Did you read the article where he author explained mathematically that the EC gives your single vote more weight?[/quote]
Yes. That’s just wrong. Mathematically, a vote is a vote is a vote. All that mumbo-jumbo doesn’t change that. The distortion created by the districting system far outweighs the advantages he mention.
I disagree. The federal system has a wholly national component, the executive.
[quote]
Why?[/quote]
It’s folksy sounding, and appeals to the American love of sports, and has zero to do with the issue at hand.
wait, but you said your vote in new york was worthless. why is a vote in pennsylvania worth more? because the race is closer in pennsylvania.
basically, you’re saying if the race isn’t close you won’t bother to vote. so if bush had a 10 point lead nationally, then ALL votes in this country would be worthless. why bother?
that is the mathematical point the author is making.
that is the mathematical point the author is making.[/quote]
and it is wrong. he’s just breaking the problem up. the sum total of someone like me in ny where it is almost pointless and Pa where your vote counts and all the other states is a national picture. for every winner in west virginia or some other swing state who finds his vote “has more weight” there is a loser in ny or somewhere who finds his vote has exactly as little weight, in inverse proportion.
with a national election, you would have a 100% fair representation of the national electorate, nothing more, nothing less. what more could you want? as a voter, that’s all i’m asking for.
[quote=“Tempo Gain”]
with a national election, you would have a 100% fair representation of the national electorate, nothing more, nothing less. what more could you want? as a voter, that’s all I’m asking for.[/quote]
no, a federal system of government is not as fair as a pure democracy. it’s also not fair that a resident of wyoming has more say on how our national tax dollars are spent than a resident of california. unfortunately, a federal system is what we have and i don’t see that changing anytime soon.
Doing away with the EC would go a long way toward doing away with our federal system.
You seem to totally ignore the fear of mob rule that our founding fathers had. Our founding fathers were wisely aware of and afraid of pure democracy and mob rule. They understood that a pure democratic system had no means of preventing tyranny by the simple majority. How many millions of blacks lived as slave chattel in the US under what was at the time the most democratic system on the planet? Even if blacks had the right to vote in the US at that time, they could have been outvoted in a pure democracy by the majority of whites in the type of pure democracy you seem to think would “bring our nation closer together”. I fail to see how such a result or even possibility could be “good for our democracy”.
[quote=“Jonah Goldberg”]In a pure democracy, the majority simply has its say. Imagine that 75 percent of Americans want to ban smoking in all public places. Shouldn’t they be able to? A strict majoritarian would say absolutely. But what if the 25 percent of Americans opposing the ban lived in one or two states? In a pure democracy, those people must cave to the will of the many. But under a federal system, the pro-smokers get to decide the sort of government they want to live under. From school prayer to abortion to drug policy, an “undemocratic” national system allows for a more democratic local arrangement, which helps ensure more happiness for everyone.
Indeed, thwarting the will of the majority is not only essential to ensuring happiness, it is essential to ensuring justice. Our inalienable rights, for example, are immune to popular will. I can write almost whatever I want even if millions of people vote otherwise. I can worship whom I want even if millions vote otherwise.[/quote]
no, a federal system of government is not as fair as a pure democracy. it’s also not fair that a resident of wyoming has more say on how our national tax dollars are spent than a resident of California. unfortunately, a federal system is what we have and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.[/quote]
neither do I. but I can ask
[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]
You seem to totally ignore the fear of mob rule that our founding fathers had. Our founding fathers were wisely aware of and afraid of pure democracy and mob rule. They understood that a pure democratic system had no means of preventing tyranny by the simple majority. How many millions of blacks lived as slave chattel in the US under what was at the time the most democratic system on the planet? Even if blacks had the right to vote in the US at that time, they could have been outvoted in a pure democracy by the majority of whites in the type of pure democracy you seem to think would “bring our nation closer together”. I fail to see how such a result or even possibility could be “good for our democracy”.[/quote]
I am totally ignoring it. I do not have the fear of mob rule that our aristocratic founding fathers had in 1783. i do not fear tyranny by a simple majority under our presidential system. i can not see any kind of nightmare big brother scenario as you so frightfully describe above resulting from that. that blacks were enslaved in the US hardly sways me, the electoral college system did not help them much!
fair democracy is good democracy. if we cannot trust a representative elected by all Americans in a straightforward fashion to manage our affairs in a fair way i don’t see the point of democracy at all–or perhaps i should say the presidential system.
for your pure democracy to work, we would also have to abolish the supreme court. the people decide based on pure majority vote. so if 51% of the people were to vote to outlaw gay marriages… hell, if 51% of the people were to vote to make homosexuality illegal…
I don’t trust other people to tell me how to live.
I cannot understand how you can be so unconcerned about this.
If we did have a pure democratic vote for the President, it is very possible that some candidate from one party could latch onto a single issue that a majority of the electorate agreed and if his party had a sufficient majority in the Congress and he were elected, the majority could push to have certain legislation passed which would infringe upon the rights of the or a minority.
Again, I am surprised that this is of no concern to you.
How about No abortion?
No homosexual marriage?
Outlawing homosexuality?
No smoking anywhere?
No welfare benefits?
Or, the opposite of all or any of the above (depending upon your own political stance)?
Yes precisely my point. The electoral college system was precisely of as much use to blacks as the direct system would have been. Your argument holds no water.
[quote]
I don’t trust other people to tell me how to live.
I cannot understand how you can be so unconcerned about this.
If we did have a pure democratic vote for the President, it is very possible that some candidate from one party could latch onto a single issue that a majority of the electorate agreed and if his party had a sufficient majority in the Congress and he were elected, the majority could push to have certain legislation passed which would infringe upon the rights of the or a minority.
Again, I am surprised that this is of no concern to you.
How about No abortion?
No homosexual marriage?
Outlawing homosexuality?
No smoking anywhere?
No welfare benefits?
Or, the opposite of all or any of the above (depending upon your own political stance)?[/quote]
You seem to have this idea that the electoral college is some kind of magical barrier protecting us from presidents exacting the will of the majority. I do not see that at all. A president today could just as easily latch onto some issue and if the majority of Americans agreed with it and were willing to vote for him based on that, he would in all probability be elected. This does not happen for many reasons–largely because no one issue is important to the majority to the exclusion of all others–but because the executive does not have absolute power in our system it is highly unlikely to begin with. This would not change under a direct election system. I find your fears misplaced.
Is is not also possible in a very close race under the electoral system for a candidate to latch on to a single issue relevant only to the key swing states. For instance in this election it could be protectionist measures for certain industries. Now this would be bad for the US as a whole but could well win the election by garnering the majority of support in the swing states. In this case the opposite of the fear you state above is the problem. ie that a minority would infringe on the rights of the majority.
I like the look of the federal system. I think the idea that all states have two senators regardless of size is a good way to keep the power within the federal system. But I think the president should be a man (or woman before I get into trouble ) for all America, not just a few swing states. It is amazing how the same states keep coming up over and over again when they say where the candidates have been on the news. Do people that live outside the swing states not matter? If i were them I would be pretty pissed off, especially if I lived in a state which was predominantly of the opposite political camp to me.
I think the outcome would be much less likely. If the issue was bad for the US as a whole but important in only a few swing states, the other states would probably adjust their voting to counter the special interest.
That is what the EC virtually guarantees. Popular vote does not.
The founding fathers were wise in the system of checks and balances they instituted. I trust this system to protect us against mob rule. I certainly do not fear that direct election of the president would lead to mob rule.
The founding fathers were wise in the system of checks and balances they instituted. I trust this system to protect us against mob rule. I certainly do not fear that direct election of the president would lead to mob rule.[/quote]
The EC is part of the checks and balances those wise men placed in our system.
The EC is part of the checks and balances those wise men placed in our system.[/quote]
checks and balances between states when they were practically independent entities and needed to be coaxed together. not the situation we are in today.
[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]
That brings us back to a question that I asked earlier that you haven’t yet answered:
If a popular election were to replace the EC, why should low population states remain in the Union?[/quote]
the state doesn’t matter as a political entity on a national level. each person in that state is an american same as me and their vote would count no more or less than mine no matter where i lived.
they’d still have their two senators. how much influence do you need? fair is fair.
) for all America, not just a few swing states. It is amazing how the same states keep coming up over and over again when they say where the candidates have been on the news. Do people that live outside the swing states not matter? If i were them I would be pretty pissed off, especially if I lived in a state which was predominantly of the opposite political camp to me.