The Genius of the Electoral College

[haymarket]

So you support a system even older of direct democracy which has done poorly in the past? I went through the wiki list of countries that use direct elections, france and russia were the only real first world countries on the list, while the us uses electoral college, germany and ital use a mix of the electoral college and parliament, britain and canada have their leadership elected by those they elect, plus the monarchy thing.

You must really want to suck up to russias example, with the direct election stuffs. France changed their electoral college after the first time it had a different outcome than the popular vote, but france itself in the last decade has been the poster child of mob rule.

I must have missed that post from you. Could you identify where I can locate it?

 

[Cardinal]

No, I want the cancer of California contained.

And the only way there is no California in the popular vote is if they aren't allowed to participate. California will still be there and they will still be giving millions of extra votes to leftists. Again, no matter how you want to say there is no California in a popular vote it is simply not factually true. California will still be there and will still be running the elections.

In an electoral college election California would deliver a block of 55 electoral votes. However, in a popular vote nobody is constrained by the artificial borders drawn on a map back in 1850. Everybody's vote would be individual.

Wrong again. It's up to the states to decide how to run things. There are 50 states to make their own little experiments. If one state turns into something that someone doesn't like they can move to a state that they prefer. Also, you have a significantly greater chance of effecting change at the state level, with some effort, than pissing in the wind to have any effect at the federal level.

Sorry, no. You lost according to the system in place and that system is exponentially better than what you support. Way smarter people than you created it for a reason and that reason was validated.

And if you want to make the argument that it's up to the state to define things, that's fine, but that does go directly against the principles you claimed were important to you a number of pages back.

As for the "way smarter people created it for a reason," several points on that:

1)Many of those people were slave owners.
2)They created a system in which black people could not vote.
3)They created a system in which women couldn't vote.
4)Recognizing their own imperfection, they made the system alterable in the form of amendments.

Unless you're arguing that we should go back to a slave owning society in which black people and women can't vote?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

So you support a system even older of direct democracy which has done poorly in the past? I went through the wiki list of countries that use direct elections, france and russia were the only real first world countries on the list, while the us uses electoral college, germany and ital use a mix of the electoral college and parliament, britain and canada have their leadership elected by those they elect, plus the monarchy thing.

You must really want to suck up to russias example, with the direct election stuffs. France changed their electoral college after the first time it had a different outcome than the popular vote, but france itself in the last decade has been the poster child of mob rule.

It is all mob rule. The only difference is the size of the mob. Today a mob of 538 people are picking our President.

 

[code1211]

How come Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida are not considered mobs but California is? Those three states beat California by 12 votes. :roll:

Was that characterization made in the link?

 

[Greenbeard]

Direct democracy whether in elections or for laws far outdates the electoral college since direct democracy originates from ancient greece.

"Direct democracy in elections"? Election of others to make policy on your behalf is how you know you're not in a direct democracy. The method of electing your representatives has no bearing on whether or not you live in a direct democracy--if you're electing a representative you plainly do not.

 

[beerftw]

"Direct democracy in elections"? Election of others to make policy on your behalf is how you know you're not in a direct democracy. The method of electing your representatives has no bearing on whether or not you live in a direct democracy--if you're electing a representative you plainly do not.

I was referring towards the election of representatives, not actual direct democracy. Should have said direct elections rather than democracy.

 

[beerftw]

I must have missed that post from you. Could you identify where I can locate it?

The post you quoted where you called the electoral college outdated relic from the 1700's, but advocate a much older system of direct elections.

If you want I can just link backwards for you, but if you wuoted me you were already able to read that quote.

 

[Fishking]

In an electoral college election California would deliver a block of 55 electoral votes. However, in a popular vote nobody is constrained by the artificial borders drawn on a map back in 1850. Everybody's vote would be individual.

Everybody's vote IS individual. It's just individual at the state level.

And if you want to make the argument that it's up to the state to define things, that's fine, but that does go directly against the principles you claimed were important to you a number of pages back.

Not making an argument so much as stating that's how it is. And there is no contradiction, just your lacking proper understanding of what I'm saying. 50 states = 50 choices for those citizens to run things how they like. This gives people options to chose from. A liberal may like to live in California and a conservative to live in Texas. Different strokes for different folks. There is no need to get into the business of another states, whether I like it or not.

As for the "way smarter people created it for a reason," several points on that:

1)Many of those people were slave owners.
2)They created a system in which black people could not vote.
3)They created a system in which women couldn't vote.
4)Recognizing their own imperfection, they made the system alterable in the form of amendments.

Unless you're arguing that we should go back to a slave owning society in which black people and women can't vote?

1, 2, and 3 are irrelevant. The principles of the system still hold valid, though there were certain things that were not. 4 is a good point but it takes actually passing an amendment, not changing it via judicial activism, as liberals are wont to do.

Again, the principles are still valid and they set up a system that is better than what you propose.

 

[Cardinal]

Everybody's vote IS individual. It's just individual at the state level.

It's individual at every level in a popular vote. In such a case you're not voting as a citizen of, say, Kansas, but as a citizen of the United States.

Not making an argument so much as stating that's how it is. And there is no contradiction, just your lacking proper understanding of what I'm saying. 50 states = 50 choices for those citizens to run things how they like. This gives people options to chose from. A liberal may like to live in California and a conservative to live in Texas. Different strokes for different folks. There is no need to get into the business of another states, whether I like it or not.

Well if you're just going to state "how it is" then state it and leave. I'm saying that the current system is nonsensical because it rewards concentrations of demographics. In case you haven't caught on, that's what allows voices within gigantic swaths of rural Republicans areas to be gobbled up by giant blue-leaning urban areas. They are invisible.

1, 2, and 3 are irrelevant. The principles of the system still hold valid, though there were certain things that were not. 4 is a good point but it takes actually passing an amendment, not changing it via judicial activism, as liberals are wont to do.

Again, the principles are still valid and they set up a system that is better than what you propose.

They're relevant in that they were beginning concepts in the country that we would never be acceptable with today, so putting the founding fathers on a pedestal is illogical unless you believe everything they did was perfect.