McCain-warns-there-will-be- war

[Michael Tee]

That the Electoral College system is broken was apparent from the fiasco of the 2000 election, when the President was chosen with a minority of the popular vote.  Although the same representational inequities may exist in Congress, there is never such a clear-cut and obvious flouting of the popular will as was seen in the election of the "President."

Although the fiction of the President being the "President of the States" works in theory, in real life, states aren't people and can't feel the connection to the President that the people feel.  To the majority of the people of the U.S.A., their choice was flouted.  That the choice of "the states" was honoured is small consolation.  Democratic principles require that the President be the president of all the people of the country, elected by all the people on a one-person-one-vote basis, otherwise he or she will lack democratic validation.   The validation of "the System" as opposed to the validation of "the people" is a pathetically inadequate substitute.  As the quote from Alexander Hamilton, posted earlier in this thread, clearly shows, the real motivation for the Electoral College is the elitist notion that the people left to their own devices, are just too fucking dumb to elect a good President.

If the Electoral College system really worked as the Constitution intended, the Electors would be left on their own, without prior commitments, free to change their opinions at will, to vote for whomever the hell it pleased them to vote for, once elected.

[_JS]

Hey, maybe one man = one vote is a bit cliche, but your side has used "if it ain't broke don't fix it" 

Mikey is not on my side. And he used that to declare that the representation in Congress was ok. Since the representation in Congress "ain't broke" then why is the representation in the Electoral College "broke"?

Who says the representation in Congress ain't broke?

[_JS]

As I said, the system was setup so that the most representative government (the state) was closer to the people. The federal government is supposed to represent the states, not the people.

BEST summation to date.  Knocked that one out of the park, Ami

Then at least be honest Sirs and state that you do not support one man = one vote, but instead support a system where people in Wyoming and Alaska have votes that are worth more than your vote and my vote.

If you're asking do I support that the President be representative to ALL states, and not just the one I happen to be living in, then, yea.  That is how our Country was founded and is represented.  And it works, thank God, so that mob rule isn't the SOP

That isn't what I asked.

You support a system where an Alaskan voter is worth more than a Texan voter.

Correct?

[sirs]

As Ami has already expertly articulated, the Fed represents the states, not the people.  Populations are properly represented, and the more populated states have far more electoral votes than the lesser populated ones.  Yet, under such a system, Candidates can't simply ignore those lesser populated states, but as you can see, don't provide near the # of electoral votes than what California, NY, and Texas provide.  So, I really don't understand your beef.  Tee, I can.....mob rule and more powerful lobbying voices are perfectly acceptable, if it benefits the left's agenda

[Michael Tee]

I think it's appropriate in Congress but not the Electoral College.  Basically, it's because there is still some point to having the states represented as states in Congress, whereas the President really is the President of the people more than of the states.  He represents a national power, not the culmination of the power of the power of the states, and as such should be directly elected by the people.

Let the marketplace of ideas govern Presidential elections - - I've never seen a Presidential election yet where one candidate says, "I'm gonna do what's good for the manufacturing states and fuck the farm states."  People today realize the President is a national president and would reject one who stood too one-sidedly for regional interests. 

Also this stuff about "mob" rule is just inflammatory and ludicrous in the circumstances.  Mob psychology doesn't govern presidential elections.  All the exit polls show that the voters are deciding on national issues anyway.

[sirs]

Also this stuff about "mob" rule is just inflammatory and ludicrous in the circumstances.  

Yea, I'm sure that's what the slaves were thinking, in the late 1700's.  Majority then thought it perfectly acceptable....so obviously, it must have been       

[Xavier_Onassis]

The Electoral College is probably doing what was intended for it to do. The thing is that this is not necessary and actually detrimental to America Democracy. It is an anachronism and should be eliminated.

[sirs]

It's called a Constitutional Convention.  Knock your socks off

[Plane]

Let the marketplace of ideas govern Presidential elections - - I've never seen a Presidential election yet where one candidate says, "I'm gonna do what's good for the manufacturing states and fuck the farm states."  People today realize the President is a national president and would reject one who stood too one-sidedly for regional interests. 

Yes that is theexcellence of the present system.

[Amianthus]

That the Electoral College system is broken was apparent from the fiasco of the 2000 election, when the President was chosen with a minority of the popular vote.  Although the same representational inequities may exist in Congress, there is never such a clear-cut and obvious flouting of the popular will as was seen in the election of the "President."

Except, of course, the three other times it happened...

[Amianthus]

Democratic principles require that the President be the president of all the people of the country, elected by all the people on a one-person-one-vote basis, otherwise he or she will lack democratic validation.

So, it's bad here, but it's ok in other countries? Like Canada?

[Amianthus]

If the Electoral College system really worked as the Constitution intended, the Electors would be left on their own, without prior commitments, free to change their opinions at will, to vote for whomever the hell it pleased them to vote for, once elected.

Hate to tell you this, but that is exactly how it works. The Electors can vote for anyone they choose - they are called "faithless electors" and most elections see one or two of them.

[Amianthus]

Who says the representation in Congress ain't broke?

Mikey.