Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 2 votes

Electoral college


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,308 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:30 AM

The electorial college needs to be changed.  Currently in 48etates it is winner takes all. That means in most cases one or two cities in each state decides who gets that state's vote.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#2    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 27 March 2013 - 01:37 PM

Interesting information on the Electoral College:

Quote


Why Was The Electoral College Created?
by Marc Schulman
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
(See All of the Federalist 68)
Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others.

The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states.

One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a recipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century.
While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing. One way of modifying the system s to eliminate the winner take all part of it. The method that the states vote for the electoral college is not mandated by the consitution but is decided by the states. Two states do not use the winner take all system, Maine and Nebraska. It would be difficult but not impossible to get other states to change their systems, unfortunately the party that has the advantage in the state is unlikely to agree to a unilateral change.


Also:

Quote


Four presidents were elected after losing the popular vote.
  • John Quincy Adams in 1824 (Andrew Jackson won the popular vote. Jackson also led in electoral vote but did not get the required majority so the House of Representatives decided the election.
  • Rutherford Hayes in 1876 (Samuel Tilden won the popular vote)
  • Benjamin Harrison in 1888 ( incumbent president Grover Cleveland won the popular vote)


Edited by Kowalski, 27 March 2013 - 01:38 PM.


#3    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,156 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 27 March 2013 - 02:20 PM

View Postdanielost, on 27 March 2013 - 07:30 AM, said:

The electorial college needs to be changed.  Currently in 48etates it is winner takes all. That means in most cases one or two cities in each state decides who gets that state's vote.

What changes would you propose?

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#4    danielost

danielost

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 31,308 posts
  • Joined:26 Nov 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:the only known inhabited planet in the universe

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:15 PM

View PostBama13, on 27 March 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:



What changes would you propose?

Do what they do in main. Along congressional disterects.

I am a Mormon.  If I don't use Mormons believe, those my beliefs only.
I do not go to church haven't for thirty years.
There are other Mormons on this site. So if I have misspoken about the beliefs. I welcome their input.
I am not perfect and never will be. I do strive to be true to myself. I do my best to stay true to the Mormon faith. Thanks for caring and if you don't peace be with you.

#5    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,156 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:27 PM

View Postdanielost, on 27 March 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

Do what they do in main. Along congressional disterects.

So you would keep the electoral college, just make it by district instead of by state? Well that would be up to each state. Some split their electoral college votes now based on the popular vote in their state. Most don't becasue they realize that it weakens their political clout.

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#6    pallidin

pallidin

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,753 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 27 March 2013 - 05:58 PM

I understand the "partial" rationale of having an Electoral College, but I do NOT agree with it as a whole in electing a US president.

Of course, there have been occasions(2, I think?) where the popular vote was deemed more relevant than the EC, yet it still seems the EC has far too much power.

IF anything, the EC should exist SOLELY as an advisory to popular vote.


#7    Kowalski

Kowalski

    The Original Penguin Conspiracy Theorist

  • Member
  • 4,102 posts
  • Joined:14 Mar 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:* Madgascar *

  • It's All Some Kind Of Wacked Out Conspiracy....

Posted 27 March 2013 - 06:26 PM

Interesting website to check out: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Thomas Jefferson hated the electoral college.

I have ever considered the constitutional mode of election ultimately by the Legislature voting by States as the most dangerous blot in our Constitution, and one which some unlucky chance will some day hit and give us a pope and antipope. - Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to George Hay, 1823.

Here's another good website: http://www.historyho...ctoral_college/


#8    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,156 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 27 March 2013 - 07:27 PM

View Postpallidin, on 27 March 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

I understand the "partial" rationale of having an Electoral College, but I do NOT agree with it as a whole in electing a US president.

Of course, there have been occasions(2, I think?) where the popular vote was deemed more relevant than the EC, yet it still seems the EC has far too much power.

IF anything, the EC should exist SOLELY as an advisory to popular vote.

The electoral college was devised so that the small (population wise) states voters would not be swamped by the larger states voters. Since each state gets two senators and at least one representative each state has at least three EC votes. If we go by population then states like Wyoming and Alaska might feel like they have lost their say in who gets elected to the Presidency to the larger states like New York and California (each of which have cities with larger populations than Wyoming or Alaska).

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#9    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,396 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:06 PM

Get rid of it all  and just count the votes .   Big city, small city, none of it makes any difference if you just count the votes .  The guy/party with the most  Wins!*

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#10    RavenHawk

RavenHawk

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,547 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:10 PM

Yes indeed, the EC was originally setup to prevent manipulation.  And the Founding Fathers understood that.  But yet in 2008, that is what happened.  15 of the most populated counties swung the election.  Now, I am not a fan of the popular vote because that results in mob rule and plus there are too many low information voters out there.  We need to take the EC down to the county level.  One vote per county.

How many counties are there in the United States?

There are 3,141 counties and county equivalents in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. They are categorized as follows:

3,007 counties
16 Boroughs in Alaska
11 Census Areas in Alaska (for areas not organized into Boroughs by the State)
64 Parishes in Louisiana
42 Independent Cities (1 in Maryland, 1 in Missouri, 1 in Nevada, and the remainder in Virginia)
1 District - the Federal District or District of Columbia.

This does not include Commonwealths and territories with what are generally county equivalents, which are as follows:

78 Municipalities in Puerto Rico
2 Districts in the U.S. Virgin Islands
9 Election Districts in Guam
17 Districts in the Northern Mariana Islands
and
5 Districts in American Samoa


So that would be 3252 electors,  1627 to win.  Do away with the states having winner take all.  This would make manipulation much harder (which would lessen the fears that Jefferson had).  Voters on the West Coast would still be *in it*.  It would also swing the power toward the land owner as it should be.  Land owners have more of a stake in the process.  The election should not be based on popular vote but by the one more capable as Hamilton thought.

*Signature removed* Forum Rules

#11    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,875 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:14 PM

View Postlightly, on 27 March 2013 - 08:06 PM, said:

Get rid of it all  and just count the votes .   Big city, small city, none of it makes any difference if you just count the votes .  The guy/party with the most  Wins!*
The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a Constitutional Republic.  The Founding Fathers were observant enough to notice that voters from rural/agricultural areas and voters from metropolitan/commercial areas had very different interests and that the interests of both should have equal chance at representation, which is why the Electoral College was developed.  I agree that the "All or nothing" way it works today is broken because it no longer does what it's original intent was.  The House members of the Electoral College should each vote according to the majority vote in their district, and the Senate members should vote based on the majority vote of their state, but not in a simple way: if the vote is split in such a way that no candidate has more than 70% of the total popular vote in a state, then the Senate votes should be split between the two candidates with the highest percentage of votes, if one candidate does have more than 70%, then that candidate should get the 2 Senate votes.  Getting rid of the Electoral College would result in the disenfranchisement of all but the majority.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#12    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 6,396 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:24 PM

thanks IamsSon ,  ya, i dunno..  is there really that much difference nowadays between the interests of  " voters from rural/agricultural areas and voters from metropolitan/commercial areas" ?

let's have a democray then...  coidn't be woise.  lol

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#13    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,875 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:39 PM

View Postlightly, on 27 March 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

thanks IamsSon ,  ya, i dunno..  is there really that much difference nowadays between the interests of  " voters from rural/agricultural areas and voters from metropolitan/commercial areas" ?

let's have a democray then...  coidn't be woise.  lol
Yes, there are still significant differences between the interests of city dwellers and non-city dwellers, between voters in the coasts and voters in the middle of the country, between voters in the northern states and voters in the south and southwestern states.  Democracy at anything larger than the county level is nothing but mob rule.  I prefer the constitutional republic.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#14    pallidin

pallidin

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Member
  • 7,753 posts
  • Joined:09 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Somewhere south of the North Pole

  • "When life gets you down... swim with a dolphin"

Posted 27 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

View PostRavenHawk, on 27 March 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

Now, I am not a fan of the popular vote because that results in mob rule and plus there are too many low information voters out there.

OK. That's your opinion, and I respect opinions(versus those who have none)

However, I strongly disagree.

The EC was founded during a time when the general populace did not have access to intimate governmental issues. Fine.
As such, it CLEARLY had it's place. (low information voters)

That IS NOT THE CASE NOW, nor has been for at least a decade or so.

Furthermore, the EC has turned into a strictly partisan-divided institution, much to the disdain of us common people whom want solutions and not party bickering.

I think the notion of "mob rule" is wrong. That would be like saying "YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT, only the EC's VOTE counts"

That, to me, is not healthy for America, as is suggest there is no need AT ALL for populace vote. And that is SERIOUSLY WRONG, as that puts government by the government instead of government by the people.

Edited by pallidin, 27 March 2013 - 08:51 PM.


#15    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,875 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:19 PM

View Postpallidin, on 27 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

OK. That's your opinion, and I respect opinions(versus those who have none)

However, I strongly disagree.

The EC was founded during a time when the general populace did not have access to intimate governmental issues. Fine.
As such, it CLEARLY had it's place. (low information voters)

That IS NOT THE CASE NOW, nor has been for at least a decade or so.

Furthermore, the EC has turned into a strictly partisan-divided institution, much to the disdain of us common people whom want solutions and not party bickering.

I think the notion of "mob rule" is wrong. That would be like saying "YOUR VOTE DOESN'T COUNT, only the EC's VOTE counts"

That, to me, is not healthy for America, as is suggest there is no need AT ALL for populace vote. And that is SERIOUSLY WRONG, as that puts government by the government instead of government by the people.
Although information is available, just the fact that there are voters walking around who cannot tell you who the Vice President is, who their House Representative is, what the difference between leftist and conservative is, why what is happening in Greece (Where is that?  Wasn't that an old movie with the guy from Pulp Fiction?) impacts us, or even how many times they are legally allowed to vote is more than clear indication that voters, despite the fact that information is much more readily available, are not well informed.

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users