anyone who remembers high school civics (or the 2000 election, lol) at all knows, U.S. Presidents are elected NOT by direct popular vote, but through the mechanism of the Electoral College. Usually, the same candidate who wins the popular vote also wins in the Electoral College-- but not always. (Again, see 2000 election. Also, for historical reference, 1824, 1876, and 1888.) So the question is: should the Electoral College be abolished, and Presidents elected by direct popular vote?

Regular readers know my views on the subject, but I won't state them here-- not yet, at least. I really want to know what YOU think.

So vote-- I promise not to stuff the ballot box!

 

[Weevil]

Does anyone go into a thread and vote "Don't Care"??

Wouldn't they just hit the Back button?

 

[modest mouse]

Usually, the same candidate who wins the popular vote also wins in the Electoral College-- but not always. (Again, see 2000 election. Also, for historical reference, 1824, 1876, and 1888.) So the question is: should the Electoral College be abolished, and Presidents elected by direct popular vote?

There is a flaw in your question.

You seem to imply that abolition of the Electoral College would mean that the winner of the popular vote would become President. That is not necessarily true.

The abolition of the Electoral College would mean that the winner in each state would get its "Electoral votes", determined by Congressional representation. That doesnt mean a nationwide popular vote is needed to win.

If you mean to say that the system should be abolished, not jsut the puppet of an Electoral College, then its a different question.

If you're asking if the election should consist of every vote being counted as a national vote then its a big deal. It would require a national system of voting, with national regulations, paid for with federal funds, etc, etc. Essentially an entire reworking of the machinations of electing a President.

 

[metal_minx]

YES

Electoral college is an outdated method that should have been abolished when we invented computers. How hard would it be to count all the votes, through a ballot that was well designed and uniform, this day and age? Electoral college is bullshit, just another way of taking what little power the American people have in the system and giving it to politicans and their interest groups.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Excellent point. It goes right to the heart of State's Rights.

It's a good thread, RED, there need to be more options in your poll.

 

[HeavyStick]

So this is one part of the Constitution you want to cut up?

 

[metal_minx]

I wonder what would happen if we boycotted the electoral college by not voting at poll station but instead sent our votes to the Supreme Court or something like that.

 

[REDWAVE]

I don't see that

I don't follow you, Modest Mouse. It seems to me abolishing the Electoral College would mean Presidents would be chosen by direct popular vote. I don't see where "state's rights" comes into play here at all. Presidential elections are federal elections to begin with, but voting could still be done at local polling places, run by state and local government.

As for adding more options to the poll, I'm open to suggestions. However, once I've posted a poll, I can't add (or take away) options myself. I'd have to ask the system administrators (i.e., Laurel or Manu) to do that.

 

[metal_minx]

So this is one part of the Constitution you want to cut up?

Amended is the word you're looking for. Remember it's 2002 not 1789.

 

[concrete]

I prefer to look at it as another form of checks + balances
what is it 7 or maybe 9 states ,and you win the E.C. anyway.

 

[HeavyStick]

Amended is the word you're looking for. Remember it's 2002 not 1789.

I was speaking to Redpimple in terms he usually throws around.

But thanks.

 

[ma_guy]

I voted no.

Two reasons really. The EC doesn't skew the vote all that much over all. If you look at the number of EC votes allocated by state and compare it to the population numbers the percentage difference is pretty small - only 1 or 2 percentage points.

That said, the concentration of people on the two coasts could leave the other states vulnerable to more "majority votes" and people on the two coasts don't generally have a clue what happens the rural center states (and vice-versa).

I do think that all of the states should move to the proportional voting by their EC delegates that ME and NE use though. The "winner takes all" concept is poor solution.

 

[Spinaroonie]

it serves it's purpose- it was set up a filter to make sure that "not just anybody" can be elected.

 

[Lasher]

How hard would it be to count all the votes, through a ballot that was well designed and uniform, this day and age?

If you'd been paying attention to the recent elections in Florida you'd see it can be pretty difficult. And there were many places that had problems with voting irregularities during the 2000 election - and every other election - Florida just ended up in the spotlight for obvious reasons.

Electoral college is bullshit, just another way of taking what little power the American people have in the system and giving it to politicans and their interest groups. [/B]

Again, if you'd been paying attention, it does just the opposite. Since the 2000 election Bush has spent a ridiculous amount of time in 2 states he narrowly lost - Iowa and Wisconsin - and swear to Christ I nearly trip over the guy every other week here in Pennsylvania.

If all that mattered was the raw number of votes a candidate received all you would see during election season is a constant loop of candidates from California to Texas to Florida to New York and then maybe a quick trip thru the Rust Belt. Picking up 6,000 votes in Iowa wouldn't mean jack shit to Georgie Porgie, but in 2004 those 6,000 votes could mean 7 electoral votes and makes Iowa very damn important.

I rarely doubt the Founding Fathers (ok, I still think someone stuck and extra comma or two in the 2nd amendment, lol) - and I'm pretty damn sure they got this one right.

Someone said it above - Checks and Balances.

 

[Johnny Cool]

The "Small places would never be important again" argument seems like a relic from the 1940's

Both parties are intensely dedicated towards their own survival so a system where a simple plurality would win would see both major parties dedicated to big cities, both getting 50% of big city votes, making those 6,000 in Iowa important again.

Besides shouldn't a president be about National issues? Who cares how much he likes one state or another.

 

[hogjack]

Negatory

Checks & balances


Why don't we skip voting on leaders altogether and have popular vote determine all decision-making? The technology is available.

 

[REDWAVE]

Hogjack

Interesting question, Hogjack, but that would require a different poll.

I'm surprised the vote is this close. So far, "yes" is leading 8-6, with two for "don't care." I had thought "yes" would run away with it.

 

[mbb308]

The US is a collective of 50 states, not one homogeneous nation. What incentive would Wyoming have to stay in union with California if it weren't for equal representation in the Senate and the Electoral College?

I would submit, none.

The Dead White Guys got this one right, too.

 

[ma_guy]

Both parties are intensely dedicated towards their own survival so a system where a simple plurality would win would see both major parties dedicated to big cities, both getting 50% of big city votes, making those 6,000 in Iowa important again.

Yes, Both parties would go after the big cities. No disagreement there. And in doing so the rural states (and even rural parts of the coastal states) would lose every Federal program that puts any money into their economies because the politicans would shift the award of those programs to the cities to buy votes. The net effect would remove many jobs do exist in rural areas and cause more people to move to the cities and immediate suburbs to find work - The extreme end of that would be a point of spiraling where everyone lives in the cities and the middle state are bascially abandonded.

 

[calypso_21]

I voted yes. Why should my vote for president count towards the potential vote of some politician? Why can't my vote count as just that? Mine. What are the checks and balances here?

I vote and then the majority of the votes in my state decides which politicians get to vote for their party's choice. I think this whole set up sucks. There is already a clear national voting system now. How would they get the totals for the EC in the first place if that weren't the case?

I would love to be that one politician though who decided not to vote for the person my party wants. Through a wrench in the whole system. Granted a ton of fellow shit stirrers would be pissed at me...I would enjoy the trickle effect. (I could just be in a mood today though.)

 

[REDWAVE]

My opinion

The Electoral College should be abolished. It is an undemocratic institution which overrepresents the smaller population states, and underrepresents the more populous ones. I also think the Senate, in which every state has two votes regardless of population, should be abolished. Moreover, interest rates should be set by Congress, not the unelected Federal Reserve Board, and the Supreme Court (also unelected) should be stripped of the power of judicial review (the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional). Finally, campaigns should be publically financed, to eliminate the corrupting effect of big money.

If these reforms were enacted (ain't gonna happen), we could actually have a functioning democracy in this country, instead of a plutocracy.

 

[ma_guy]

Re: My opinion

...and the Supreme Court (also unelected) should be stripped of the power of judicial review (the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional)...

If these reforms were enacted (ain't gonna happen), we could actually have a functioning democracy in this country, instead of a plutocracy.

You wouldn't have Lit to be posting your thread on either. Since the one and only function of the Supreme Court IS judicial review eliminating that function would eliminate the entire court. Roe v. Wade would not exist. States would be free to restrict (or eliminate) abortion. 1st Amendment rights would have gone away long ago. The Miranda decision wouldn't exist. School prayer would be the norm. Forced segregartion (quite possibly slavery itself) would still exist...

You just don't get that entire "checks and balances" concept at all eh?

 

[HeavyStick]

Re: My opinion

If these reforms were enacted (ain't gonna happen), we could actually have a functioning democracy in this country, instead of a plutocracy.

The US is a Republic. You've been told this over and over again.

Republic: political system with powerful electorate, a political system or form of government in which people elect representatives to exercise power for them.

 

[Sillyman]

Re: My opinion

The Electoral College should be abolished. It is an undemocratic institution which overrepresents the smaller population states, and underrepresents the more populous ones. I also think the Senate, in which every state has two votes regardless of population, should be abolished. Moreover, interest rates should be set by Congress, not the unelected Federal Reserve Board, and the Supreme Court (also unelected) should be stripped of the power of judicial review (the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional). Finally, campaigns should be publically financed, to eliminate the corrupting effect of big money.

If these reforms were enacted (ain't gonna happen), we could actually have a functioning democracy in this country, instead of a plutocracy.

The Supreme Court performs a very valuable service. Possibly a better solution than watering them down into nothing is to have them elected instead, rather than appointed.

I have no idea what your problem is with the Federal Reserve Board.

 

[REDWAVE]

Heavy Stink

It's not a republic, it's a plutocracy. I've said that over and over, too.

The idea that the Supreme Court protects the rights of the downtrodden is largely a myth, ma guy. It has done much more to protect the power and privileges of the rich. See the infamous Lochner case, and many other decisions in that vein.

Or for that matter, Bush v. Gore.