Abolish US Electoral College?

[KrazyHorse]

Exactly, Eth.

The Constitution guards against Wraith's three wolves scenarion. The EC's setup was just a sop to the small states to get them to join the US in the first place...

[Ethelred]

After getting beyond the first half of the first page of this thread I am strongly reminded of line in a Star Trek episode.


ThreadJack
ThreadJack
ThreadJack

Thank you Canada for stuffing the US ballot box.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US' system of checks and balances has been carried so far that they have difficulty doing anything at all.

That's the point .

I also think election of Senators should go back to the way they were. That is election of Senators by the State Senate, and not directly by the people.

I think the EC should stay, but instead of winner take all, have the electoral votes be divided up proportionally. Therefore it is a bit more democratic, but you still have to win states .

After all, the best position between two hardline positions, is the middle ground .

[Gatekeeper]

The last time I checked, presidential candidates generally ignored small 3-electoral vote states such as my own in favor of, oh, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas. For some insane reason, they find the 50-something, 30-something and 20-something electoral votes those states have as being more important to them than the measly 3-electoral votes my state has.

It's a rare day indeed when our puny three votes sway a presidential election. It's a rare day when when get more than one perfuctionary presidential candidate visit during election years. Most of the time our future leaders are too busy wooing the likes of California, Texas and New York to give a real damn about what goes on in the heartland. The coasts rule in our nation. The only freaking reason it seems the small states have an inordinate amount of influence right now is because the federal government is closely divided. Any other time we hardly show up on the freaking radar screens.

So don't tell me I wield too much power with my vote, because you could've fooled me.

You folks on the coasts and in the big states want reform? I have no problem with proporational dividing of electoral votes, because it won't mean a damn thing for my state. It'll just focus even more attention on the coastlines, 'cause then a state's entire electoral votes won't necessarily be locked up early in a campaign. IOW, we won't really be affected ... we're mostly ignored now and would be mostly ignored under any proportional EC system.

But if reform means weakening what little we have now in the heartland, you're going to have trouble on your hands. You might not think much of the heartland until all the states from the Dakotas west to the Pacific coastline and throughout the Rocky Mountains secede from the Union and the "United States of America" ends up with a big, rugged hole where its heart once was. That's a worst-case scenario of course ... never happen ... then again, they said the Civil War wouldn't happen.

Touching on farm subsidies and Canada, it's my understanding that the Canadian Wheat Board does a fine job of protecting farmers north of the border, too. So, KH, don't yelp too much about subsidies until you look at your own farmers. Same goes for the EU.

Gatekeeper

[markusf]

I have a really radical idea..

1 vote = 1 vote. The person with the most votes wins!

[markusf]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

Touching on farm subsidies and Canada, it's my understanding that the Canadian Wheat Board does a fine job of protecting farmers north of the border, too. So, KH, don't yelp too much about subsidies until you look at your own farmers. Same goes for the EU.

Gatekeeper

Having actually lived on a farm in canada i can tell you, that you don't have a clue what your talking about. The thing is canada doesn't subsidize its farms but the US and the EU do.

The reason the US and EU do it is so they can starve the 3rd world countries and force them to buy grain. If there where no subsidies most 3rd world countries could grow massive amounts of crops competitively. Because if there where no EU or US subsidies the price of grain would rise world wide.

[KrazyHorse]

Touching on farm subsidies and Canada, it's my understanding that the Canadian Wheat Board does a fine job of protecting farmers north of the border, too. So, KH, don't yelp too much about subsidies until you look at your own farmers. Same goes for the EU

IIRC, we spend ~30% per capita of what you do on farm subsidies. The EU is one of the biggest offenders, but I don't care as much because we aren't as much in direct competition with them (shipping costs provide natural tariff barrier).

The US mouths off about free trade then turns around and runs protectionist rackets for its own citizens.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
The last time I checked, presidential candidates generally ignored small 3-electoral vote states such as my own in favor of, oh, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas. For some insane reason, they find the 50-something, 30-something and 20-something electoral votes those states have as being more important to them than the measly 3-electoral votes my state has.

It's a rare day indeed when our puny three votes sway a presidential election. It's a rare day when when get more than one perfuctionary presidential candidate visit during election years. Most of the time our future leaders are too busy wooing the likes of California, Texas and New York to give a real damn about what goes on in the heartland. The coasts rule in our nation. The only freaking reason it seems the small states have an inordinate amount of influence right now is because the federal government is closely divided. Any other time we hardly show up on the freaking radar screens.

So don't tell me I wield too much power with my vote, because you could've fooled me.

You folks on the coasts and in the big states want reform? I have no problem with proporational dividing of electoral votes, because it won't mean a damn thing for my state. It'll just focus even more attention on the coastlines, 'cause then a state's entire electoral votes won't necessarily be locked up early in a campaign. IOW, we won't really be affected ... we're mostly ignored now and would be mostly ignored under any proportional EC system.

That's a silly argument. Where are you from? For argument's sake, let's say you're from a state with a population of 750 000. You complain that the presidential candidates ignore your state? That's like someone living in a 10-block section of Detroit complaining that the candidates ignore them because they haven't visited their little neck of the woods.

Why should 750 000 people living in Farmland USA get more of the president's time than 750 000 people living in Downtown USA?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because the President doesn't represent only urban areas? That's a start .

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, did you even read what I wrote?

[KrazyHorse]

The President is supposed to represent everybody equally, but because of the rigging of the EC, he has to care more about a million Iowans than about a million New Yorkers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but because of the rigging of the EC, he has to care more about a million Iowans than about a million New Yorkers.

Which is how I prefer it, actually. He has to give equal time to different portions of the country to succeed. He can't spend all his time in New York. Iowans are important too.

[DarthVeda]

Small states rights. You know whats after the college? The senate.

"Why do we need a senate! The majority should rule!"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

but because of the rigging of the EC, he has to care more about a million Iowans than about a million New Yorkers.

Which is how I prefer it, actually. He has to give equal time to different portions of the country to succeed. He can't spend all his time in New York. Iowans are important too.

750 000 Iowans are important. They're exactly as important as 750 000 New Yorkers. The current system makes the Iowans much more important than the New Yorkers, and that's stupid.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
Small states rights. You know whats after the college? The senate.

"Why do we need a senate! The majority should rule!"

Exactly.