Electoral College; Yes or No?
- Thread starter sbk1234
- Start date
I'd say that at least India, Russia, Brazil and Germany, being all Federal Republics, do have such strong internal divisions.
Many European countries have a strong sense of regional identities inside their country, but they are not always endorsed in the political system (for example, Spanish Automonous Communities in Spain are not sovereign but they enjoy a great deal of latitude, while Italian Regions have a strong identity but they have quite limited powers).
Many European countries have a strong sense of regional identities inside their country, but they are not always endorsed in the political system (for example, Spanish Automonous Communities in Spain are not sovereign but they enjoy a great deal of latitude, while Italian Regions have a strong identity but they have quite limited powers).
I'm sure one of our Candadian cousins can answer that or correct me if I'm wrong. But doesn't Canada have a Westminsiter style form of government with the leader of the party winning the largest number of states becomming the head of Government?
Perhaps Russia might be a slighlty better choice. In which I believe there President iis electd by popular vote. (By ranking candiates in order of preferrence)
Unless I'm mistaken if a candidate receives 50%+1 of the vote they are declared the winner. If not the candiate with the lowest number of votes is elimanted and second preferrence votes come into account until one of the candiates receives 50%+1 or more of the vote.
Perhaps Russia might be a slighlty better choice. In which I believe there President iis electd by popular vote. (By ranking candiates in order of preferrence)
Unless I'm mistaken if a candidate receives 50%+1 of the vote they are declared the winner. If not the candiate with the lowest number of votes is elimanted and second preferrence votes come into account until one of the candiates receives 50%+1 or more of the vote.
You already have two.
EDIT:
Largest number of seats in the House of Commons, not states.
The United States is not, nor ever a democracy, it has been, since the signing of the constitution, a Republic; a democratically elected Republic, but a Republic just the same.
If we shifted our Presidential elections from the Electoral College to a popular vote, we would in essence be shifting us closer to a democracy and further away from a Republic. Of course, this has been the trend for some time; as the 17th Amendment did a lot of damage to states rights, and states ability to rule, which is more Republic, and less Democracy.
Personally, I would shift it the other direction, and instead of giving each state the number of electors based on their congressional representation; I would give each and every state, only 1 vote.
I know some states, like CA, and TX would still get written off; since they would still only vote one direction. But, it would put more states into that “swing” state category.
If we shifted our Presidential elections from the Electoral College to a popular vote, we would in essence be shifting us closer to a democracy and further away from a Republic. Of course, this has been the trend for some time; as the 17th Amendment did a lot of damage to states rights, and states ability to rule, which is more Republic, and less Democracy.
Personally, I would shift it the other direction, and instead of giving each state the number of electors based on their congressional representation; I would give each and every state, only 1 vote.
I know some states, like CA, and TX would still get written off; since they would still only vote one direction. But, it would put more states into that “swing” state category.
The UK had a chance to vote by referedum on adopting this style of election for it's MP's during 2011. The majority decied to keep the first past the post system.
Regardless of your view on which is the better system it put an end to the debate for now at least as the people had spoken.
It wouldn't put anymore states into a swing category. It would still be winner take all. Kansas would still be red and California would still be blue.
Props on removing what little democratic representation there is in the college though.
^ Yeah, it'd be massively more unfair and produce a huge artificial shift of power even further to the right. It'd effectively mean no more Democratic presidents ever unless the party shifted to the right of Rick Perry - which no Democrats would ever want. The presidential nominees would have next to nothing in common with nearly all the other governors, Congresspeople, and leaders.
So, your idea is to effectively destroy the nation's largest political party based on a flimsy and outmoded ideology that the country at large would in no way agree with. Nice.
So, your idea is to effectively destroy the nation's largest political party based on a flimsy and outmoded ideology that the country at large would in no way agree with. Nice.
Wow. Nothing personal but it is this kind of wrong thinking that is holding the nation back.
I am all for allowing states to mostly go about their business in peace (as long as they respect human rights and actually have democratic republics instead of corporate kleptocracies). I believe that the Senate is a necessary feature of our government and that the smallest state should always get at least one seat in the House.
But....
A democracy means rule by the people. It can mean that literally as in the sense of Ancient Athens or a New England town (at least as I understand it) in that the People are the legislative branch of government while holding power over the other two.
The word republic has two definitions that I am aware of. A republic can be any form of government that says it is a republic, which usually involves not having a king in charge. A republic can also be defined as having elected officials handling matters on behalf of the electorate. The original republic, the Roman Republic was just that. Every year the assemblies of all the citizens (who showed up on election day) voted in officers for that year and approved or rejected their officers' proposals for new laws.
The United States has always been that kind of republic. We elect a president to carry out the laws and a Congress to make new ones. We have also been, in a limited sense, a democracy in that power not specifically reserved to the government is reserved to the people. We are a democratic republic.
Now you, and many others like you, seem to be working under a rather strange definition of Republic (always with a capital R) where Republic is defined as the most perfect form of government ever as written down in the Constitution. I am not going to accuse you of believing so, but many people with this belief seem to think the Constitution as originally written is the next best thing to the Bible. The people who wrote it didn't even believe that.
Getting rid of the Electoral College would not threaten the American way of life any more than electing Senators has. Has the quality of the Senate really gone down since candidates went from literally bribing states legislators to get their votes to campaigning for office state wide?
A popularly elected president might ignore Swing States in favor of just stumping for votes. But the average American already votes for the guy s/he wants and the guy who gets the most votes is the one who is usually elected.
Good question, but how would we judge "quality"? One could argue the 17th amendment just shifted where the bribes go.
This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. This is what we need.
This shows a profound lack of understanding of what constitutes a democracy and a republic.
In the most general meaning, a republic is form of state, where the country is considered a "common good" ("res publica"), and not the legal propriety of the ruler (as in the case of a monarchy). It says nothing about the powers of government, suffrage, personal freedoms, etc.
At the same time, a democracy is a system in which all citizens have an equal say in the choice of government, which can be exercised directly or through elected representatives. It can be a republic, a monarchy, even a dictatorship.
So your argument that "the US is a republic, not a democracy" is simply bogus (even if it's bogus I've seen a lot of times).The US is a republic with the characteristics of a democracy.
For comparison, the UK is a monarchy with the characteristics of a democracy, and China is a republic with the characteristics of a dictatorship. The US and the UK are both democracies, but one is a republic and the other a monarchy. The US and China are both republics, but one is a democracy and the other is a dictatorship.
Don't forget North Korea which is a republic with the characteristics of a monarchy. Or Somalia which is a republic with the characteristics of an anarchy.
Whenever someone starts chattering about how the US is a republic, not a democracy, check your wallet, and watch for your life.
The electoral college should be abolished. Federal elections should be held on weekends, separate from state elections, financed by the federal government. Broadcast frequencies and natural monopolies in optical cable communications should be regulated to provide equal access for campaigns for a reasonable set period of time. No voting system is completely free of possible paradoxes but there should be serious considerations to different types of voting systems. Also, the requirement that electoral victory is not just a plurality but a simple majority of the electorate is worthy serious consideration.
And, while we're floating around in the dream world where bourgeois democracy is still reformable, we should abolish the Senate. Every state will still have equal representation: Zero senators.
The electoral college should be abolished. Federal elections should be held on weekends, separate from state elections, financed by the federal government. Broadcast frequencies and natural monopolies in optical cable communications should be regulated to provide equal access for campaigns for a reasonable set period of time. No voting system is completely free of possible paradoxes but there should be serious considerations to different types of voting systems. Also, the requirement that electoral victory is not just a plurality but a simple majority of the electorate is worthy serious consideration.
And, while we're floating around in the dream world where bourgeois democracy is still reformable, we should abolish the Senate. Every state will still have equal representation: Zero senators.
OK; listened/read everyone’s points and many have stated that Republics seem to always involve democracy as the method in which representation is selected.
I beg to differ, it is true, that throughout history, most Republics have selected their representation by a democratic method; however that is not the defining role which makes a Republic a republic.
A Republic is a form of government, where the larger political body, is made up of smaller political bodies, and the smaller political bodies have equal representation with the larger political body.
The fact that each state, regardless of size, has two senators is a prime example of this.
As our country was founded; our founding fathers, envisioned many problems with a pure Republic, and with a pure Democracy. Hence, we have two houses, one to represent the people, and one to represent the smaller political bodies, i.e. the individual States. Each house, was supposed to act like a check on each other; much like Rome, the Republic, had two Counsels, to counteract each other.
Each State is sovereign to itself; and reserves certain powers, and responsibilities. Many people, and it seems here as well; have a vision of our country being lead from top down; and that seems to be the current trend of most legislation and executive orders. However, once again, I differ in this perception. The 10th Amendment doesn’t say that powers are delegated to the State; but that Powers not DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution are RESERVED by the States, or to the people.
It’s this bottom up thinking, that I much prefer, and I suspect, most of you also prefer; the problem is, most have issues understanding how it works, or why it works, and what the consequences of it working are.
Be it a Democracy or a Republic, neither form of government has anything to do with the powers of government, suffrage, civil rights or personal freedoms.
I suspect; that most who oppose my single vote concept, oppose it because they fear a loss of power in representation, and thereby, don’t like the idea of being told what to do, by a bunch of rednecks.
So, let me ask you this; how do you think the rednecks feel about you telling them, how to live their lives.
Personally; I would rather it be, a live and let live system, where if people in one local feel it best to do one thing, then let them, and people in another local can do something else, and neither could tell the other what to do.
By the way; just to stir the pot a bit; I also want to remove geographic representation, in the House of Representatives. In today’s modern society, where people can travel hundreds of miles in an hour, conduct business across oceans in real time, and telecommute to work; ideological differences should superseded geographical locations.
OH, and for the record, I don’t think Republic has a capital “R” because it is superior, I only capitalize it when I’m referring to it as a government structure; much like I capitalize the “D” in Democracy when I’m talking about it as a government, and leave it a little “d” when I’m referring to it as a selection method.
I beg to differ, it is true, that throughout history, most Republics have selected their representation by a democratic method; however that is not the defining role which makes a Republic a republic.
A Republic is a form of government, where the larger political body, is made up of smaller political bodies, and the smaller political bodies have equal representation with the larger political body.
The fact that each state, regardless of size, has two senators is a prime example of this.
As our country was founded; our founding fathers, envisioned many problems with a pure Republic, and with a pure Democracy. Hence, we have two houses, one to represent the people, and one to represent the smaller political bodies, i.e. the individual States. Each house, was supposed to act like a check on each other; much like Rome, the Republic, had two Counsels, to counteract each other.
Each State is sovereign to itself; and reserves certain powers, and responsibilities. Many people, and it seems here as well; have a vision of our country being lead from top down; and that seems to be the current trend of most legislation and executive orders. However, once again, I differ in this perception. The 10th Amendment doesn’t say that powers are delegated to the State; but that Powers not DELEGATED to the United States by the Constitution are RESERVED by the States, or to the people.
It’s this bottom up thinking, that I much prefer, and I suspect, most of you also prefer; the problem is, most have issues understanding how it works, or why it works, and what the consequences of it working are.
Be it a Democracy or a Republic, neither form of government has anything to do with the powers of government, suffrage, civil rights or personal freedoms.
I suspect; that most who oppose my single vote concept, oppose it because they fear a loss of power in representation, and thereby, don’t like the idea of being told what to do, by a bunch of rednecks.
So, let me ask you this; how do you think the rednecks feel about you telling them, how to live their lives.
Personally; I would rather it be, a live and let live system, where if people in one local feel it best to do one thing, then let them, and people in another local can do something else, and neither could tell the other what to do.
By the way; just to stir the pot a bit; I also want to remove geographic representation, in the House of Representatives. In today’s modern society, where people can travel hundreds of miles in an hour, conduct business across oceans in real time, and telecommute to work; ideological differences should superseded geographical locations.
OH, and for the record, I don’t think Republic has a capital “R” because it is superior, I only capitalize it when I’m referring to it as a government structure; much like I capitalize the “D” in Democracy when I’m talking about it as a government, and leave it a little “d” when I’m referring to it as a selection method.
The thing that would bother me the most about the Electoral College if I were American, (and maybe that has been adressed in this thread which I only skimmed over because I'm lazy) is, who are those fucking "Electors", and are they accountable to anybody? Wouldn't it be possible in some insane parallel universe for Obama to get 49% of the votes, Romney 51% and the Electors choosing fucking Ron Paul as president?
At best the electoral college is a useless, vestigial anachronism of American politics, at best it's a pointless complication, at worst it could change elections in ways the people never wanted and never voted for.
At best the electoral college is a useless, vestigial anachronism of American politics, at best it's a pointless complication, at worst it could change elections in ways the people never wanted and never voted for.
No, that's federalism. Republics can be centralistic too.
Oh just brilliant. Ladies and gentlemen, the United ______ of America.
Out of one side of your mouth, you are talking about breaking things down to a local, parochial level. Out of the other side, you are talking about removing the idea of geographical boundaries.
What are you actually advocating?
The electors are not bound to vote the way their state went and can, in fact, vote for another candidate on the ballot. So in your scenario they can't vote for Ron Paul but can vote for someone else who was on the ticket.
Tom Hoefling 2012!