Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2014, 11:32:20 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Questions and Answers
| |-+  Presidential Election Process
| | |-+  Electoral Reform
| | | |-+  Should we abolish the electoral college?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] Print
Poll
Question: Should the United States change its method of electing presidents from an electoral college to direct popular vote (and a runoff if no candidate gets a majority of the vote in the first round)?
Yes   -36 (66.7%)
No   -18 (33.3%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 54

Author Topic: Should we abolish the electoral college?  (Read 3833 times)
Lulz
Rookie
*
Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2011, 02:35:31 am »
Ignore

Bush would never have been elected.  Enough said. 

^ Posts like these are exactly why I oppose abolishing the EC.

So you both support your arguments for purely political reasons? How pure of the two of you.

I only meant what I said about Bush as a joke.  I oppose it because it is an undemocratic institution and distorts the vote. 

Unfortunately this country was never meant to be a Democracy in the modern sense.  What goes on in the Senate and the White House today would be an anathema to the founding fathers.  They never intended for the unwashed masses to elect our most powerful leaders.
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28713
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2011, 04:37:21 am »
Ignore

Yes (likes democracy)
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
muon2
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8090


View Profile
« Reply #27 on: June 30, 2011, 11:49:20 am »
Ignore

Yes (likes democracy)

By which I assume you mean direct democracy as opposed to parliamentary democracy.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28713
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #28 on: June 30, 2011, 12:47:20 pm »
Ignore

Yes (likes democracy)

By which I assume you mean direct democracy as opposed to parliamentary democracy.

I support the "one man, one vote" principle.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5989
Australia


View Profile
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2011, 11:03:18 pm »
Ignore

Yes (likes democracy)

By which I assume you mean direct democracy as opposed to parliamentary democracy.

I support the "one man, one vote" principle.

Does that mean apportioning Congressional Districts to states based on registered voters rather than simply by population?
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28713
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #30 on: July 01, 2011, 11:52:30 am »
Ignore

Yes (likes democracy)

By which I assume you mean direct democracy as opposed to parliamentary democracy.

I support the "one man, one vote" principle.

Does that mean apportioning Congressional Districts to states based on registered voters rather than simply by population?

It would be a good thing, yeah. But the best would be to simply get rid of Congressional Districs and switch to PR, of course.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
beneficii
Full Member
***
Posts: 159


View Profile
« Reply #31 on: August 04, 2011, 11:04:52 am »
Ignore


I ask this somewhat rhetorically, because the EC is designed in some ways to replace the parliamentary function of selecting the head of government (ie the prime minister). The Founders did not want a British-style parliament and explicitly separated the executive from legislative branches. Nonetheless, they still perceived a body that mirrored the legislature acting as a parliament to select the president - the Electoral College.

Wrong.  The Westminster parliamentary system had not quite developed yet when the Constitution was ratified, as the prime minister was still seen as being in service to the king and not to Parliament.  They saw the President as substituting for the king and Congress as substituting for Parliament, but added aspects to the system to limit the power of the President and strengthen Congress.  We simply diverged from the British system before it moved into a Westminster parliamentary system.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 26616
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #32 on: August 04, 2011, 03:40:23 pm »
Ignore


I ask this somewhat rhetorically, because the EC is designed in some ways to replace the parliamentary function of selecting the head of government (ie the prime minister). The Founders did not want a British-style parliament and explicitly separated the executive from legislative branches. Nonetheless, they still perceived a body that mirrored the legislature acting as a parliament to select the president - the Electoral College.

Wrong.  The Westminster parliamentary system had not quite developed yet when the Constitution was ratified, as the prime minister was still seen as being in service to the king and not to Parliament.  They saw the President as substituting for the king and Congress as substituting for Parliament, but added aspects to the system to limit the power of the President and strengthen Congress.  We simply diverged from the British system before it moved into a Westminster parliamentary system.

While the reference to Westminster is arguable, muon is quite correct that the Framers were purposely trying to avoid the example of having the legislative elect the executive that was the practice in a majority of the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.
Logged

Daily Reflections on the Revised Common Lectionary

Bible thumping kept to a minimum unless you go to sleep!
The below comic stars me!
A-Bob
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 5934
United States


Political Matrix
E: 3.42, S: 1.13

View Profile
« Reply #33 on: August 04, 2011, 03:52:13 pm »
Ignore

I'd rather have each congressional district getting a vote, going Maine and Nebraska style for the whole nation.

Having a direct popular vote is chaos if it came to a recount because instead of narrowing it down to one state, we'd have to do the entire nation. And it destroys all federalism and would heavily favor urban areas over rural states and districts which would then get zero attention at all for presidential elections.
Logged

greenforest32
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2504


Political Matrix
E: -7.94, S: -8.43

View Profile
« Reply #34 on: August 04, 2011, 05:25:02 pm »
Ignore

Yes we should get rid of it.

We should elect the president by the national popular vote just like we elect our Governors with the statewide popular vote.

+1 for the majority requirement.
Logged
Franzl
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 21408
Germany


View Profile
« Reply #35 on: August 08, 2011, 01:45:59 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Having a direct popular vote is chaos if it came to a recount because instead of narrowing it down to one state, we'd have to do the entire nation
.

The thing is, a national popular vote would greatly reduce the probability of a recount being necessary. The Electoral College artificially creates "close" situations.

Quote
And it destroys all federalism


Incorrect. Doesn't have anything to do with state vs. federal power. Nothing at all. It's simply a voting system for the head of state.

Quote
and would heavily favor urban areas over rural states and districts which would then get zero attention at all for presidential elections.

Also incorrect. The current system gives rural areas a lot more influence than is just...but a national popular vote gives every voter equal influence.
Logged
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28713
France


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -4.87

P P P

View Profile
« Reply #36 on: August 08, 2011, 03:32:09 pm »
Ignore

Quote
Having a direct popular vote is chaos if it came to a recount because instead of narrowing it down to one state, we'd have to do the entire nation
.

The thing is, a national popular vote would greatly reduce the probability of a recount being necessary. The Electoral College artificially creates "close" situations.

Quote
And it destroys all federalism


Incorrect. Doesn't have anything to do with state vs. federal power. Nothing at all. It's simply a voting system for the head of state.

Quote
and would heavily favor urban areas over rural states and districts which would then get zero attention at all for presidential elections.

Also incorrect. The current system gives rural areas a lot more influence than is just...but a national popular vote gives every voter equal influence.

Franzl has the rare ability to say great truths in the simplest and clearest way.
Logged

Quote from: IRC
22:15   ComradeSibboleth   this is all extremely terrible and in all respects absolutely fycking dire.
Harry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18249
United States


View Profile
« Reply #37 on: August 08, 2011, 06:58:34 pm »
Ignore

Having a direct popular vote is chaos if it came to a recount because instead of narrowing it down to one state, we'd have to do the entire nation. And it destroys all federalism and would heavily favor urban areas over rural states and districts which would then get zero attention at all for presidential elections.

Under the Electoral College system, rural areas are still ignored.  All rural areas in non-swing states are automatically ignored, and in even swing states, only big cities are visited.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines