Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: BlueJ1 on November 02, 2004, 08:17:56 PM
-
Being unable to vote as of my age I still have a question about the electoral college. Being as it was created in 1787 and ratified in 1788. It was believed that this would prevent us uneduacated common folk from making a large mistake and electing the wrong candidate for office. Being 2004, soon to be 2005, being 217 years later, I like to believe that we are somewhat higher educated and can choose on our own. Yes, I understand and have expericenced the stupidity of humans, yes including myself. I would like to be optimistic and say that even in our low points we can still come to a general agreement.
Now with that said I was wondering what is the point of the electoral college today ?
I live in New York, largely Democratic, Bush has no chance of winning here. Kerry won NY as I finished this sentence. Dispite my opinions IF I voted for Bush my vote would be pointless considering Kerry had won NY before voting had begun.
Tried to make sense sorry if I failed, hard to write what I am thinking. Please feel free, which I imagine some of you will, to prove me wrong. I am just trying to figure out what the point of voting would be if I had already lost.
-
I think it's probably time to come up with another solution other than the Electoral College. It's archaic and unnecessary. In addition to that, you are basically throwing away the votes of persons in certain states. In today's day and age I see no reason why we couldn't go with a popular vote.
-
Well said Blue, in fact if you look at the hard numbers, Bush is still winning in NY, that may change and probably will by the end. I just like to believe that would could get rid of the Electoral College and let the popular vote decide the president, only that does truly every vote count. We would no longer have to wait and wait well they call the states, we can simply watch the votes come in and whoever has the most wins.
-
You would have had a much better chance of eliminating the EC before the 2000 elections. Republicans will fight tooth and nail to keep it now.
It's old, it's antiquated, it's un-american and time for it to go.
-
Critics condemn the system as an 18th century anachronism. Among its foes: investment banker Sanford R. Robertson, a partner in Francisco Partners, a San Francisco leveraged buyout firm. ''Just a few thousand votes can swing the Electoral College one way or another,'' he says. ''Maybe this is the event that could finally force its elimination.''
Indeed, there have been periodic crusades to abolish the college. But they failed to win much support from many states. And for good reason: If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates would have little incentive to visit less populated states. Nominees would concentrate on big cities and population states, mainly in the Northeast and California. ''Their time would be better spent in places like Brooklyn,'' says Senator Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.). As a result, the college ''keeps us from having a regional Presidency,'' says Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.).
It also has strong backing from powerful interests such as farmers and gun-rights groups. Because of their concentration in such less populated, rural places, it magnifies their power in swing states like Iowa and Tennessee. What's more, both parties back the Electoral College. Because of the winner-take-all-aspect of almost every state's electoral votes, third parties don't stand a chance. In 1992, Ross Perot received 19% of the popular vote but did not get a single electoral vote.
I think it serves a great purpose. A canidate could basically win by promising california and New York all sorts of good things completly ignoring the rest of the states.
I'm not saying it doesnt have it's draw backs but it gives voters from Idaho just as much "voting power" as voters from Rhode Island.
other pro's:
Requires a distribution of popular support to be elected president-the winning candidate must demonstrate both a sufficient popular support to govern as well as a sufficient distribution of that support to govern
Strengthens the status of minority groups- the votes of small minorities within a state may make the difference between winning all of a state’s electoral votes or none of them.
Enhances the political stability of the nation by promoting a two-party system- protects that presidency from impassioned but transitory third party movements and forces the major parties to absorb the interests of minorities.
Maintains the federal system of government and representation
-
The Electoral College would be fought for, and mostly by Republicans. But not just because of the 2000 Election.
It comes down to a State's rights/State Sovereignty issue.
By giving the States control over how the allocate their EC votes, they force the Candidates to pander to the States, as opposed to directly to the People.
We have to remember that while we Generally see ourselves as a single nation, that we are in fact 50 States that form a nation.
Tomorrow, in a fit of sobriety, I'll try to find a Supreme Court Justice who can express this better than I can.
-Sik
-
we are in fact 50 States that form a nation
Not quite....U.S. Const. Art. IV, cl 2.
-
I'd like to see it changed to lose the 'winner take all' bit. If candidate A gets 60% of the popular vote in a state, and candidate B gets 40%, then A should get 60% of the electoral votes from that state, and B should get 40% of'em.
But I would imagine the 2 big parties would vehemently fight against something like this because then libs/independents might actually take a few electoral votes.
-
I heard O'Connor talk about the electoral college. She said the problem really is that all of the states would have to agree to change the system--the small states would obviously balk at this for reasons discussed above. She mentioned her home state Arizona.
sorry 3/4 would have to agree.
-
If the Electoral College were abolished, candidates would have little incentive to visit less populated states. Nominees would concentrate on big cities and population states, mainly in the Northeast and California.
That may have been true in 1904. To steal an old line "We've come a long way, Baby!" Television and the internet quash that arguement. America is interwoven now. Presidential candidates pander more to groups than states, unless those states are "swing". This leaves the majority of the states to form their opinion from....wait for it....
television and the internet.
-
Increasing the resolution of electorial votes might help. In other words, a state might have the same number of electorial votes, but the could be subdevided( i.e., some parts of the state go one party, another part goes with another party).
-
Nebraska and Maine theoretically split votes based on house districts
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
Nebraska and Maine theoretically split votes based on house districts
Yeah, that's what I was talking about. Either do the electoral vote by district (whoever carries the district gets that vote) to split'em, or just split'em outright based on the % of the popular vote.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
Not quite....U.S. Const. Art. IV, cl 2.
And this dissolves dual sovereignty how?
[edit] it would help if I had a Section to look at
-Sik
-
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const. art. VI, Section 2
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
U.S. Const. art. VI, Section 2
I thought you might be talking about the supremacy clause, but you can see how I was confused between Art IV, Clause 2 and Article VI, Section 2.
However, While the supremacy clause establishes that States can not pass laws that are contrary to federal law, there is no reading of this clause that dissolves the rights of the states that are provided in the 10th Amendment. If your contention was on point, the 10th Amendment wouldn't exist.
-Sik
-
Was anyone else just plain dissapointed by Googles graphics on election day, i was really expecting more than just a check box, Booooooo Google.
-
How many federal laws have been overtruned under a 10th Amnd analysis?
How many state laws have fallen to the Supremacy Clause?
Sorry about the roman numeral mixup.
Sik
This case supports your position, however, it has been limited to apply only to soveriegn immunity:
Alden v. Maine
119 S.Ct. 2240
Jun 23, 1999
-
The electoral college was agreed to by the large states when the Constitution was ratified. There is no reason to get rid of it. It prevents a few huge states from dominating the election. The Dems are just looking for ANY WAY to increase their poll numbers.
-
We have the EC system for exactly the same reason we have the Senate. Is the Senate also a pointless archaic notion?
If so, then you must also consider states themselves pointless, since both the Senate and the EC exist as a means of maintaining states' equality. If we get rid of the "outdated" EC system, why not go all the way and get rid of the states? Just have federal and local government. That's consistent at least.
Personally I like the EC system, I like states rights, and I wish the Federal government was more limited than it is.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
How many federal laws have been overtruned under a 10th Amnd analysis?
How many state laws have fallen to the Supremacy Clause?
Sorry about the roman numeral mixup?
Prior to the New Deal, the 10th Amendment held sway, post new Deal the Supremacy Clause (with the help of the commerce clause) has over run most issues of State Soverignty, as a matter of law (although with Rinquist and Thomas in the court, things are at a wierd point now).
But this all supports the need for the Electoral College, as a tool of perserving the State Soverignty shown in the 10th Amendment. While the Powers of the Federal Government were expanded under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court hypothesised that the Sovereignty of the States fell into the makeup of the Government, more than the ability to pass laws.
I'm sorry I don't have a specific case cite here, like I said, I'll find it tomorrow.
With all that said, I should admit that I don't have a dog in this fight. I've always been a Federalist, and don't really care for States Rights. But I do think that you go to far in saying that they have no Sovereignty, by virtue of the Supremacy clause.
-Sik
-
I edited with a case cite here it is again:
Alden v. Maine
119 S.Ct. 2240
U.S.Me.,1999.
Jun 23, 1999
Supports your position--but has been limited to soverign immunity.
[I am just yanking chains]
BTW, people have rights, governments have powers. Nowhere in the Const. are states given rights.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
.
[I am just yanking chains]
BTW, people have rights, governments have powers. Nowhere in the Const. are states given rights.
I'm just trying to remember enough to pass my Con-law final lol.
With regard to "states rights" Notice that when "officially" talking about it, I refer to "State Soveignty", and when casually refering to it, I use "State's Rights" I think that's acceptable :)
Although, as mentioned, I've been drinking so I'm sure I've ****ed it up somewhere lol.
[edit]
Originally posted by Sikboy
However, While the supremacy clause establishes that States can not pass laws that are contrary to federal law, there is no reading of this clause that dissolves the rights of the states that are provided in the 10th Amendment.
**** lol.
-Sik
-
Did you go to law school? If yes where?
-
Originally posted by ra
The electoral college was agreed to by the large states when the Constitution was ratified. There is no reason to get rid of it. It prevents a few huge states from dominating the election. The Dems are just looking for ANY WAY to increase their poll numbers.
This is backed up by the fact that they dominate the major population centers. If you look at the county map from the last election you see ALOT of red surrounding little blue areas.
The farmers and Rural people arent represented without the electoral college.
BUT
I must say this. I desagree with the way it is applied now because it favors a major 2 party system wich I happen to diagree with.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
Did you go to law school? If yes where?
I'm a 2L at George Washington
-Sik
-
I just graduated from GW.
I had Lupo and Baron for Con law.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
I just graduated from GW.
No ****? Small World :)
You back in WY now, or still out here?
-Sik
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
I just graduated from GW.
I had Lupo and Baron for Con law.
I have Colby, I think he's new.
-Sik
-
I am a clerk to a federal district judge out here. only for a year.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
I am a clerk to a federal district judge out here. only for a year.
Sweet gig.
Did you Know Anne O'Connel? She was my Dean's Fellow for LRW. I think she's clerking up in One of the Dakota's now.
-Sik
-
Knew of her--she is going to Reinquist (if he's around) in 2005.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
Knew of her--she is going to Reinquist (if he's around) in 2005.
Yeah, aint that some ****?
If I had 1/2 the motivation she had, I'd still have 3x as much as I do lol.
-Sik
-
how did FIP go for you?
-
Here's a picture of me getting a handjob from George himself.
(http://www.hailcesarz.com/images/frontpage.gif)
-Sik
-
HA! LOL
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
how did FIP go for you?
I didn't interview this fall. I'm working for a Small firm in downtown DC right now, and it's giving me everything I want right now.
But my Boss (http://www.dcemploymentlaw.com/) is retiring soon, so I'll probably sign up for Next fall.
-Sik
-
Hey, I remember that picture - I did a caption thing for it.
Can't remember what it was though...
-
the electoral college is only a bad thing when the democrats lose, when the democrats win it is a good thing.
-
Originally posted by CavemanJ
I'd like to see it changed to lose the 'winner take all' bit. If candidate A gets 60% of the popular vote in a state, and candidate B gets 40%, then A should get 60% of the electoral votes from that state, and B should get 40% of'em.
But I would imagine the 2 big parties would vehemently fight against something like this because then libs/independents might actually take a few electoral votes.
<----- this skinny lil white man SAY A FUGGING OK thats the y way it should be no if's and or butt's !
-
Has a state represenative voted against the popular vote of the state?
Is that possible or is it automatic that the popular vote of the state gets the electorial votes.
-
Originally posted by tapakeg
Has a state represenative voted against the popular vote of the state?
Is that possible or is it automatic that the popular vote of the state gets the electorial votes.
the electorial voters are selected by the winning party, they are not necessarily a elected state represenative,and they do not have to legaly vote for the winner of the popular vote, but they have only voted for the loser a few times.
-
I think as things are right now that the Electoral College gives to much clout to states like California, New York, Ohio and Florida.
California is the *big enchilada* when it comes to EC votes with 55. I wonder how many people in California alone didnt bother to vote simply because they knew the Democrats were gonna win all the EC votes. The same can be asked of any state that was voting primarily for one candidate or the other.
Nebraska, strongly republican......how many democrats might have stayed home?
New York, strongly democrat.....how many republicans might have stayed home?
Ultimately I would be in favor of the popular vote deciding the office of Presidency. The popular vote decides every other election in the US, and thats the way it should be in a democracy imo.
-
EC is a bit obsolete but i dont think they will remove it. Alot of people do think that their votes dont count because of the EC.
-
Electoral College is there for the same reason we had the Great Compromise (2 houses of congress).
Without the electoral college, no one cares about Louisiana or New Mexico or Ohio or Maine. Everyone cares about California, New York, and Florida.
And because of that, they are the ones that get all the funding for roads, schools, and any other bonuses the Fed. government can slip by to ensure a nice victory. It is better to have it for a multitude of reasons.