Defend the Ellectoral College!!

[Brian37]

Now while from an evolutionary scale boarders will change and life was arround before it.

But, now that this race is close I am getting as pissed about BOTH sides scoffing at it without understanding the founders intent. If they knew, BOTH republicans and democrates they would want to keep it.

I hated that Bush won based on this rule, but that does NOT mean it should be scrapped. The psychological reason both sides, and maybe some republicans back then would have said "yea, it worked for us, and we'll take it this time, but it still doesn't make sense"

POPULAR VOTE does not constitute an open society that protects dissent. China and Iran have ellections too, sometimes the west forgets that. The ellectoral college is a metaphorical coin toss in a tie. It serves as a long term reminder that there should not be any absolute rule. Every aspect of our goverment is BOTH protection of rights AND dissent.

The reaction to that kind of loss is short term. The founders were wise enough to know that once a monopoly is established it becomes hard to overcome if not impossible.

Even right now I am watching the commie news station MSMBC with my fellow Salinists who usually get things right. But this "popular vote" motif on their part would be a domino that would lead to the monopoly they say they don't want. With big money and big business peddiling influence, how do they think long term that the popular vote with the utopia they peddle would value the interest of the minority?

I would say to my well intended comrads not to do that. You get tons right on social and economic issues. But popular vote can be mob rule by vote. It is understanible why we react to when this happen, but the founders WERE NOT STUPID.

When someone says it is not fair, it is only when they lose, but they call it fair when they win. Leave it alone. We already have a Supreme Court that should have corporate patches on their backs. Lets not let popular vote end up in the hands of people who don't have our best interest in mind.

If we are a nation of protection of dissent, then the Electoral College is the example of a ban on absolute power, why should the voter have anymore absolute power than the president, or the Supreme Court or the congress?

Neither the left or the right have to like it, but IT IS THERE FOR A REASON! It is a buffer to to tyranny of the majority.

[IATIA]

It is a buffer to to tyranny of the majority.

hock:

I would rather be subject to the "tyranny" of the people than the "tyranny" of the politicians.

[Minimalist]

Or the tyranny of the Upper 1%.

[Autumnlicious]

Oh brian37, just like the disproportionate power given to low population states versus highly populated ones?

It seems that assends of nowhere like South Dakoto is given the same senate power as Texas and California, two of the most highly populated states in the Union...

[Tiberius]

Look, the electoral college isn't the worst system in the world, but it clearly isn't the best. Off the top of my head, here are a number of known flaws:

1) The candidate with the largest percentage of votes in a single state gets all the electoral college votes of that state. Between two candidates, this seems fair(ish), but between any others, and you could get a scenario where someone wins a state with less than 50% of the vote.

2) Smaller states have more electoral college votes per person than larger states, because all states start off with 3 electoral college votes, regardless of their population. Further electoral college votes are distributed according to the relative population of the state. Unfortunately, some states shouldn't get 3 electoral college votes in the first place, which means they effectively steal them from the larger states. California has 10 fewer electoral college votes than it should have according to its population. This means that the votes of people in smaller states are worth more than the votes of people in larger states, which is completely unfair in a democracy.

3) Due to it being winner-take all, it doesn't matter how much you win a state by...just that you win it. This means that candidates will ignore states where they poll well, and (conversely) states where they poll poorly. Instead, they will focus on a very small subset of swing states which they have more of a chance of winning. Unfortunately, this also affects voter turnout, since Democrat voters in a strong Republican state will see their vote as a waste of time, and vice versa.

4) You can win the Presidency with only 22% of the popular vote. You complain that popular vote isn't everything, but can you really defend a system where this can happen?

In short, I'm not against the electoral college because George Bush won without the popular vote; I'm against it because it is clearly an unfair system (for many other reasons).

[Annik]

Electoral college served its purpose when information took months and months to mail and process. We have the internet now. It's an outdated system and not suited for modern times.

[Darkstar]

Almost everything I would say has already been said, but there is one point I would like to add. What is the 'tyranny of the majority'? Does legalizing homosexual marriages take away anyone's rights? (Just as an example). If the majority cannot decide, then will it be a tyranny of the minority? Why let politicians decide when they have a questionable track record as a whole? Who is 'the majority' anyway? It is stated as if one group is the majority and they oppress the minority, but not everyone agrees with people on every issue; even if they agree on one issue they might not on the next. In that way, few people could claim to be part of the 'majority' in that respect becasue they may be in the minority on some issues and the majority on others.

[Brian37]

It is a buffer to to tyranny of the majority.

hock:

I would rather be subject to the "tyranny" of the people than the "tyranny" of the politicians.

WHAT? While no system is perfect a pure democracy is certain mob rule. Checks and balances with a ban on absolute rule, allows you to hold to account the politicians. It is as much up to you to do that.

It is easier to battle politicans with free speech than it is to battle mob rule by vote.

You cannot be serious being a minority to want the absolute of majority rule. That is nuts!

[Darkstar]

[WHAT? While no system is perfect a pure democracy is certain mob rule. Checks and balances with a ban on absolute rule, allows you to hold to account the politicians. It is as much up to you to do that.

It is easier to battle politicans with free speech than it is to battle mob rule by vote.

You cannot be serious being a minority to want the absolute of majority rule. That is nuts!

Democratic republic - electoral college =/= pure democracy

[Brian37]

Electoral college served its purpose when information took months and months to mail and process. We have the internet now. It's an outdated system and not suited for modern times.

I think it is even more important in the age of spin and big money.

Do you want the speed of information and propoganda to rule? How is that different than never having protection of dissent at all? If what you said happend then all it amounts to is the quickest person to convince the most people that killing Jews is good, would win.

The electoral college is EVEN MORE important now because of the speed of propaganda. It is not only a reminder of no absolute power, it is a speedbump.

I don't want to live in a neighborhood where people think they can drive formula 1s and feel they are intitled to run me over and blame me because I happend to be walking down the street.