Group Pushes Electoral College Reform

  • Thread starter Thread starter WanderAimlessly
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
MikeWM:
I seem to have been the only person in this thread to have said it might be a good idea to get rid of the electoral college in the 21st century - so I guess you’re attacking me. Thanks a bunch 😦

Mike
Click to expand...
Yes – offering your opinion on how we should run our country.

You note we disagree.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
40.png
gilliam:
Commenting on his experience as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, James Wilson of Pennsylvania said: “The subject of presidential selection has greatly divided the House, and will also divide people out of doors. It is in truth the most difficult of all on which we have had to decide.” So intense was the debate over presidential selection that Max Ferrand, in his account of the Constitutional Convention, wrote that all other issues “paled into insignificance in comparison with the problem before the Convention in determining a satisfactory method of electing the executive.”

usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/politics/eleccol/katz.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for that cite. My recollection about this event is that the structure and makeup of Congress, the location of the capital, the balancing of and separation of powers, how to count slaves for electoral purposes, and the absence of a Bill of Rights were all bigger issues than the Electoral College. But then I wasn’t there.

Still, I think there may be a bit of hyperbole in Ferrand’s statement. Certainly the heavy lifting in determining the number of electors had been done earlier in regard to Congress; the Convention in the end decided they didn’t need to reinvent the wheel here, just tweak it.

And the link also suggests that the Electoral College itself wasn’t that big an issue for the smaller states, so long as they thought it wouldn’t work:
The concern of the smaller states was ameliorated because most delegates firmly believed that the Electoral College would rarely produce a President; that election would ultimately be thrown to the House of Representatives where the power of the small states was guaranteed because each state, regardless of size, would have one vote.
Click to expand...
40.png
jman507:
Its simple really…But of course that would mean that the bigger populated areas & states would have a lot more influence than the smaller populated areas & states. SO the big states had to make it worth their while by making some compromises. So in the legislative branch you have the way they set up the House and the Senate & in the executive branch you have the Electoral College.
Click to expand...
I don’t dispute the logic in the solution they found - other solutions may work as well or better, but this system has served us pretty well for 215 years. But again, I always learned the big state/small state compromise regarding Congress was THE big issue. The fact that they later used this same solution in crafting the Electoral College doesn’t automatically mean the Electoral College was as tricky or important a problem.
 
40.png
Digitonomy:
I don’t dispute the logic in the solution they found - other solutions may work as well or better, but this system has served us pretty well for 215 years. But again, I always learned the big state/small state compromise regarding Congress was THE big issue. The fact that they later used this same solution in crafting the Electoral College doesn’t automatically mean the Electoral College was as tricky or important a problem.
Click to expand...
Then again that only matters so much regardless of how they viewed it back then, other than to say it was not put there for no reason. But the thing is I’m pretty sure you’d have to admend the consititution, by then it would be pretty well drawn out that it would not be in a small states best intrest. It would take a lot of work to get it passed, especially for something that comes around once every four years. Not that it is any small event when it does come around.
 
40.png
Digitonomy:
Thanks for that cite. My recollection about this event is that the structure and makeup of Congress, the location of the capital, the balancing of and separation of powers, how to count slaves for electoral purposes, and the absence of a Bill of Rights were all bigger issues than the Electoral College. But then I wasn’t there.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the point.

Remember, the Constitutional Convention conducted its deliberations in secret. The Electoral College compromise was so successful in balancing the big state – little state interests that there was very little controversy when the proposed Constituition was made public.

The lack of an “issue” coalescing around the Electoral College shows what a successful compromise it was.
 
vern humphrey:
Yes – offering your opinion on how we should run our country.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. Americans never offer opinions on how other countries should be run, after all 😉 I guess I’ve imagined the invasions, bombings, and interference in dozens of countries in the last 60 years. Relatively speaking, a few words shouldn’t do you much harm.
You note we disagree.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Click to expand...
Some of ‘you’, perhaps. Not all of you - hence the original article.

MIke
 
Awesome reply Mike!!! 👍

Sadly, this is the arrogance of American society. “We can tell others how they should be and even stick our noses into it, but dont dare assume to tell us how to conduct ourselves” 😦

And for a guy from U.K, you seem to have a much better and truer understanding of what goes on here than many of our own citizens. 🙂

May you continue to be blessed with wisdom and light. Many of your posts have opened my eyes! 👍
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Ah, yes. Americans never offer opinions on how other countries should be run, after all 😉 I guess I’ve imagined the invasions, bombings, and interference in dozens of countries in the last 60 years. Relatively speaking, a few words shouldn’t do you much harm.
Click to expand...
And that makes your opinions on the Electoral College valid?
 
vern humphrey:
And that makes your opinions on the Electoral College valid?
Click to expand...
Last time I looked, I can have valid opinions on anything I want.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
The fact you think it is a bad idea doesn’t make it an invalid opinion. You’re not the arbiter of what people are allowed to think.

Mike
Click to expand...
Most people who don’t live in heavily populated states think it is a bad idea. Most people who live in heavily populated states like the idea because they think they can control the country that way.

It has been that way for, oh, a little over 200 years or so. 😉
 
40.png
gilliam:
Most people who don’t live in heavily populated states think it is a bad idea. Most people who live in heavily populated states like the idea because they think they can control the country that way.

It has been that way for, oh, a little over 200 years or so. 😉
Click to expand...
Oh, I can imagine that to be the case. On the other hand though, it seems like this base is covered by the 2 Senators per state method, which I think is a very good idea. The bias to the smaller states is just significantly less in the electoral college than in the senate.

It still seems to me that it could be helpful for democracy to get rid of the electoral college. The fact that one person can get more votes than another and lose doesn’t bother me too much, as I see why the system is there. But the current system does create ‘no-go’ states (or rather ‘don’t-need-to-go’ or ‘no-point-in-going’ states) which would be changed, in my book probably for the better, by a simple majority system.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
It still seems to me that it could be helpful for democracy to get rid of the electoral college.
Click to expand...
This might be where you’re running into trouble. The US is not a democracy. We are a representitive republic. There is a marked difference between the 2.
 
40.png
Troy7:
Awesome reply Mike!!! 👍
Click to expand...
No idea what to say in response to this other than ‘thanks’ 🙂 and I’ll go and take the humility pills now 😉

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
The fact you think it is a bad idea doesn’t make it an invalid opinion. You’re not the arbiter of what people are allowed to think.

Mike
Click to expand...
While I can’t speak for Vern, I agree that your idea is a bad idea. You’re certainly free to share it and offer why you think it’s a good one. Those of us who disagree are free to do the same.
 
40.png
Geldain:
This might be where you’re running into trouble.
Click to expand...
I hadn’t noticed I was, but…
The US is not a democracy. We are a representitive republic. There is a marked difference between the 2.
Click to expand...
Technically speaking, fair enough (though it is clear what I meant). Replace ‘democracy’ with ‘voter engagement’ or ‘voter interest’ or ‘getting the people to care’.

Mike
 
40.png
MikeWM:
Oh, I can imagine that to be the case. On the other hand though, it seems like this base is covered by the 2 Senators per state method, which I think is a very good idea. The bias to the smaller states is just significantly less in the electoral college than in the senate.

It still seems to me that it could be helpful for democracy to get rid of the electoral college. The fact that one person can get more votes than another and lose doesn’t bother me too much, as I see why the system is there. But the current system does create ‘no-go’ states (or rather ‘don’t-need-to-go’ or ‘no-point-in-going’ states) which would be changed, in my book probably for the better, by a simple majority system.

Mike
Click to expand...
In which case we’d be ruled completely by California, & a few mega-cities…talk about a depressing thought. 😦
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top