Abolish US Electoral College?

[DarthVeda]

The only time the Electoral college bothers anybody is when it's a close election. I bet in 10 years it won't even be an issue because NOBODY CARES.

[KrazyHorse]

It's unfair now and it'll be unfair in ten years.

You guys in the US don't know what constitutional crises are. We've spent the last 20 years in one.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
The only time the Electoral college bothers anybody is when it's a close election. I bet in 10 years it won't even be an issue because NOBODY CARES.

Issue or not I have always been against it since I noticed how it worked. Thats considerably more than ten years.

[Ramo]

The electoral college is an anachronism that deserves to die.

[DarthVeda]

I bet you think the Senate is an antiquicated idea too.

You know it doesn't cost us much to have the electoral college around right now. It will be impossible to get it back later.

So aside from being one of the oldest and most guarded parts of the constitution, what else makes the electoral college a cancer to be cut out?

[KrazyHorse]

It's undemocratic and unfair to those living in large states.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
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.

The EC is based on a state's population. The more people there are, the more representatives for the U.S. House they get. All states have at least two senators and one representative, hence the mininum 3-vote presence in the EC. Translation: If you're a populous state, your representative numbers will be much higher than, say, Iowa. That means your state has a stronger presence in the EC and, thus, means more during presidential campaigns.

Those 750,000 New Yorkers are represented by their member of the state's U.S. House delegation, which numbers in the dozens itself. People in my state have their one representative for the entire state because that's our population (roughly): 750,000. How does that translate into small population states having more power than the larger members of the Union? AFAIK, 750,000 is 750,000 regardless of where you live. Just because some representatives speak for an entire state while others speak for only a district in their state doesn't give the former power over the latter. The former is one man or woman. The latter is one man or woman in a frickin' delegation that, for New York, numbers in the dozens.

IOW, New York has a helluva lot more clout in the U.S. House than some "measly" state like North Dakota. The U.S. Senate then "balances" the natural advantage large states have in the U.S. House by having two senators for each state, regardless of population. It's part of the system of checks and balances, which doesn't just apply to the executive, judicial and legislative branches of the federal government. In this case, it's a checks and balances of sorts within the legislative branch itself.

It's worked pretty good over the last two centuries or so, IMHO. Yes, there have been some hiccups here and there, but that's better than pulling an Italy every six months or a year.

Gatekeeper

[DarthVeda]

Well I've got news for you. The United States is a Republican Democracy, and this means that the people elect representatives to decide for them. The election is no different and if you believe it is, you are sorely mistaken.

People have come to expect that their electoral college representatives will vote for their respective candidates. In fact, in some states it is even law.

Now if you have a problem with the electoral college and you live in a large state, simply remove them from the equation by having a law abolishing their ability to change votes.

As for the population being disproportionate to the numebr of electoral votes, that's just how it is. One could argue the Senate is unfair since it gives disproportionate powers to the small states. This is exactly why the United States is a federal government and not a Confederacy right now. Because the states could agree to these terms over two hundred years ago. Institutions like the electoral college are part of an elaborately designed system that functions well as a whole, but is crippled when severed.

Imagine the U.S. without the Supreme Court. All the officials in there are not directly elected yet they have more domestic power than the Legislature and Executive offices combined!

and in closing... I'd like to see all those Californians with their 54 electoral votes get by without the oil that the 3 electoral votes of Alaska provides.

[KrazyHorse]

Those 750,000 New Yorkers are represented by their member of the state's U.S. House delegation, which numbers in the dozens itself. People in my state have their one representative for the entire state because that's our population (roughly): 750,000. How does that translate into small population states having more power than the larger members of the Union? AFAIK, 750,000 is 750,000 regardless of where you live. Just because some representatives speak for an entire state while others speak for only a district in their state doesn't give the former power over the latter. The former is one man or woman. The latter is one man or woman in a frickin' delegation that, for New York, numbers in the dozens

Those 750 000 New Yorkers might only represent 1 electoral vote. The 750 000 Iowans represent 3. That's what's unfair.

[DarthVeda]

If you don't like it, move to Iowa.

[KrazyHorse]

and in closing... I'd like to see all those Californians with their 54 electoral votes get by without the oil that the 3 electoral votes of Alaska provides

So if a state provides something important then it deserves more say in elections? Are you deliberately being muddle-headed about this, or does it come naturally?

The EC and the 2 members per state Senate are relics from a bygone era of in US history of semi-independent states worried about their sovereignty. People who live in the larger states might want to wake to the fact that they're being had.

[KrazyHorse]

If you don't like it, move to Iowa

I'd rather not, since I'm not a US citizen.

And why the hell would I move to Iowa? It's full of federally-subsidized corn. If the Iowans don't like living in a small state they can move to New York.

[DarthVeda]

You are insane.

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by markusf
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.

I bet I walked more bean fields, rogued more corn, threw more bales and picked more rocks from fields than you did. My point being that, I, too, grew up in an agricultural world. And, no, I probably don't know the complete ins-and-outs of Canadian ag, but I would say the same of you in regards to U.S. ag.

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.

I can't speak for the EU, but that's a bunch of crappola in regards to the motives of U.S. farmers.

What profit do U.S. farmers get for allegedly holding these poor third world nations in food bondage? Nothing. A good deal of the food that is sent to these nations is in the form of aid. North Korea and Ethiopia come to mind immediately.

Now that's *not* to say U.S. farmers don't get profits from overseas sales. They do, especially from Asian nations such as Taiwan, China, India, and Japan among others. Why do you think food exporters fight so damn much over this part of the world? Asia is a cherished market for U.S. farmers, but not one that is held "hostage" to us by any means.

Has it ever crossed your mind that some trans-national corporations may be more responsible for alleged problems than individual farmers themselves? If I were to tell Farmer Bob that his grain that gets exported to Zimbabwe is, in effect, holding that nation hostage to his whims, he'd take his hat off, scratch his head, and ask me where the hell Zimbabwe was. Either that or he'd be one of these types of farmers who know down to a "t" just what's going on and where in the world of ag and would put me to shame in terms of inside knowledge.

Anyway, the point is that the policies of companies like ADM that can affect a "hostage" third world nation more than the decisions that Farmer Bob makes on an individual level. More often that not, he or she is too focused on trying to survive on $1.85 per bushel corn and $4.60 per bushel soybeans to even really have time to know what happens after the raw crop leaves his or her stewardship.

Gatekeeper

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
You are insane.

That's quite possible, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong.