|
Voting
Mar 20, 2005 22:53:05 GMT -5
Post by Scythe on Mar 20, 2005 22:53:05 GMT -5
I don't know if I explained it very well, but I think the point I want to make is in there somewhere...
It is important to understand the purpose of the electoral college before discussing it in this manner. The electoral college's main purpose is not to provide a buffer against uninformed, stupid voters, though it could do that, in theory. It exists so that the candidates pay more attention to the issues in the states with the highest populations and so that states with higher populations have a relatively higher say in who the president is. Now, imagine an election without the electoral college and the President is elected directly by the popular vote. Candidates would have no more reason to try to cater to voters in California or Florida than those in Montana or Alaska, despite the vast differences in their populations and needs. In that situation, candidates are much more free to pursue personalized domestic goals, which would not be good. In fact, it is unlikely that any state-specific campaigning would occur at all. The lack of accurate, unbiased information concerning the candidate's stands on issues and campaign platforms would become even more pronounced, causing even more ignorance and stupidity among the voters. IMO, the electoral college gets a lot of flak that it doesn't deserve because its purpose is misunderstood.
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 20, 2005 22:55:09 GMT -5
Post by DM on Mar 20, 2005 22:55:09 GMT -5
But it was created to be a buffer against stupidity.
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 20, 2005 22:59:25 GMT -5
Post by Scythe on Mar 20, 2005 22:59:25 GMT -5
You are entitled to that opinion, but I have told ya the reasons for which I am almost entirely sure it was created. And my point still stands, I believe, regardless.
|
|
Lady Enelya
Tarkaan
Royal Seeress
shp(o~-8275;; b~0;; i~0;; u~0;; s~1;; a~1;; p~10,29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20,19,18,17,16,15,11;; )
Posts: 2,406
|
Voting
Mar 21, 2005 5:31:30 GMT -5
Post by Lady Enelya on Mar 21, 2005 5:31:30 GMT -5
In theory, yes. Problem is, they're now pledged to elect the candidate that the people vote for, blah blah, etc. In theory, they can refuse to vote for who they pledged to vote for (in most states), but that never happens anymore. So in essence, the idiots across America actually are electing the president, most without knowing what the president actually does. Does that not say more about the US electroal system than the people within the system?
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 21, 2005 8:22:49 GMT -5
Post by piñata on Mar 21, 2005 8:22:49 GMT -5
Scythe, you're exactly right... the purpose of the electoral college is to treat the states as separate countries. ;D Utah actually should count as a separate country, but that's another debate entirely.
|
|
Lady Enelya
Tarkaan
Royal Seeress
shp(o~-8275;; b~0;; i~0;; u~0;; s~1;; a~1;; p~10,29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20,19,18,17,16,15,11;; )
Posts: 2,406
|
Voting
Mar 21, 2005 9:53:33 GMT -5
Post by Lady Enelya on Mar 21, 2005 9:53:33 GMT -5
it sounds very like Gerrymandering is it?
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 21, 2005 19:04:57 GMT -5
Post by AnimaStone on Mar 21, 2005 19:04:57 GMT -5
Actually, DM is right. It was created to be a buffer, but its purpose has evolved since then. The founding fathers were even more phobic of common people than I am [note: I am a common person; so sue me.]. Scythe: You have a valid point about the so-called "purpose" of the electoral college. However, the college still has several main flaws. Allow me to illustrate. Let's say that our wonderful two-party system pits Candidate A up against Candidate B. Candidate C is also in there, but he won't win so it doesn't matter. Now, say Candidate A wins exactly 49.8% of the vote in California, Oregon, Washington, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington DC, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Maine, and Florida. Say that Candidate B wins exactly 49.7% of the vote in each of those states and exactly 100% of the vote in each other state. Candidate C wins exactly 0.5% of the vote in the first group of states. Now, Candidate A wins that election because the current electoral college works in such a way that a candidate receiving a majority in the state receives all of that state's electoral votes. But did Candidate A really deserve to win the election? That's my biggest problem with the electoral college.
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 23, 2005 15:11:52 GMT -5
Post by devo2 on Mar 23, 2005 15:11:52 GMT -5
1. Not every state works that way. Some states split their electoral college votes.
2. I'm not sure that Candidate "B" deserves to be president either. Even if the candidate won 100% of the remaining states, the candidate failed to get more votes in the 20 most populous states. Small states would jump up and cheer for this, but I don't think it's right for someone to be the leader of a country in a situation where they could not carry the 20 largest states.
3. The electoral college is not perfect, but it is a better alternative than direct election. In a direct election, the say of the 10 smallest states amounts to exactly nil. The population of the San Francisco/San Jose/Oakland Bay Area eclipses that of several states alone. Sorry, I live in San Francisco/San Jose, I know the kind of people we have here. I shudder to think that this area alone would have the power to outvote Wyoming and Montana entirely. Remember that Berkely has tremendous political power in this area. There is no way on god's green earth that a given Metropolitan area whose interests are strictly local, not national, should have more political say than an entire state, let alone several states.
4. Children should not be allowed to vote. Period. For starters, children cannot serve in the military. I don't feel comfortable giving a group of individuals the right to determine issues of war when they themselves are immune from having to participate. In addition, minors are simply unprepared to make rational decisions about the long term future of the country, themselves, etc. There's a reason why parents are responsible for the decision making of individuals until the age of 18. The vast majority of children simply don't make rational decisions. Countless studies have shown that until roughly age 18, the human brain is still developing. Maybe not in terms of growth, but certain functions of the brain don't develop fully. One of these functions is critical thinking. Show me one individual, such as most any member of this site, who is mature for their age, and could probably make an informed decision, and I'll show you five who simply aren't ready to handle life. LK comes to mind, only there are many who are much, much worse.
Until the age of 18, people should be allowed to have a childhood. They should be allowed to make mistakes, lots of them, and learn from them without some of the baggage that comes with being a legal adult. Think of all the responsibilities that adults have to undertake that kids are completely oblivious to. It should stay that way, and I simply will not hear any sort of argument that kids should have the right to vote yet still reamain minors in terms of protection from all the things that they are such as lawsuits, jury duty, insurance, drafting, etc.
And besides, I think that before anyone should have a say in what's going on, they should have to take the appropriate social studies courses in high school, namely U.S. History and Government which are the 11th and 12th grade subjects in most states. Sure, you could offer them as 9th and 10th, but at that point the average teenager is completely overrun with hormones and is still operating mostly on the pleasure principle alone.
Not that anyone would accuse anyone here of being average, but understand that you make up an incredibly small minority of teenagers.
|
|
Lady Enelya
Tarkaan
Royal Seeress
shp(o~-8275;; b~0;; i~0;; u~0;; s~1;; a~1;; p~10,29,28,27,26,25,24,23,22,21,20,19,18,17,16,15,11;; )
Posts: 2,406
|
Voting
Mar 24, 2005 4:08:55 GMT -5
Post by Lady Enelya on Mar 24, 2005 4:08:55 GMT -5
can anyone tell me if what we were talking about is anything like gerrymandering!?
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 24, 2005 10:46:21 GMT -5
Post by piñata on Mar 24, 2005 10:46:21 GMT -5
I'm not exactly sure what gerrymandering is... I've heard the word before, but I forgot what it refers to and am too lazy to google it.
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 24, 2005 14:45:07 GMT -5
Post by devo2 on Mar 24, 2005 14:45:07 GMT -5
Gerrymandering is when districts are re-drawn for the purposes of gaining an advantage in elections. It generally is used with the House of Representatives, as each state gets two senators come hell or high water. Let's say for example that in one congressional district there are 60 Democrats and 40 Republicans. In the next district over, there are 62 Republicans and 38 Democrats. It is possible to re-draw the district lines so that each area has 51 Republicans and 49 Democrats, basically turning a split of the two districts between the two parties into two Republican districts, and therefore two Reps in the House, or two electors.
It can also work in a different way. Let's say that in three neighboring districts the breakdown of Dems to Reps is 55-45, 55-45, and 55-45. In this scenario the Democrats control all three districts. Now we can re-draw those districts so that the breakdown will be something like 90-10, 40-60, and 35-65. Same number of people, same number of Democrats and Republicans, but now Republicans control 2 of the 3 districts.
This is the bad part about representation. It is difficult to determine the most fair way to appoint our representatives. There is always a way to manipulate the numbers to one's advantage.
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 24, 2005 17:23:01 GMT -5
Post by AnimaStone on Mar 24, 2005 17:23:01 GMT -5
Really? I was under the impression that they all were winner-take-all. Okay, that takes out most of the point of my argument. I wholeheartedly support dividing the electoral votes of each state... but, sadly, most states still don't do it.
Obviously, my example is an extreme. However, the point still remains. Candidate B all but won the states Candidate A won, and Candidate B won the second largest state. In all but actuality, Candidate B did carry the 20 largest states. If nothing else, the support is too evenly divided to call.
This is also a valid point. I believe in a division of the electoral votes per state, dependent upon the percentages of votes (or the winner of electoral districts... whatever, I don't really care). As you mentioned, some states do that, but not enough. One other thing: your point about Metropolitan areas having strictly local interests is somewhat flawed. It may apply to a majority of the population, but there will always be people in there who will vote whichever way they will because it affects the entire country. I would never vote for a president just because he says that he will increase funding to local governments. I would vote for one that would actually make us look competent to other countries.
I agree with most of the stuff in this section. Obviously, I'm somewhat biased towards letting children vote, as I am not 18, but I do realize that you couldn't practically make it work, mostly for the reasons you listed. We have enough trouble getting adults to actually know what they're voting for. Just one question: exactly where did this come from? I haven't read the entire thread, so please do enlighten me.
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 24, 2005 18:07:09 GMT -5
Post by devo2 on Mar 24, 2005 18:07:09 GMT -5
I would never vote for a president just because he says that he will increase funding to local governments. I would vote for one that would actually make us look competent to other countries. While I admire that, it is a rarity among voters. People vote based on their needs more than morals. One of the things about children voting that I do favor is that children would vote more frequently on what they feel to be right rather than personal interest because children are more sheltered. Not all, but most. As soon as one has a job, a car loan, a mortgage, etc, that becomes for the most part all-consuming. You need to keep the flow of money going or you will simply sink. So you will vote mostly in favor of things that will benefit the economy or society in your area, rather than nationwide issues, unless of course your local economy benefits from the nationwide issue. People think globally, criticize nationally, and vote locally. The child voting thing is up there somewhere, unless I got another thread mixed up with this one, which is entirely possible.
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 24, 2005 19:16:51 GMT -5
Post by piñata on Mar 24, 2005 19:16:51 GMT -5
I think it was on a previous page, when I mentioned the teenagers who were petitioning the White House for the right to vote on The West Wing.
|
|
|
Voting
Mar 24, 2005 19:19:32 GMT -5
Post by devo2 on Mar 24, 2005 19:19:32 GMT -5
And kids like that with those skills and abilities would make excellent voters. Unfortunately, that type of child is in the small minority.
|
|