Truth Detector

Not exactly; the electoral process varies state by state but most basically are winner takes all. Some states allocate their electors based on the amount of votes each candidate gets.

My opinion is that if all the states allocated their electors based on the percentage of votes received by the various candidates, it would mirror more closely the actual popular vote; this would be a mistake in my opinion.

What this means is that someone can actually win the Presidency with less than the total popular vote.

The Electoral College in my opinion is further evidence of the genius of our founding fathers when they established the Constitution.

__________________
Nothing can frighten a Socialist more than the TRUTH; and nothing can frighten Obama more than REALITY

Bodhisattva

Why do you think that popular vote is a mistake and that the Electoral College, which technically does not have to vote according to the way that their base wants, is genius?

__________________

Truth Detector

I think you have expressed concern in the past about how ignorant some Americans are; I would suggest that many people, not just Americans, are influenced not by issues and concerns, but more by charisma, charm and pithy campaign ads.

The founders saw the danger of this in setting up a Country of States, the idea of Federalism or a Federal Republic of States, rather than just people. Those States have rights as stated in the Constitution which are given to the people of those States.

In addition, and not part of the original debate about how Presidents would be selected, I think what is also apparent is that States along the coast with much greater populations could possibly select every President and interior States would therefore not have any representation in the elections.

In today’s world, it could mean the end of a dual party system to a single party system in that densely populated NE Coastal States and Western Coastal States tend to lean Democrat in large majorities and with that popular vote, they would determine the outcome of EVERY election.

Many on this forum debate about the failure of a TWO party system; well if you want a ONE party system, doing away with the Electoral process would/could almost guarantee a one party system. Many on this forum from BOTH the Liberal and Conservative sides have argued about the dangers of tyranny.

I think the following illustrates better why it is genius versus the alternative being a straight popular vote or parliamentary system:

Tyranny of the Majority

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness. Here are a few relevant quotes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

"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, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." --
Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public.

Preserving Federalism

The Founding Fathers also felt the Electoral College system would enforce the concept of federalism -- the division and sharing of powers between the state and national governments.

Under the Constitution, the people are empowered to choose, through direct popular election, the men and women who represent them in their state legislatures and in the United Sates Congress. The states, through the Electoral College, are empowered to choose the president and vice president.

Why Keep the Electoral College?

hardrock

I will vote for McCain. We cannot risk to have an unproven Senator try and get the economy back on track.


Great Political Video:

schezarde

Wow. Not a single argument against me. Just personal attacks about my high school education. Can you actually argue against me? I challenge you to put aside the personal attacks and argue against me point for point.

schezarde

First, I thought that you were against the popular vote. If so, then why would you be concerned if "someone can actually win the Presidency with less than the total popular vote?"

Second, if you are concerned that someone can win the election with less votes than his/her opponent, let me give you a very simple example.

With the Electoral College System and a Winner Takes All approach a great injustice can happen.

Let's say State A has 10 million people and has 10 Electoral Votes.
State B - 5 million ppl and 5 EC votes
State C - 6 million ppl and 6 EC votes

Let's say 100% of people in State A vote Democrat.
In State B 49% vote Democrat and 51% vote Republican.
In State C 49% vote Democrat and 51% vote Republican.


State----vote Democrat --- vote Republican--Electoral vote
***********************************************
A-----------10 million---------------0--------------10(D)
B----------- 2.49... million----------2.5 million-----5(R)
C -----------2.99.. million---------- 3 million-------6(R)
***********************************************
------------ over 15 million--------- 5.5 million
------------- 10 EC votes ---------- 11 EC votes

In this case a majority of people would vote Democrat but only receive 10 EC votes, while the minority of people vote Republican and receive 11 EC votes.

If the President was decided by a popular vote, this would never happen.

schezarde

I agree with you on this. Some people are indeed very ignorant and may vote based on charisma, charm etc.
But I don't see how taking a subset of this population(based on geographical location) and giving them more power, helps in any way. With the current Electoral College and a mostly Winner Takes All system, a minority of the population can decide the President. I would much rather have the President be decided by the majority and hope that the intelligent people outnumber the ignorant people.

What do you mean they would have no representation in the elections? People in the inner states have the right to vote don't they? Remember, there's only 1 president. So, I think the President should look out for the good of the majority of Americans instead of pampering to a select minority. The KKK is a minority group in the US. Should the President be listening to this group and force the rest of America to follow their views?

First of all, it wouldn't mean the end of a dual party system because each state elects its own senators and members of the House of Representatives.

Second, if the politician can convince people that his/her policies are best for the country, then people will vote for him/her regardless of party affiliation. People do change their minds. Not everyone on the coast is a Democrat and not everyone in the inner states is a Republican. There's also lots of independents who can vote either way.

So, do you agree with the Founding Fathers that the people of America are "ignorant," "uninformed," can be easily "deluded," "misled," and don't have the "requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates?" Wow. Maybe America needs someone to just tell her what to do? A dictator sure sounds nice huh?

And if the minority sounds so good to you, then why would you like Winner Takes All? If I'm in a state where my neighbors around me all like the other party, then my vote is absolutely meaningless. My vote will have absolutely no weight in determining the President. All of the Electoral Votes will be for the other party. Where's my voice? At least with a national popular vote, my vote actually has weight in determining who gets elected President regardless of how my neighbors vote.

The US Congress is made up of individuals who serve their own state. The President should be serving the country as a whole and do what is best for most Americans instead of thinking about state lines.

schezarde

So, instead of voting for an "unproven" Senator, you would vote for someone whose policies are "proven" to fail.....

Remember, the Republicans got us into Iraq, the Republican policies got us into this financial mess, and you're going to vote for....?

Bodhisattva

It HAS happened... three times in fact. Three times the Presidency was one by the loser of the Popular Vote.

There have been a couple of hundred (guessing off the top of my head from a distant memory) of times that Electors chose to Abstain their vote or vote for something other than their people wanted... Negating the votes and wishes of the people. These peoples votes did not count, they were made voiceless by this crazy system. Technically, our votes DO NOT COUNT. There is no logical argument against this fact, since they are free to vote or abstain as they see fit, and only something like 24 states have laws that can try these electors, most peoples votes do not count since there is an option to wipe their votes away as if they were nothing.

Hullbilly

McCain/Palin for sure.