McCain-warns-there-will-be- war

[Amianthus]

Your paragraph explains why the electoral college was developed. Yet, I've still to hear why it is needed today.

Because the President remains the president of the states. While he's been given more power over the years, the basic position hasn't changed. Even many nominally federal programs are administered via the state.

[_JS]

Isn't that how democracy works, one man = one vote regardless of where he lives?

Yea, it does quite well, at the state & local level, where one's constituencies are much more specific.  Thankfully, we don't run this country via mob rule

So rural votes should count more than urban votes? To make it "fair."

[Amianthus]

So rural votes should count more than urban votes? To make it "fair."

The votes are allocated among the states based on population plus an additional two for each state.

[sirs]

So rural votes should count more than urban votes? To make it "fair."

The votes are allocated among the states based on population plus an additional two for each state.

Thank you Ami

[Michael Tee]

<<Your paragraph explains why the electoral college was developed. Yet, I've still to hear why it is needed today.>>

The short answer is that it isn't.  I've watched the defences  of the Electoral College in this thread, and they are really lame.  They're basically a negation of the "one person one vote" rule and designed for smaller interest groups to be protected from larger interest groups.  I suppose it's impossible for a Presidential candidate to present a plan to the electorate that balances out the competing interests of rural vs. urban populations, and let the electorate decide themselves - - but they are too dumb to make a good choice, so we have the Electoral College.  The alternative to an Electoral College (one person one vote for President) is variously described as "mob rule" or "letting people vote on farm issues when they don't know which end of a chicken to feed."  Well, that's the problem with democracy, isn't it?  If they're too fucking dumb to know which end of a chicken gets fed, why give 'em the vote at all?

[Amianthus]

They're basically a negation of the "one person one vote" rule

Where is this "rule" stated?

For that matter, why is Congress allowed to stand? After all, the delegation to Congress is just as "unbalanced" as the Electoral College...

[sirs]

<<Your paragraph explains why the electoral college was developed. Yet, I've still to hear why it is needed today.>>

The short answer is that it isn't.  I've watched the defences  of the Electoral College in this thread, and they are really lame.  They're basically a negation of the "one person one vote" rule and designed for smaller interest groups to be protected from larger interest groups. 

Despite the twisted logic, what a stunning hypocratic revelation coming from the party that supposedly prides itself in protecting the weak from the strong.  I guess it depends on who the weak are.  If they're likely to vote Republican, by all means, throw them to the side of the road.

[Michael Tee]

<<Where is this "rule" stated?>>

I don't know where it's stated.  During the Civil Rights era, it was "one man one vote" so I guess the version I just gave is the more PC one.  It's a principle by which a lot of people evaluate how democratic an institution really is.

<<For that matter, why is Congress allowed to stand? After all, the delegation to Congress is just as "unbalanced" as the Electoral College...>>

Well, I guess Congress is more obviously a relic of the Federal system.  Seems to work pretty well as it is, so "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."   The Electoral College is also a relic, but obviously a broken one if we look to the 2000 Presidential election, which was a catastrophe.  The people didn't get what they wanted, they got what the System wanted, and the result was a disaster, compounded by the fact that most people didn't vote for the idiot who represented the minority of voters but managed, due to the System, to foul the nest that they all lived in.

[Michael Tee]

<<Despite the twisted logic, what a stunning hypocratic revelation coming from the party that supposedly prides itself in protecting the weak from the strong.  I guess it depends on who the weak are.  If they're likely to vote Republican, by all means, throw them to the side of the road.>>

The "weak" in this case being the upper-income white suburbanites and the Fortune 500 corporations forming the backbone of the Republican Party.

[Plane]

<<Despite the twisted logic, what a stunning hypocratic revelation coming from the party that supposedly prides itself in protecting the weak from the strong.  I guess it depends on who the weak are.  If they're likely to vote Republican, by all means, throw them to the side of the road.>>

The "weak" in this case being the upper-income white suburbanites and the Fortune 500 corporations forming the backbone of the Republican Party.

Half of the country is upper income?
I think you have learned the Republican secret weapon , since the poor vote Democra , lets enrich them.

[Michael Tee]

<<Half of the country is upper income?>>

No they're not, but they're dumb enough to vote against their own economic interests, thanks to the snake-oil salesmen of a party representing the upper-income sector, selling a heady brew of racism, fascism and militarism.  Don't ever fall into the trap of thinking that the beneficiaries of Republican administrations are the vast majorities of Republican voters.

[Amianthus]

I don't know where it's stated.

Probably because it's not.

Well, I guess Congress is more obviously a relic of the Federal system.  Seems to work pretty well as it is, so "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."   The Electoral College is also a relic, but obviously a broken one if we look to the 2000 Presidential election, which was a catastrophe.

The votes in the Electoral College are calculated the same way the votes in Congress are calculated¹ so I guess if Congress "ain't broke" neither is the Electoral College. And what happened in 2000 is no different than what happened in a number of other elections going back to the early 1800s; except that the loser filed a court case.

This is all really silly. I mean, we even have JS making the claim that "no other [democratically elected] government uses a board to elect their leader." Actually, in most Parliamentary systems (which most democracies use), it's worse than in the US system. In those systems, the head of state is the Prime Minster, and that office is usually voted on by only the majority party (or coalition), therefore denying a vote to everyone who is not affiliated with the majority party. The US system allows everyone to vote for an Elector (and the number of electors are based on population), so it is "defacto" more representative of the population. The several times the Electoral College vote did not match the popular vote were statistical quirks, mostly based on large population moves just before a census (as was the case with the late 90s and the 2000 election).

¹ - With one exception: DC gets 3 votes in the Electoral College, but gets no votes in Congress. Though, if this is the point where the Electoral College is broken, it would be an easy fix to remove those 3 votes.

[Plane]

<<Half of the country is upper income?>>

No they're not, but they're dumb enough to vote against their own economic interests, thanks to the snake-oil salesmen of a party representing the upper-income sector, selling a heady brew of racism, fascism and militarism.  Don't ever fall into the trap of thinking that the beneficiaries of Republican administrations are the vast majorities of Republican voters.

Govenor Corzine of New Jersey holds the record for most dollars spent for each vote.
 Snake oil is not patented for the Republicans, nor does facism have any real place in American politics , militarism on the other hand is quit popular with Republicans, many of us have been members ofthe Armed forces and or some of us the military was the best grade in the school of life , so your accusation of militarism I do accept as having a grain of truth.

The Wealthy of the Democratic Party do not actually number less than the wealthy of the Republican party, but Democrats seem to be ashamed of their wealth . I speculate that the wealthy join the Republicans when they have provided service to the community and become wealthy as a result , wealthy join the Democrats when they feel a need for shame and atonement because they didn't really earn their wealth.  

[_JS]

So rural votes should count more than urban votes? To make it "fair."

The votes are allocated among the states based on population plus an additional two for each state.

So that in Wyoming and Alaska, the votes are worth more individually than in populous states like Texas. Do you disagree?

[sirs]

<<Despite the twisted logic, what a stunning hypocratic revelation coming from the party that supposedly prides itself in protecting the weak from the strong.  I guess it depends on who the weak are.  If they're likely to vote Republican, by all means, throw them to the side of the road.>>

The "weak" in this case being the upper-income white suburbanites and the Fortune 500 corporations forming the backbone of the Republican Party.

That's strange.....the rural America that Js & I have been referencing (at least I have) are pretty much middle-low income folks, spread all across the central & southern portions of the country.  I think you refer to them as rednecks.  Rednecks are now running Fortune 500 Corporations??  Pretty lame redirection effort their, Tee.  I realize the pickle you put yourself into.  Let's watch more of that wiggling