Elections and the Electoral College

[Dom Pedro II]

TRASH IT!! DOWN WITH ELECTIONS!!!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is that from the Federalist Papers? The ones written partly by people involved in the Alien and Sedition Acts?

I wasn't aware that Jefferson and Jay were in the government when the Alien and Sedition Acts were written into law. Oh right, because they were on the other side.

--

And keep the Electoral College. It is a fallacy that the President represents the people. The President represents the United States of America, it is just that the people vote for him .

[Ming]

While I don't enjoy voting for a Republican in a presidential election knowing damn well that my vote is meaningless because the Democrats will steal the election in Chicago... it's the way it is.

I always love to listen to people whine that Bush lost the popular election... WHAT POPULAR ELECTION... there is no such thing in this country...

We don't have to listen to people whine that if some other country had an Electoral system, it would have changed the results... so why should we have to listen to that crap.

The Electoral System IS the system we use here... it's that simple. Candidates know they have to win under THESE rules to win. If they don't, they lose. The popular vote is MEANINGLESS in our system.

So stop whining that Bush lost the popular election, there is no such thing here. But feel free to complain about all the other crap about our last election. There is more than enough other stuff to argue and complain about.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Is that from the Federalist Papers? The ones written partly by people involved in the Alien and Sedition Acts?

I wasn't aware that Jefferson and Jay were in the government when the Alien and Sedition Acts were written into law. Oh right, because they were on the other side.

Jefferson was NOT an author of the Federalist papers. Madison was. Hamilton was. Yes John Jay was also.

And keep the Electoral College. It is a fallacy that the President represents the people. The President represents the United States of America, it is just that the people vote for him .

Some fallacy. The United States is supposed to be government by the People. In your version the individual states are more important than the inhabitants of the US.

I still haven't seen any of you Electoral College apologists show why the people of Wyoming are derseving of 3.8 times the voting power of the people of California. Or Texas for that matter. I haven't checked that one but it must be similar. Maybe the people of Wyoming are only three times as good as Texans.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming

I always love to listen to people whine that Bush lost the popular election... WHAT POPULAR ELECTION... there is no such thing in this country...

That is the point of the thread Ming.

We don't have to listen to people whine that if some other country had an Electoral system, it would have changed the results... so why should we have to listen to that crap.

You don't have to listen. You can close the thread.

I am not whining. I didn't want either of them.

The Electoral System IS the system we use here... it's that simple. Candidates know they have to win under THESE rules to win. If they don't, they lose. The popular vote is MEANINGLESS in our system.

Yes it is. Its about time that changed.

So stop whining that Bush lost the popular election, there is no such thing here. But feel free to complain about all the other crap about our last election. There is more than enough other stuff to argue and complain about.

Who was whining about Bush? I am complaining about the injustice of the inhabitants of small states having more voting power than those in large state which is entirely do to the way the Electoral College is set up.

So, Ming, why is an inhabitant of Wyoming deserving of a bigger vote than you have? You need to do something about you level of self-esteem.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Jefferson was NOT an author of the Federalist papers. Madison was. Hamilton was. Yes John Jay was also.

Madison was a Jeffersonian. Except for being the scribe of the Constitution, he is known for backing everything Jefferson did .

Some fallacy. The United States is supposed to be government by the People. In your version the individual states are more important than the inhabitants of the US.

Um, that was the way it was supposed to be.

I still haven't seen any of you Electoral College apologists show why the people of Wyoming are derseving of 3.8 times the voting power of the people of California. Or Texas for that matter. I haven't checked that one but it must be similar. Maybe the people of Wyoming are only three times as good as Texans.

I just did. States were meant to have power in the system. Most of it has been taken away, but the EC still gives the states some semblence of power, as miniscule as it may be.

[Dom Pedro II]

The states were supposed to be more important than the inhabitants of the U.S. as far as the federal government was concerned, but the individual states were subject to the people. Each state's constitution was in effect a defense against tyranny. It was on a state level that it was really a government by the people, for the people, etc. so on and so forth. Of course, the federal Constitution did set parameters that were supposed to be upheld in all of the territories inside of the union of states.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Madison was a Jeffersonian. Except for being the scribe of the Constitution, he is known for backing everything Jefferson did .

Not the other way around. Jefferson was very much against the Alien and Sedition acts which Madison signed into law.

Um, that was the way it was supposed to be.

Kind of like European nations then where the inhabitants exist at the will of the state. Was that what the Founders had in mind? I don't think so. It was a compromise at a time when some of the states still thought of the State as the repository of politcal power instead of the individual.

I just did. States were meant to have power in the system. Most of it has been taken away, but the EC still gives the states some semblence of power, as miniscule as it may be.

No you haven't. You have not addressed the issue of voting power at all. States have plenty of power. Take a look at the Senate.

[Dom Pedro II]

I think its actually rather interesting that the crafters of the 1787 Constitution took so many things into account. They even had a specific clause that prevented representatives from being detained on their way to a vote, which is very wise, but who would even think of such a circumstance?

All of that intelligent planning, and yet they never made provisions for perhaps the two most important issue that would have some of the greatest Constitutional effects.

1) The acquisition of new territory.

2) A clause regarding the right or the lack of the right for a state to secede from the Union.

Neither of these issues were ever addressed as amendments either. Rather, since they were never specifically written down, they were left largely as a matter of interpretation.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not the other way around. Jefferson was very much against the Alien and Sedition acts which Madison signed into law.

It is hard for Madison to sign it into law when they were signed into law by Adams and rescinded by Jefferson in 1800. Madison was elected President in 1808.

Kind of like European nations then where the inhabitants exist at the will of the state. Was that what the Founders had in mind? I don't think so. It was a compromise at a time when some of the states still thought of the State as the repository of politcal power instead of the individual.

Um no. It wasn't a compromise. The founders were very very wary of democracy and wanted to temper that.

No you haven't. You have not addressed the issue of voting power at all. States have plenty of power. Take a look at the Senate.

Yes I have. The states are supposed to have more people that the individuals within them. States have had their power chipped away. The Senate was originally elected by State Legislatures. The HOUSE was the place where the people could have their power in a democratic fashion.

[Dom Pedro II]

Bah, I think that popular election of Senators was better anyway.

Besides, there are far bigger usurptions (is that a word?) of state power. Just look at all of the added federal bureaucracy not to mention the laws that the federal government has imposed on the individual states to accept.

Just look at a few! : the drinking age, drug laws, abolition...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Oh, I agree Dom. I think the states should have much more expanded powers, not have the power that they have left being taken away.

Anyway, it'll be IMPOSSIBLE to abolish the Electoral College, so why it is even being discussed is silly.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Anyway, it'll be IMPOSSIBLE to abolish the Electoral College, so why it is even being discussed is silly.

While not "IMPOSSIBLE" in theory... I would have to agree.

And it is silly... It's the way things are... That's the rule presidential candidates have to win by... the popular vote is just that... popular, but meaningless.

That's not how we do things here.

[red_jon]

The only problem with a proportional system is it allows extremist parties to gain a firmer footing.

I can see both sides of the argument here - it isn't fair that rural votes are worth more than urban ones. But then if they have very few votes, politicians will completely ignore them.

Over here we have a first past the post system, like America - but the consituencies are far smaller - London is divided into several areas.

Oh, and for those who don't know UK politics -

Blue = Conservative (right-wing)
Red = Labour (supposedly neither)
Yellow = Liberal Democrats (leftist)
Green = Green
Orange = Scottish independant

(and looking at this map, it seems Scotland and Wales have a better idea than us )

[red_jon]

oops