Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/1/08 06:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

because I guess this "elector" has to vote according to how the voters voted, he/she can't change her mind and vote against the electorate they represent, so it's not really THEIR vote, it's not their choice.

Actually, they can and have done this before. Nowadays, however, anyone who does this will be legally punished, meaning there is little incentive to do so.

At 3/1/08 06:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: But anyway, that's kind of different from saying that we're voting for people to vote for us, as the topic starter suggested. We're voting for the president, not an elector, because I guess this "elector" has to vote according to how the voters voted, he/she can't change her mind and vote against the electorate they represent, so it's not really THEIR vote, it's not their choice.

They can actually go against the wishes of the electorate. I seme to recall that , again in the 2000 election, one of the electors in DC refused to cast their vote for Al Gore as a form of protest over the fact that DC wasn't represented in the Senate or HoR or soemthing of the sort.

But in general, most electors do in fact stick to who the electorate has chosen, and some states have brought in some form of legislation that forces electors to vote the same way as the electorate does.

At 3/1/08 09:02 PM, TheMason wrote: There have been cases where MPs (Member of Parliament) have voted based upon their home district's desires but since they voted against the party--they are removed from office. This does not happen in the US.

Ah, slight problem here.

MP's and the like who are of the same party as the government and vote against the government, ARE NOT removed from office. They are elected representatives, and as such can only be removed, to my knowledge, by losing an election or maybe if they commit some form of criminal act. The only forms of MP's whoc an be removed from office are members of the Government themselves. If a minister goes against the Governments wishes then yes, the Government can remove them from their position in Government, but they still remain a member of the legislature..

Therefore it is not a party organization deciding who will possibly become a legislator (unlike parliamentary systems).

Again, slightly wrong. The party CAN place pressure and influence to try and get who they want to be the candidate in an election, BUT, the local members of the party within the consitituency are stil responsible for chooisng who will stand in elections. I seem to recall David Cameron trying to enforce candidates in constituencies, and failing miserably as they refused to accept them and jsut voted for the same guy they'd been fileding for the past 10 years or so.

4) The US has universal suffarage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the huge issues with the 2000 electiosn that a load of people had their right to vote taken away from them? I seem to recall Micahel Moore ranting about it at some point...

Does not voting carry with it a responsibility to inform oneself? Does this not open the door to charismatic leaders who would destroy democracy *cough*Hitler*cough**cough*?

Using Hitler as an example: VERY BAD COMPARISON. The historical and political context of his rise to power is vastly different to the US, and they played as much a part in his coming to power as his charisma.

Germany has a history of strong Authoritarian ( and anti-democratic) leaders, thus making the German people, when Hitler was on the rise to power, more susceptible to his rhetoric and the like. America doesn't have an anti-democratic history or authoritarian leaders. In fact it has the complete opposite.

At 3/2/08 06:17 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 3/1/08 06:32 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the huge issues with the 2000 electiosn that a load of people had their right to vote taken away from them? I seem to recall Micahel Moore ranting about it at some point...

Felons. Certian states have certian regulations on criminals voting.

And I don't think it was Micheal Moore
Gary something or other.
I think it was a Brit, or at least an American expatriot.

At 3/2/08 08:52 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Felons. Certian states have certian regulations on criminals voting.

And I don't think it was Micheal Moore
Gary something or other.
I think it was a Brit, or at least an American expatriot.

That might be it...I don't know though. Ether way, the removal of the right to vote of any group of people means that the US can't really claim to have universal suffrage in it's truest sense which was where I was headed.

For all you people living in the US of A and people who don't, The United States of America is a DEMOCRATIC-REPUBLIC. Whoop de freakin' doo. I'm surprised that cellardoor claimed that the American people directly vote for the president but he realized his mistake so I won't bash him for it =D (although I hate him using the same arguments with aussie as he does with canada as they are not on the same level)

I'm posting this to defend the electoral college because people seem to forget why it was created. The electoral college is a COMPROMISE, give the D's to california and give the R's to Texas. Now people complain that their vote counts less when they do the calculations on amount of electoral votesthey recieve per population of the state, but it really works out in the end. The electoral college favors small and swing states because it's unfair for say a Fred Thompson to waltz into California and waste money in advertisements without gaining many voters-or gaining 45% and losing it all. Now for a politician to enter a smaller state where it is possible to claim a majority vote, it's much more fair as politicians dump so much money into their economies in order to catch swing voters. This goes back to the compromise of larger and more opinionated states which then allows states around the great lakes, Nevada and Florida to get more attention because of the competition among candidates to allocate their time and resources efficiently and effectively. The reason why the claim for popular vote seems stupid is because then each politician would be forced to focus in every state to gain some voters and people shouldn't be outraged if someone gets 270 electoral votes by a margin of 50.5/49.5 while the other candidate loses while winning each state by a 90/10 margin. Compromise, count your loses, and make your campaigning count.

At 3/2/08 10:04 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 3/2/08 08:52 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

That might be it...I don't know though. Ether way, the removal of the right to vote of any group of people means that the US can't really claim to have universal suffrage in it's truest sense which was where I was headed.

In the most theoretical sense, you would be right.

In reality though, they lost thier right to vote from due process, not from arbitrary decesion from the government.

So full sufferage is still present.

At 3/2/08 06:17 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 3/1/08 09:02 PM, TheMason wrote: There have been cases where MPs (Member of Parliament) have voted based upon their home district's desires but since they voted against the party--they are removed from office. This does not happen in the US.

Ah, slight problem here.

Only a slight problem. They can remove MPs from the party and in a parliamentary system an independent's chances of winning re-election (in such a case) is basically zero. You are correct that the cannot remove someone from parliament until their term is over but they can assure that they will not return after their term expires. This has happened before in Canada.

I'm not too familiar with England's system (which I understand is somewhat different from the normal parliamentary systems in terms of it being based more on districts than proportional representation.

In the US the same thing happened in 2006; Joe Lieberman (a sitting Senator) was forced out of the Democratic party (he lost his primary bid for re-election). However, he was able to win as an independent and win.

Therefore it is not a party organization deciding who will possibly become a legislator.

Again, slightly wrong. The party CAN place pressure and influence to try and get who they want to be the candidate in an election, BUT, the local members of the party within the consitituency are stil responsible for chooisng who will stand in elections. I seem to recall David Cameron trying to enforce candidates in constituencies, and failing miserably as they refused to accept them and jsut voted for the same guy they'd been fileding for the past 10 years or so.

Okay...but only slightly wrong in the British case. However, in proportional representation (PR) systems the legislative elections are national instead of district based. Party slates of candidates (as decided by the parties) are then awarded seats based upon the proportion of votes they recieve (ie: Social Dems win 50% so the top 125 of their list of 250 candidates get seats, Liberal Christians win 30
% of the vote the top 75 candidates on their list get seats). So parliamentary systems which are by and large PR systems do give parties much more power than the US presidential system with its Single Member Simple Plurality legislative voting system.

4) The US has universal suffarage.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't one of the huge issues with the 2000 electiosn that a load of people had their right to vote taken away from them? I seem to recall Micahel Moore ranting about it at some point...

Bad example bringing up Michael Moore...he's a propagandist who routinely manipulates the truth.

Does not voting carry with it a responsibility to inform oneself? Does this not open the door to charismatic leaders who would destroy democracy *cough*Hitler*cough**cough*?

Using Hitler as an example: VERY BAD COMPARISON. The historical and political context of his rise to power is vastly different to the US, and they played as much a part in his coming to power as his charisma.

The difference is the point and therefore makes it a GOOD and LEGITIMATE comparison. Hitler won in a parliamentary/PR system and not a US style presidential system.

Germany has a history of strong Authoritarian ( and anti-democratic) leaders, thus making the German people, when Hitler was on the rise to power, more susceptible to his rhetoric and the like. America doesn't have an anti-democratic history or authoritarian leaders. In fact it has the complete opposite.

That is part of it; however Germany's system made it easier for him to consolidate power.

At 3/2/08 10:04 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 3/2/08 08:52 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

That might be it...I don't know though. Ether way, the removal of the right to vote of any group of people means that the US can't really claim to have universal suffrage in it's truest sense which was where I was headed.

There are certain categories of people that may have their right to vote removed and still retain the claim to universal suffarage.

Mentally Retarded, prisoners and ex-cons.

At 3/2/08 06:44 PM, n64kid wrote: I'm posting this to defend the electoral college because people seem to forget why it was created. The electoral college is a COMPROMISE, give the D's to california and give the R's to Texas.

Ummmm...neither the Democrats nor the Republicans existed when the Constitution was created.

At 3/2/08 08:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/2/08 06:44 PM, n64kid wrote: I'm posting this to defend the electoral college because people seem to forget why it was created. The electoral college is a COMPROMISE, give the D's to california and give the R's to Texas.

Ummmm...neither the Democrats nor the Republicans existed when the Constitution was created.

I was trying to give relevant examples for today, but they did deal with Federalists and anti-federalists, which you can argue resembles both D's and R's

At 3/2/08 09:51 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 3/2/08 08:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/2/08 06:44 PM, n64kid wrote: I'm posting this to defend the electoral college because people seem to forget why it was created. The electoral college is a COMPROMISE, give the D's to california and give the R's to Texas.

Ummmm...neither the Democrats nor the Republicans existed when the Constitution was created.

I was trying to give relevant examples for today, but they did deal with Federalists and anti-federalists, which you can argue resembles both D's and R's

1) It is not a relevant example for today; the compromise of the electoral college is historical therefore there isn't really any modern examples for you to pull from.
2) The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were not really parties when the Constitution was written; in fact the majority of the Founding Fathers did not like the idea of parties. The Federalist faction did eventually become something similar to what we would recognize as a political party.

The electoral college has more to do with the tension between the Founding Father's fears of the tyranny of BOTH the people and government. Therefore, the Electoral College is an attempt to combine elements of the popular vote (direct election) and state or parliamentary structure (indirect election) in choosing the Chief (or Prime) executive.

At 3/2/08 11:27 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/2/08 09:51 PM, n64kid wrote:

At 3/2/08 08:56 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/2/08 06:44 PM, n64kid wrote: I'm posting this to defend the electoral college because people seem to forget why it was created. The electoral college is a COMPROMISE, give the D's to california and give the R's to Texas.

Ummmm...neither the Democrats nor the Republicans existed when the Constitution was created.

I was trying to give relevant examples for today, but they did deal with Federalists and anti-federalists, which you can argue resembles both D's and R's

1) It is not a relevant example for today; the compromise of the electoral college is historical therefore there isn't really any modern examples for you to pull from.
2) The Federalists and Anti-Federalists were not really parties when the Constitution was written; in fact the majority of the Founding Fathers did not like the idea of parties. The Federalist faction did eventually become something similar to what we would recognize as a political party.

The electoral college has more to do with the tension between the Founding Father's fears of the tyranny of BOTH the people and government. Therefore, the Electoral College is an attempt to combine elements of the popular vote (direct election) and state or parliamentary structure (indirect election) in choosing the Chief (or Prime) executive.

I don't believe I said otherwise, I was just offering my views in support for it. My examples of modern day politics is why I support the E.C. in modern days, amazing don'tya think?
There have been several times we've argued against each other while saying similar things... this isn't because of the whole fed government or private thing, is it?

At 3/2/08 08:09 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

In reality though, they lost thier right to vote from due process, not from arbitrary decesion from the government.

Considering there was a lot of labeling of lawful citizens (e.g, normal black folk [A.K.A, democrats] as felons on official records, I'd call it arbitrary government decesion.

this will explain everything

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/gove rnmentandpolitics/a/amgovoverview.htm

At 3/2/08 08:49 PM, TheMason wrote: Only a slight problem. They can remove MPs from the party and in a parliamentary system an independents chances of winning re-election (in such a case) is basically zero.

Independents can and do win elections in the UK. Bear in mind all a candidate has to do is campaign in a relatively small area, the money involved isn't that big, and as they are the incumbent MP they have the name recognition with the vast majority of people who will be voting anyway, so as long as they have a decent track record, re-election isn't that hard to get.

You are correct that the cannot remove someone from parliament until their term is over but they can assure that they will not return after their term expires. This has happened before in Canada.

They can make it very difficult, but thet can't assure anything.

I'm not too familiar with England's system (which I understand is somewhat different from the normal parliamentary systems in terms of it being based more on districts than proportional representation.

Eh, my mistake. I tend to view Parliamentary System as being synonymous with the West Minster Model. Technically you are right in your comments to do with Parliamentary systems and PR used on the European main land.

In the US the same thing happened in 2006; Joe Lieberman (a sitting Senator) was forced out of the Democratic party (he lost his primary bid for re-election). However, he was able to win as an independent and win.

If I had time I'm sure I'd be able to find similar things in the UK, however, I'm currently clock watching to get to a lecture....

Okay...but only slightly wrong in the British case. However, in proportional representation (PR) systems the legislative elections are national instead of district based.

Again this depends on the PR system that's in place. There are forms of PR that could be implemented with the parliamentary system that still allows constituent based choosing of candidates. But you are correct that in the form of PR that is prevalent across Europe the party does make most of the choices for candidate.

Bad example bringing up Michael Moore...he's a propagandist who routinely manipulates the truth.

Aye, I know, but it was something I vaguely remembered and wasn't sure on. Anyway, someone has actually pointed out that certain states don't allow felons to vote and the like, so technically speaking you don't have universal suffrage in it's truest sense, in much the same way Britain doesn't, or most of Europe.

The difference is the point and therefore makes it a GOOD and LEGITIMATE comparison. Hitler won in a parliamentary/PR system and not a US style presidential system.

The Parliamentary system only had a small part to play in his coming to power. He got into office not because his party was the largest, but because various members of the conservative elite basically conspired against each other Hitler ended up as Chancellor.

That is part of it; however Germany's system made it easier for him to consolidate power.

Well, I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here, because I think we've both got totally different opinions on the main factors that enabled Hitlers rise to power, and we'll hi-jack the thread if we continue discussing this I think.

At 3/3/08 03:48 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote:

At 3/2/08 08:49 PM, TheMason wrote:

Eh, my mistake. I tend to view Parliamentary System as being synonymous with the West Minster Model. Technically you are right in your comments to do with Parliamentary systems and PR used on the European main land.

.... But you are correct that in the form of PR that is prevalent across Europe the party does make most of the choices for candidate.

Of all the parliamentary systems out there, I like the Westminster model the best.

We had this debate last semenster when we compared the two and since then I find these "No we're more democratic than thou..." debates fun. However, I do think any system that uses PR and national legislative elections over district based plurality ones is less democratic.

However, I'm not a radical democrat (small "d" which means I'm not refering to the American political party). I am perfectly comfortable with an election of our president that is not completely democratic. I think Superdelegates are a good idea. Furthermore, I think the electoral college and primary systems should be strengthened. I do not think that an EC winner who is not the popular vote winner is that bad of a thing.

... we'll hi-jack the thread if we continue discussing this I think.

Agreed.

At 3/1/08 06:27 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: You criticize us for not electing our president, yet your OFFICIAL head of state is a queen, and your acting head of state is a Prime Minister who isn't elected, but is appointed by the majority political party in parliament.

And in turn, must behave according to the European Union.

His confusion and repulsion to our system is actually a compliment, if you really think about it.

I actually blogged about this a little while ago. The electoral college is an interesting entity in American Politics. Whether it's in the party primaries (both parties have different, in my opinion flawed, ways of managing the electoral votes) or in the presidential election. The reasn it was created, which I think was the original question, was mainly due to the educational level of the voters. Back in the 18th century the vast majority of the people were uninformed and uneducated. Whether you think people today are morons or not doesn't change the fact that if you take your average person (and their knowledge of what's going on n politics/economy/etc...) and put them next to the average person from the 18th century you have a much mroe informed citizen. the electoral college was created (and yes electors can vote however they please, though in general they don't and vote how theyir respective state dictates) to counter the lack of information an every day citizen/voter posessed.

Now the primaries have two basic systems. The Republican party essentially has a system where the winner of the state gets the electoral votes (there are some variations but for the most part). So if a winner wins 80% of the state they get all the votes...if they win 51% of the state they get all the vote. For me if a candidate gets 48% of the vote then the electors should reflect that, same with 20%. I think that holds true no matter who is running. If David Duke (renowned racist who ran a few elections ago) somehow managed to get 20% of a states vote I believe he should get 20% of the electors (or something close...and then I would be concerned about whatever state that is) Now...this is basically how the Democratic primary works.

On the Democrats side each state (again for the most part) gives some percentage of electors equivalent to the popular vote. However they too have a flaw (in my opinion a bigger one) in that they have Super Delegates who can vote, as main electors can, for whomever they want. And this year it would appear very well might cast the deciding vote.

Here's my problem with the Electoral college (and the Super Delegates with the democratic party) it puts the power into a significantly smaller group of people's hands. I'm not sure what the electoral college voting number is but just for arguments sake let's say it's 1000 people. Now, if I were a "power hungry" politician, which would be easier for me to sway? The billion+ people who populate the country or 1000 politicians? A good example is the Governeor of New York, who is a Super Delegate and went on national television (albeit cable) and stated a month ago that his super delegate vote was going to Clinton...no matter what. the state of New York went her way of course but even if it didn't his mind was made up for who his vote was to be cast.

As for the states getting equl treatment I can get into my opinion on that one if anyone wants to hear it.

It is an interesting debate though. On one hand the popular vote can easily be circumvented using the electoral college however in the case of say 2000 where Gore won a greater % of the popular vote but no one broke the 50% mark (I would have a much greater issue if Gore had won say even just 50.5% of the popular vote and the electoral college went to Bush but he didn't) the electoral college plays a role. It's an interesting dilemma

At 3/1/08 04:08 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 3/1/08 07:36 AM, bobomajo wrote:

unless you were being an ignorant American and talking out of your arse.

Wow. That sounds just like the guy who created this topic.

I don't see how you are more democratic, your voting system can allow a president to get elected even though the majority of the people did not want them president, I believe you current president did not receive the majority of the vote. Also in Australia everyone votes meaning our leader may be a more accurate representation of the country.

Yeah, and considering your don't even elect your PM makes your's SO much better.

But hey, at least we actually VOTE on the president. Of course, if you knew anything about American history, you'd know that the electorial college has only made the decision (over the popular vote) 4 times in 200 years, out of 43 Presidents.

Oh, and guess what: EVERYONE votes in America too! Every legal citizen/resident anyway. Naturally this excludes convicted felons and illegal immigrants.

So let's compare.

US: Directly votes for the President.
You: Directly elects the party who elects the PM.

Besides, this isn't a direct democracy, you dunce. It's a Republic. Get used to it.

Or better yet, jump off a bridge.

"Oh, and guess what: EVERYONE votes in America too! Every legal citizen/resident anyway. Naturally this excludes convicted felons and illegal immigrants." oh yeah? in america, more ppl vote for who's gonna be the next american idol, than for who's going to be president... (so either there's more convicted criminals and illegal immigrants than there are citizens in the US, or it's like i said, or a bit of both)

and btw, i don't know this for sure, but i'm guessing that in australia, the elects pm before that party actually has been chosen(like in sweden)

and what's more: if a republic isn't a direct democracy, IT SHOULDEN'T BE A REPUBLIC, but a democracy.

At 3/1/08 06:27 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 3/1/08 07:36 AM, bobomajo wrote:

At 3/1/08 02:12 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

I'm sure you would know the British monarchy is really only symbolic these days

And yet, you don't just get rid of it altogether. A monarchy in the 21st century... pathetic.
sweden is a monarchy, but one law that can't be changed (only under certain circumstances) is that the king can't make any political statement

And as far as representing the country better, that's hilarious considering Bush had more proportionate popular as var as votes in our country than your current PM Rudd just got last year.

i believe he cheated in the election 2004, of course, i can't prove that , but i can't prove the best part either (taken from "the usual suspects" xD)

oh, and to that "be the hammer" thing; i choose being the anvil (if that means what i think it means, anyway)

At 3/5/08 10:12 AM, JayBirdSlim wrote: The reasn it was created, which I think was the original question, was mainly due to the educational level of the voters. Back in the 18th century the vast majority of the people were uninformed and uneducated. Whether you think people today are morons or not doesn't change the fact that if you take your average person (and their knowledge of what's going on n politics/economy/etc...) and put them next to the average person from the 18th century you have a much mroe informed citizen. the electoral college was created (and yes electors can vote however they please, though in general they don't and vote how theyir respective state dictates) to counter the lack of information an every day citizen/voter posessed.

Not true at all. The Electoral College had nothing to do with education level, etc because at the time of the founding only landed, white men could vote. Guess who had a monopoly on education? That's right: landed, white men. Now, this does not mean that every landed, white male had a Harvard or Yale degree. There were poor land owners; however that they had a stake in political decisions meant that they paid attention to politics. This is really what makes the difference between an informed voter and an ignorant voter.

Take my ex-wife (please!), she is a MD. However, she thinks politics is a waste of time. She has an educational level in the top 1-5% of the nation...but when/if she votes is it an informed vote? (When she was married to me it was, she would ask me how she should vote!) On the other hand I know stoners who pay more attention to what is going on than several of my political science students (even the ones who are poli sci majors).

What the EC was designed to do was two-fold:
1) Counter the passions of the populace. Sometimes the right decision is hard to do in a democracy because it is political suicide (*cough*social security*cough**cough*third rail*cough).
2) Ensure that little states still get represented in the general election. Do you really think anyone would care about the voters in Utah or Rhode Island if we didn't have the EC? What about rural America? Millions who do not live in NYC, LA, ATL, DFW, Chicago or even smaller cities such as STL or KC would not be a concern for presidents. In this way, direct and popular elections would disenfranchise millions of voters on a regular, repeated basis.

Here's my problem with the Electoral college (and the Super Delegates with the democratic party) it puts the power into a significantly smaller group of people's hands. I'm not sure what the electoral college voting number is but just for arguments sake let's say it's 1000 people. Now, if I were a "power hungry" politician, which would be easier for me to sway? The billion+ people who populate the country or 1000 politicians?

There are roughly the same number of electors as there are seats in Congress so about 585 +reps from Puerto Rico and Washington DC.

Furthermore, these electors are pretty much locked into voting for the candidate who wins the plurality of their state so manipulation is not really much of an issue after the election. So the actual meeting of the EC isn't that big of a deal...a formality really. However, EC as a way of running the election and determining the winner (if you consider the delegates as electoral points rather than electoral delegates) is a good system.

It is an interesting debate though. On one hand the popular vote can easily be circumvented using the electoral college however in the case of say 2000 where Gore won a greater % of the popular vote but no one broke the 50% mark (I would have a much greater issue if Gore had won say even just 50.5% of the popular vote and the electoral college went to Bush but he didn't) the electoral college plays a role. It's an interesting dilemma

Yeah in 2000 you had a fairly evenly divided electorate; Gore didn't even win the popular vote by 1% (I believe). So why not have a system that takes into account regional/state differences "votes"?

exactly... the electoral college was prolly made by a retard... you vote shouldn't matter more than mine because of ware u live

At 3/8/08 01:52 AM, crazycracker87 wrote: exactly... the electoral college was prolly made by a retard... you vote shouldn't matter more than mine because of ware u live

1) The EC was made by some intellectual giants.
2) The EC insures that more voters are NOT disenfranchised on a regular basis.

How about you come back when you can form a logical, coherent argument that has some basis in an understanding of the system and the problems faced with creating any voting method in a democracy.

The Electoral College was made by intellectual giants, yes, but it was made (as many political scientists believe and historical documents and evidence and even the constitution itself show) to be temporary.

The writing of the constitution was a very experimental time, and they would probably be shocked to see the electoral college still in use.

At 3/8/08 03:19 AM, Tancrisism wrote: The Electoral College was made by intellectual giants, yes, but it was made (as many political scientists believe and historical documents and evidence and even the constitution itself show) to be temporary.

The writing of the constitution was a very experimental time, and they would probably be shocked to see the electoral college still in use.

I don't know that they would be all that surprised...nor do I think the EC (or the Constitution for that matter) are the same as they were back then.

First of all, they probably would not like the idea that our party system is as strong as it is (although, they would probably be glad that it is relatively weak relative to the vast majority of parliamentary systems).

Secondly, I think they would still argue that the EC is a good idea. Millions of voters would effectively be disenfranchised because candidates would flock to major cities neglecting sparsly populated states and rural America.

Finally, I think they would also dislike universal suffarage. There does seem to be a corresponding drop in the quality of candidates with every addition of more voters. (NOTE: this is not a racial or gender thing.) You get people who are astute on the issues, but you also get people who cast uninformed votes. Furthermore, the uninformed out number the informed...so guess what the candidates dedicate their time, money and energy into? Media manipulation.

The problem is how do you make it where everyone who is informed casts a vote? You can't do it based on income or education. Like I've said before, I've known MDs and PhDs who are very ignorant when it comes to politics. Same thing with income; I've known some very astute poor ppl who know the issues and how things work. That's why I hate "get out and vote" campaigns. If a celebrity telling you to vote is what gets your ass to (or even figures into your calculation to) vote...then you should NOT be voting.

The problem is the Electoral College. Away with them!

They were on nothing.

You were on Harrowen.

At 3/8/08 01:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/8/08 03:19 AM, Tancrisism wrote: The Electoral College was made by intellectual giants, yes, but it was made (as many political scientists believe and historical documents and evidence and even the constitution itself show) to be temporary.

The writing of the constitution was a very experimental time, and they would probably be shocked to see the electoral college still in use.

I don't know that they would be all that surprised...nor do I think the EC (or the Constitution for that matter) are the same as they were back then.

If not suprised, they would at least note it with interest, though I still contend the suprise idea.

First of all, they probably would not like the idea that our party system is as strong as it is (although, they would probably be glad that it is relatively weak relative to the vast majority of parliamentary systems).

Agreed.

Secondly, I think they would still argue that the EC is a good idea. Millions of voters would effectively be disenfranchised because candidates would flock to major cities neglecting sparsly populated states and rural America.

I don't see any weight in this argument. Doesn't the electoral college already disenfranchise the popular vote?

Finally, I think they would also dislike universal suffarage. There does seem to be a corresponding drop in the quality of candidates with every addition of more voters. (NOTE: this is not a racial or gender thing.) You get people who are astute on the issues, but you also get people who cast uninformed votes. Furthermore, the uninformed out number the informed...so guess what the candidates dedicate their time, money and energy into? Media manipulation.

Ah, I see. You are much more cynical towards the common man. This is something that I could never share, perhaps because I came from a very rural area with very informed people (and one of a relatively direct democracy, New England).

The problem is how do you make it where everyone who is informed casts a vote? You can't do it based on income or education. Like I've said before, I've known MDs and PhDs who are very ignorant when it comes to politics. Same thing with income; I've known some very astute poor ppl who know the issues and how things work. That's why I hate "get out and vote" campaigns. If a celebrity telling you to vote is what gets your ass to (or even figures into your calculation to) vote...then you should NOT be voting.

Regardless, I would rather have the vote in the hands of the people than in the politicians. I'm more cynical to those in power than to the people. You are never going to have it so that way only informed people vote, as that is vastly over ambitious. Assuming that the electors are also unbiased and informed might not be the best way to go either.

I wouldn't say that we should ditch the representative democracy for a direct one, as that would be just as effective as communism on a large scale. We should have a mix of the two; and to me a direct election could help things. Al Gore very well may have been a better president than Bush these past 8 (or maybe for just the prior 4) years, in which case the people may have been right and the electors wrong.

At 3/8/08 04:33 PM, Tancrisism wrote:

At 3/8/08 01:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/8/08 03:19 AM, Tancrisism wrote:

Ah, I see. You are much more cynical towards the common man. This is something that I could never share, perhaps because I came from a very rural area with very informed people (and one of a relatively direct democracy, New England).

I don't know what New England your thinking of, but I've never seen it.

The New England I've seen is people bitching about how high taxes are and then going and voting for a Democratic candidate that wants to raise them.

Were one party sheep.