Thread: The electoral college is broken

Why do we still go by the electoral vote? Some people say it's because if it's not broke, don't fix it. Well I'm telling you that is is broken.

Al Gore lost because he didn't get the electoral vote. If we went by the popular vote, he would've won and our country would be in a much better shape.

Thanks to George Bush, we're in a bad recession and in a war as well. We'd be in neither if we didn't have the electoral college.

Barack Obama is now the only hope we have of getting us out of this mess that Bush has gotten us into. That's why I voted for Obama. The electoral college should be dismantled.

Oh? The Electoral College is broken because your preferred candidate didn't win?

This is what passes for intellectual discussion among Democrats these days?

Actually the electora college is broken and it isn't needed anymore. It was needed at a time when not everyone could get together and vote. Since that isn't the case anymore, there is good reason to have it go away IMO.

Also, the electoral college this election is going to favor Obama and even though I voted for him, I still think it is broken and unneeded.

My, my, my, what a frustration demonstration of historcial ignorance.

The EC only existed to facilitate voting by geographically dispersed people?

The EC has been under attack nearly since the beginning of its establishment.

I happen to agree with the late Daniel Moynihan when he concluded, after scouring the globe for a more stable political system than our own, and finding none, traced that belief back to the establishment of the EC.

EC critics have the burden of proof to show that an alternate system would produce better Presidents in a more clear and decisive manner.

Well?

Originally Posted by JMak

EC critics have the burden of proof to show that an alternate system would produce better Presidents in a more clear and decisive manner.

Well?

And in the last 4 election cycles, how has the EC produced better presidents?

I believe the EC is still needed due to the disproportionate distribution of our population. The EC seems to work fine as long as SCOTUS can keep its right wing nose out of elections. Even tho they were brought into the 2000 election, the right wing majority should have acted in a more honorable fashion. Honor and integrity will be restored to SCOTUS with Obama's appointments.

Originally Posted by RandyJohnson

Why do we still go by the electoral vote? Some people say it's because if it's not broke, don't fix it. Well I'm telling you that is is broken.

Al Gore lost because he didn't get the electoral vote. If we went by the popular vote, he would've won and our country would be in a much better shape.

Thanks to George Bush, we're in a bad recession and in a war as well. We'd be in neither if we didn't have the electoral college.

Barack Obama is now the only hope we have of getting us out of this mess that Bush has gotten us into. That's why I voted for Obama. The electoral college should be dismantled.

If/when Obama wins, will you still conclude the EC is broken?


If so, I'll tend to agree with you.

I live in Delaware. The EC votes from Delaware will go to Obama regardless of who I vote for. My vote means nothing.

The E.C. was good when it was created, but now that the American people
know more about the Prez. Candidates then they do their own neighbor, the
intent of the E.C. is no obsolete.

We should let the States pop Vote Determine the Percentage of the States
votes to each Candidate! Also take away the "Winner take all Rule".
And add Instant Runoff Voting. That way "We the People" would have more
ability to "DIRECTLY" hold these Crooks you call Politicians accountable. !

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

If/when Obama wins, will you still conclude the EC is broken?


If so, I'll tend to agree with you.

I live in Delaware. The EC votes from Delaware will go to Obama regardless of who I vote for. My vote means nothing.

No it's not! You can Vote for Paul(Write in) or his Proxy Baldwin, Nader or any
third party candidate you like! That will send a message to the REPS&DEMS
in Washington that the American Voters are sick of the Crap that those two
parties are "Jointly" pulling on the US Taxpayer !

If those Crooks smell THEIR OWN BLOOD, they might start to do a better job
in D.C. . But as long as the American Sheeple line up in Droves to support
those two Corrupt Parties, those Parties will not consider changing their
Corrupt ways !!!
Because ~95% of the US Voters just gave them a pass or Thumbs ups
by putting them back in Power !!!!

Originally Posted by RandyJohnson

Why do we still go by the electoral vote? Some people say it's because if it's not broke, don't fix it. Well I'm telling you that is is broken.

Al Gore lost because he didn't get the electoral vote. If we went by the popular vote, he would've won and our country would be in a much better shape.

Thanks to George Bush, we're in a bad recession and in a war as well. We'd be in neither if we didn't have the electoral college.

Barack Obama is now the only hope we have of getting us out of this mess that Bush has gotten us into. That's why I voted for Obama. The electoral college should be dismantled.

If this country only went to the popular vote, many states in this Republic would no longer have a say in the election of the President. Most elections would be decided by a few coastal states with vast populations who lean to a single party.

There is nothing broken about it other than your man or woman didn't get elected last time.

What is broken is an understanding of how the system works and why it was included in our Constitution; I would suggest is that the only thing broken is an education that doesn't educate its citizens about the most important document in the land.

Here is why we have an Electoral College and why it was so brilliant; here are some excerpts:

What, then, were the Founders trying to achieve? Most fundamentally, they were trying to achieve a system that could protect individual rights from encroachment by any of the forces threatening them: an internal dictator, an external invasion, influence by foreign governments, or a gang of coercive citizens. The Founders were equally suspicious of and opposed to the tyranny of the monarch and the tyranny of the mob. (This opposition to mob violence is one reason John Adams had defended a British soldier who shot into a group of attacking Bostonians in pre-revolution Massachusetts). The Founders' mission was to devise a system that ensured no part of the government nor any popular faction could gain so much political power as to become a threat to liberty.

"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union & acting in concert to delude them into any appointment."

This emphasis on mass ignorance is the thing that grates the most on the modern intellectuals. In an era of egalitarianism, it strikes them as "elitist" that some men should declare themselves to be more intelligent than the lowliest worker. However, it is a fact that there is a difference in the level of knowledge of government and the requirements for a good executive among different people. Indeed, we strive to elect the best (at least the Founders did), not the stupidest. All the Founders are doing here is attempting to make the mechanism of election consistent with that ultimate purpose.

Candidates must win a majority (or plurality) in a state or they get no electoral votes from that state. This means that a candidate's margin is increased when he wins a state (except in the highly unlikely event that he were to win the state's popular vote completely), and people in that state are throwing away their vote if they vote for a very minor third- or fourth-party candidate. This has been very important in avoiding the balkanization of political parties that has harmed European governments. Distribution of political power is a desirable goal, but the complete disintegration of the executive branch, requiring the need for coalition governments and backroom deals to get one party elected, would not serve the protection of individual rights. (Imagine the two major-party candidates having a runoff with Ralph Nader, Pat Buchanan and the libertarian candidate, and having to dicker with these three for their votes in order to become the president.)

The rest of the article:

In Defense of the Electoral College