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 it 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.

The EC is an archaic institution. It is obsolete and counter productive. It is high time it was deep sixed.

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 it is broken.

Broken? In what way?

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.

Well, the Founding Fathers, many of whom were Federalists, thought that the masses wouldn't be the most reliable means of electing presidents, and prefered that the best canidate, not the most popular canidate, would get elected. That's the Federalist standpoint. Jeffersonians believed that the "informed masses" should decide who should be elected, and would have prefered the system to cater towards a state-driven election. Thus, you have today a state-driven electoral college in which the "informed masses" elect the president not through popularity, but rather designed to elect the "better" president.

That's the history. Disagree with them if you want, but that's how the electoral college came about.

Originally Posted by C-101

Broken? In what way?



Well, the Founding Fathers, many of whom were Federalists, thought that the masses wouldn't be the most reliable means of electing presidents, and prefered that the best canidate, not the most popular canidate, would get elected. That's the Federalist standpoint. Jeffersonians believed that the "informed masses" should decide who should be elected, and would have prefered the system to cater towards a state-driven election. Thus, you have today a state-driven electoral college in which the "informed masses" elect the president not through popularity, but rather designed to elect the "better" president.

That's the history. Disagree with them if you want, but that's how the electoral college came about.

You are right that there is a history on it, but that is irrelevant because that idea from the founding fathers has shown to be faulty.

One problem with the ellectoral college is that the state ellected officials always (99% of the time) but all of their ellectoral votoes for one single candidate depending soly on what most people have voted for. So once again, it is still the "masses" that are voting for the president.

But even if the system of the ellected officials voting on their own was used, then I don't believe that there is much evidence of that being better then a popular vote.

There is also problems of how politicians will mostly put money to swing states, and many other reasons. (I wrote something fairly long against the ellectoral college, and I had many other things to say)

Originally Posted by randyjohnson

Why do we still go by the electoral vote?

Because it works.

It saved us from Al Gore.

Good enough for me.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-ele...ge-broken.html

http://www.perspectives.com/forums/v...ump_to=3945996

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politi...is-broken.html

"Randy Johnson" - 6 posts Political Hotwire
"Randy Johnson" - 7 posts Debate Politics.com
"Randy Johnson" - 2 posts perspectives.com
"Randy Johnson" - 9 posts usmessageboard.com

The electoral college is a good idea, but if I was in charge, the electoral votes for a given state would be distributed proportionally to the popular vote for that state.

Originally Posted by Djinn

The electoral college is a good idea, but if I was in charge, the electoral votes for a given state would be distributed proportionally to the popular vote for that state.

That is actually what I would want it too, that way large states with homogenious political opinions wouldn't be able to control the politics of the nation.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

That is actually what I would want it too, that way large states with homogenious political opinions wouldn't be able to control the politics of the nation.

It would be interesting to see how such a change would have impacted the results of the last few presidential elections.

Originally Posted by Djinn

It would be interesting to see how such a change would have impacted the results of the last few presidential elections.

Even beyond me being pissed that Kerry didn't win, it would help so much by making politicians actually give a shit about the partisans in the strong red and blue states.

I think removing the current ellectoral college would even help us with partisan politics, from partisan people, which I see as one of the biggest problems with our government.

Originally Posted by Nerv14

You are right that there is a history on it, but that is irrelevant because that idea from the founding fathers has shown to be faulty.

One problem with the ellectoral college is that the state ellected officials always (99% of the time) but all of their ellectoral votoes for one single candidate depending soly on what most people have voted for. So once again, it is still the "masses" that are voting for the president.

But even if the system of the ellected officials voting on their own was used, then I don't believe that there is much evidence of that being better then a popular vote.

There is also problems of how politicians will mostly put money to swing states, and many other reasons. (I wrote something fairly long against the ellectoral college, and I had many other things to say)

I view it as sort of a non-issue. Since the 12th Amendment, the electoral college has served our election system well for the most part. Early in our nation's history, there were electoral votes that split apart from the rest of a particular state, so it's not unheard of for a state to split some of its votes.

Though I do disagree on the "masses" issue. As evidenced in the 2000 election, the masses were overuled by the electoral college and I think therefore its purpose is revealed. The benefit of an electoral college is that every state has its worth in electing the president, countering the voter stupidity out there and lessening the power of major cities in elections. So, the college prevents the uninformed masses from putting the wrong person in the White House. Hooray for James Madison.

Originally Posted by randyjohnson

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.

If Gore would've won his home state, then Florida's outcome would have been pointless. So ask yourself, how do you lose your home state?

BTW, God Bless Tennesee.