Abolish US Electoral College?

Nubclear · June 16, 2002, 03:34

A lot of people say that the electoral college should be abolished, because it ultimately fails at its attempt to "recognize the little guys".

They're arguement is that if a small group of people gets a candidate 30 percent of the vote, and the rest goes for Candidate B then ever single vote goes for candidate B. Or if Candidate A got 49.99 percent of the votes, and Candidate B got 51.01 percent of the votes, all votes go to B. Even if its a high number like 50, all of them go for B.

I haven't heard a really good counter arguement. So, someone please try to convince me that we should not abolish the electoral college.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 03:38

I think that electoral college votes should be normalised to a state's population instead of the current weird-assed configuration.

Also, IIRC, there are two states who don't have a winner-takes all rule for electoral representatives.

notyoueither · June 16, 2002, 03:41

I think you've gone mad on the Demo game Tass.

Nubclear · June 16, 2002, 03:42

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think you've gone mad on the Demo game Tass.

Thanks, but I already knew that.

Ethelred · June 16, 2002, 04:25

I think two presidents being elected by the Electoral process when they came in second on the popular vote is a good enough reason to deep six it. The original idea supporting it is out of date, assuming it ever was in date in the first place. There is no way some party crony knows what I want or need for president better than I do and its party cronies that get the job.

Buck Birdseed · June 16, 2002, 05:19

I've no problem with votes being adjusted so that all states matter, but surely it should be done virtually and not with actual people sitting in a meeting and deciding. The way it's set up now, it's one of the US's few British-style 'good faith'/tradition-based institutions, and is open to abuse.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
I've no problem with votes being adjusted so that all states matter, but surely it should be done virtually and not with actual people sitting in a meeting and deciding. The way it's set up now, it's one of the US's few British-style 'good faith'/tradition-based institutions, and is open to abuse.

No it isn't. The number of electoral votes a state gets is determined by taking the number of Congressmen from that state and adding 2, for the 2 Senators each state gets (don't even get me started on that system

).

Thus, each resident of Wyoming has four times the say in who gets to be President as each resident of California does. Very fair, right?

EDIT: grammar was iffy

Asher · June 16, 2002, 05:30

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
2 Senators each state gets (don't even get me started on that system

).

That's precisely one of the reasons why the US government is (sadly) working better than the Canadian government. It's just hard for you to see, seeing as you're part of the majority anyway.

But yes, the US electoral college needs to be ditched. Badly.

Buck Birdseed · June 16, 2002, 05:32

It's a federal system. The vote distribution is designed to maximise the power of each state so that small states have something to say on the matter, while still according big states more power within the system. I see no problem with this.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:35

REally? I thought you didn't like farm subsidies, Asher. Because of the fact that the states benefitting most from these are small (and thus have greater power than their population merits), they get to throw their weight around and grab money from people in the big states' coffers.

One man, one vote. There's no reason we should give someone more power over the common government because he happens to live in Alaska rather than New York (or in PEI, rather than Ontario).

notyoueither · June 16, 2002, 05:36

I agree with Snapcase.

::Heart Attack::

JohnIII · June 16, 2002, 05:36

No, neither do I. The only problems I have with it are problems of implementation.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
It's a federal system. The vote distribution is designed to maximise the power of each state so that small states have something to say on the matter, while still according big states more power within the system. I see no problem with this.

Why should people in small states have their votes count for more?

In other words, why accord small state more power than its numbers merit?

Should we give minorities more say than their numbers merit because there are less of them?

Asher · June 16, 2002, 05:37

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
REally? I thought you didn't like farm subsidies, Asher.

When did I ever talk about farm subsidies?

Quote:

One man, one vote. There's no reason we should give someone more power over the common government because he happens to live in Alaska rather than New York (or in PEI, rather than Ontario).

You're such an idiot sometimes.

I also agree with Snapcase.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 05:40

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why should people in small states have their votes count for more?

Ah, but they don't.
Overall, the big states still have more political sway (as it should).

The Senate is one way of helping to prevent the tyranny of the majority of trampling the rights of the minorities.

It's not that hard of a concept.

If we extended your concept to the real world with an extreme situation, what if 50.0001% of the people in our world decided that all socialists should be killed? One man, one vote, rule of the majority, right? All the socialists are round up and killed.

The idea of the Senate is to have rule of the majority while respecting the rights of the minorities. Comprende?

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:40

Thanks, Ashie baby.

In the current system, small states (and small provinces in Canada, due to grandfathering of seats in Commons) are simply modern-day rotten boroughs.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 05:41

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
In the current system, small states (and small provinces in Canada, due to grandfathering of seats in Commons) are simply modern-day rotten boroughs.

(not to turn this into a Canadian political thread, but would you consider Alberta from 1980-1985 to be a "rotten borough"

It's a prime example of the tyranny of the majority trampling the rights of the minority -- end threadjack)

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:41

dp

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:42

Quote:

If we extended your concept to the real world with an extreme situation, what if 50.0001% of the people in our world decided that all socialists should be killed? One man, one vote, rule of the majority, right? All the socialists are round up and killed.

The idea of the Senate is to have rule of the majority while respecting the rights of the minorities. Comprende?

That's why both Canada and the US have Constitutions.

The Senate simply helps respect the rights of geographic minorities (and only those that happen to have gotten themselves their own state). Why don't we reserve more votes for racial, religious or political minorities?

Asher · June 16, 2002, 05:43

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
That's why both Canada and the US have Constitutions.

The constitutions obviously don't go far enough, considering we've already got a situation in one nameless country without a senate like this where one province's views are totally ignored by the rest of the country and they don't matter to them at all, since it's a minority province with "extreme" viewpoints.

Quote:

Why don't we reserve more votes for racial, religious or political minorities?

Because we don't elect based on those, that's why.
We elect based on region.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

(not to turn this into a Canadian political thread, but would you consider Alberta from 1980-1985 to be a "rotten borough"

It's a prime example of the tyranny of the majority trampling the rights of the minority -- end threadjack)

How would you have prevented that? Even with each prov. getting an equal number of reps in an EEE senate, Alberta's still outnumbered 9-1.

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher

The constitutions obviously don't go far enough, considering we've already got a situation in one nameless country without a senate like this where one province's views are totally ignored by the rest of the country and they don't matter to them at all, since it's a minority province with "extreme" viewpoints.

Because we don't elect based on those, that's why.
We elect based on region.

It's a silly system.

Oh, and same question. Alberta's views would still be ignored pretty easily. It's only one province.

notyoueither · June 16, 2002, 05:45

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse In other words, why accord small state more power than its numbers merit?

Should we give minorities more say than their numbers merit because there are less of them?

Not minorities KH. Regions. Wait until you experience the tyranny of the majority. Then you will know.

BTW, you almost did. All your fanciful talk of Montreal breaking off from Quebec to stay a part of Canada is just cr*p. Montreal would be engulfed in the first flourish of the sovereigntist militias. The north might be an issue, but not Montreal. Sorry.

Buck Birdseed · June 16, 2002, 05:47

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Why should people in small states have their votes count for more?

In other words, why accord small state more power than its numbers merit?

Because it's a federal system? In the EU, which is quite a few steps looser than the US, each state has a veto over major decisions. This system effectively provides a middle ground between each state having equal power (Which would incense the bigger states) and a competely non-federal system (Which would rightly incense the smaller states).

Quote:

Should we give minorities more say than their numbers merit because there are less of them?

I always advocated a system like this. Don't let the stronger groups push down the weaker groups...

Asher · June 16, 2002, 05:47

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
How would you have prevented that? Even with each prov. getting an equal number of reps in an EEE senate, Alberta's still outnumbered 9-1.

I don't think BC would have agreed with it. They weren't too fond of the policy either IIRC.

And it's still a better situation than currently. I mean, how retarded is it that the prime minister can arbitrarily select senators that stay senators for the rest of their life? Even when a province votes in someone completely different, the PM ignores that and appoints one of his liberal cronies.

THAT system is retarded. The US' system is far and above a better idea.

If it wouldn't make much difference as you're implying, why are you afraid of it?

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:48

Because I'm not going to let people steal the importance of my vote from me.

notyoueither · June 16, 2002, 05:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Snapcase
I always advocated a system like this. Don't let the stronger groups push down the weaker groups...

OMG. I want to have Snapcase's baby!

::Heart Attack::

KrazyHorse · June 16, 2002, 05:49

Our Senate is stupid, but it has zero real power, therefore we can ignore it. For all intents and purposes we have a unicameral parliamentary government.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 05:50

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because I'm not going to let people steal the importance of my vote from me.

But if you live in an area where your vote is "useless" that's what you're doing in the current system.

Christ KH, look outside your own little box. Learn to put yourself in another situation.

Asher · June 16, 2002, 05:51

Quote:

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Our Senate is stupid, but it has zero real power, therefore we can ignore it. For all intents and purposes we have a unicameral parliamentary government.

Which is controlled entirely by the majority government, which is elected entirely by ONLY the majority of the people.

You openly admit that there are no safeguards at all to protect provinces being assraped under the current system, and you're absolutely okay with this since you live in the 2nd largest province in the country.

HEEEEEEEELLLLLLLLLLOOO
wake up.

Edit: You also realize that 40% of the country's votes are actually dictating EVERYTHING that happens in Canada right now under that very same system? It's totally screwed up, and the USA's setup is far and away a better idea. At least they limit each branch's powers and use a system of checks and balanced, which are blatantly missing from Canada.