Electoral College (Revised)

The nature of this is very simple in my opinion. Do you believe that we should do away with the electoral college in favor of a direct popular vote, or do you believe we should keep it the same? The electoral college is not a direct reflection of the people's will, and with the ease of counting ballots that we enjoy today, I see no reason why we shouldn't go by that. What is the point in having a popular election, in which potential candidates spend tons of money, when the vote is decided by a single person? Hoping someone will delete that first attempt, and I apologize for it's errors.

I just had to look up what the system was in Plain English on YouTube. In short, the most popular vote in each state counts as a single vote for that candidate from that state, and disregards each individual vote. Then it gets really complicated after that, and it hurts my head. Something to do with districts and electors.

I'm not from there, that is a bit of a silly system to go by. Although it would ease up on the amount of votes to count up at once, it's a bit of an unfair system. Thousands, if not millions of votes are simply discarded which could have gone to another candidate, which in turn kind of nullifies the "fair vote".

A little while ago there was a referendum in the UK to change the voting system from First Past the Post (or The Popular vote) to elect MPs into the House of Commons. The referendum asked if we wanted to change to the "Alternative vote". If it passed, the general public had to check which canidates they preferred and whoever got eliminated from the poll got their votes given to the next preferred candidate, similar to the system you have now. It was taken really negatively with 91% of the country against it, so the idea was completely scrapped and we're back to First Past The Post, which is the best in my opinion.

This video has a good explanation of what the electoral college system is and why it should be abolished.



Of course, it's a bit more complicated than that. Some states are winner-take-all, but others proportion their votes according to how many votes each candidate gets in their state. Yet others--like my state, California--have pledged to give their votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.

the electorial college seems obsolete, and only reduces the significance of our votes.

I'm pretty sure it was originally created to prevent an idiot from being president. Back in the late 1700's, communication was limited, as well as the people's understanding of politics. They didn't have nationally televised presidential debates or anything, so the people were unable to effectively vote for someone they new about. Now that we have communication and publication, the electoral college is not needed, and should be removed

It's slightly more compacted then the single vote theory.. it actually the amount of reps in congress and senate. Let's say here in the land of the weird.. California we had 55 electoral points since we had 53 reps in the house and two senators, vs Alaska where there two senators and one rep. so if A won Alaska and B won California the the points would be:
Candidate A=3
Candidate B=55

Which the system was put in so tards can't be president.. a way of keeping the status quo in power.. because even if a candidate who would of won via popular vote , the congress could overturn it and elect the other 'qualified' person. Which is a fail now since all politician are unqualified in theory now.. aka their immoral greedy people.. with some who are genuine real moral people.

Which it really doesn't matter if we do get rid of the electoral college because the only people who want to be president are not qualified to run a dairy queen. Candidate a and b are both the same person with a different mask called a political party. has long as the person isn't batshit crazy or Pedo... it doesn't matter if you vote for a douchebag or a shit sandwich via popular vote or electoral college.. it the same shit.

The electoral college is designed to give smaller states more leverage in elections. If we used the system like the video proposes, then states with smaller populations essentially shouldn't vote because their votes don't matter. The larger states are not going to miss the 1-2 votes that are distributed to the smaller states. So the video's stating "Makes their votes count for less" is mere hyperbole. If the smaller states received MORE votes than the larger states then the statement would be true but, they don't, so it's not.

Why is it that people think popularity automatically means it's right?





Maybe you should research more into the electoral college rather than take all your information from a single video on youtube.

On topic: I say keep the system. Of all the electoral systems created, the college is the only one devised that protects the minority within the system. All other systems do not have such a mechanism built in, thus it leaves the minorities to defend themselves from the current mob in power.

This is also the same reason why we have a House of Representatives and a Senate. The house allows the bigger states to have sway in that body while the senate puts the smaller guys on a level playing field as the big boys. Just because a state, opinion or whatever isn't as popular doesn't make it worth any less than any other.

I have a different opinion than yours, so it must be solely informed by that single youtube video!

Maybe you should stop being condescending.

My biggest beef with the electoral college system is the winner-take-all aspect. As someone has mentioned earlier, thousands or even millions of voters get their votes counted for nothing under this system. For example, in the 2008 Presidential election in California, about 37% of the population voted Republican, yet those votes did not matter because all 55 votes went to Obama. In Texas, 44% of the population voted Democrat, but again, they might as well have stayed home, as all 34 votes went to McCain.

Essentially, to turn your words around, you are saying that about up to 49.99% of the people in each state should just stay home and not vote, because their votes don't matter.

If states' votes were apportioned according to district winners (plus 2 votes to the statewide winner), like it is in Nebraska and Maine, the votes should roughly follow the actual divide in real votes. Still, in my California and Texas example, the number of electoral votes given would not perfectly match up with real votes. If California had district-driven proportions, 11 votes would have gone to McCain and 44 to Obama, making it a 20%-80% split, whereas the real votes were split 37% Republican, 61% Democrat. In Texas, it would be 23 votes to McCain and 11 for Obama, a 68%-32% split, compared to the real votes which were split 56%-42%. It's better than a winner-take-all system, but those are still pretty big differences. This system is also vulnerable to gerrymandering, and puts Democrats at a disadvantage because they tend to be concentrated in city districts, while Republicans are more spread out in more rural districts.

Either way, it's not like the people from each state or each district uniformly vote Democrat or Republican. Where are those protections for the minorities within each state who vote against the statewide winner? What about votes for candidates from parties other than the 2 major ones? How is basically throwing out millions of votes fair?

A fairer system would be to apportion each state's electoral votes by the proportion of voters in the state. To keep using the 2008 election results, Texas had this:

Republican 55.39% 34
Democratic 43.63% 0
Libertarian 0.69% 0
Write-ins 0.12% 0
Independent 0.07% 0
Constitution 0.07% 0
Others 0.01% 0
Green 0.01% 0

If you divide the electoral votes according to the number of votes, it would be

Republican 55.39% 19 (18.83)
Democratic 43.63% 15 (14.83)
Libertarian 0.69% 0
Write-ins 0.12% 0
Independent 0.07% 0
Constitution 0.07% 0
Others 0.01% 0
Green 0.01% 0

Hurrah, about 40% of the votes from this state aren't treated as garbage anymore! Third parties still have 0 votes, but under this system, they at least have a chance to get a a few votes here and there if they could drum up enough support. Swing states would lose their unfair advantage because it's not a winner-take-all system. States still have the same number of electoral college votes, so the small states won't lose their "advantage," and everything is still "fair."

Quite honestly though, the National Popular Vote would be better. In the system I outlined above, some voters can still fall through the cracks. In the National Popular Vote, every vote counts, and every vote must be fought over, giving third party candidates like your Ron Paul a better chance. It may increase voter turnout, especially in non-swing states, because now voters know their votes count for something.

You know what kind of system really protects minority views? Proportional representation. However, that's not happening to America, ever.

Nah, it's too much fun disrespecting you.



That's essentially how every democratic system works. Constitutional, Direct, socialist, Anarchist. The only systems that doesn't have this is a proportional system which we both agree will never occur in the United States.



It's called the electors. You'd know that if you read more. They are the ones who cast the votes who decide. They can vote against the popular vote if they believe the majority to be wrong.



The electors are capable of voting however they wish. If their district voted Mitt Romney, the electors are within their rights to vote Obama as much as they are within their rights to vote for Ron Paul. I think camping laws need to be changed to allow 3rd parties and abolish the monopoly held by the Democrat and Republican parties.



You do not have a right to vote for the president. I'd prefer that the millions of uneducated did not have a say in how this country is run.



We'll disagree about this so there really isn't a point in discussing. The majority of American's are not politically aware. They listen to the talking heads on T.V and vote how they are told or simply vote based on peer pressure. These people should not have the power to decide the fate of a nation when they are clearly uneducated and unqualified. A political scientist's vote is worth the same as some Arkansas mongoloid named Bobby Joe. Some 18 year old in high school has as much pull in the election as an economist. An autistic man has as much say as a University professor. I don't know about you but, I'd prefer the political scientist, Economist and university professor to have a louder voice than the mongoloid, the high school senior and the asperger.

I'd rather let economists decide economic policy rather than leaving it up to a general vote. Same applies to all other relative subjects.



Yeah, exactly what we need to happen, more beer-swilling idiots who pay more attention to college football or Nascar than politics.



Agreed, however those within the current parties will fight tooth and nail to maintain their power monopoly. The idiots voted these people into power then fell asleep while the crooks absconded with the nation's treasure.

From what I've read so far in this thread I think I am closest in agreement with Fiery_penguin_of_doom. The public aren't politically aware, and they're kept that way for good reason.

However, it seems as though you are advocating a sort of elitist ruling class in some of the stuff you say. You say give more power to the political scientist. I would say educate the layperson and give them a voice so they too can be correctly represented. To not educate the laypeople and leave them ignorant in the matter is, in my opinion, just as bad as taking voting power away from them. Neither of these is the correct course of action. But good luck finding people to back you financially if you're a politician advocating the education of the public and direct democracy. It's not profitable for the people that have the money to do so.

Allow me to try and lead you to my point of view. Would you prefer to travel on a bridge bridge built by an engineer or by a 16 year old fry cook? Would you prefer your car be repaired by a mechanic or a plumber? Would you prefer having your heart surgery done by a surgeon or by a computer programmer?

So I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say we all would prefer that the person doing a job to be knowledgeable of the profession. So, shouldn't we expect that the people voting know more about the candidates than they know about the Kardashians or Jersey Shore caste.?

Unfortunately, most Americans know more about their college football teams than they know about the people they are voting to govern an entire country.

Personally, I think the Electoral College is kind of stupid, but- not entirely.

Fact: over 90% of the time, the College votes with the populace.

Fact: ridiculous/rigged/buttfucked/obscured elections would happen without them anyway.

The only issue I have: they aren't the populace. It would take an amendment to change the system, and that would take months, months which could be spent on things that make a concrete difference as opposed to an idealistic one.

It's a flawed system that can too easily be exploited. As long as someone is speaking for someone else, you can never truly be sure that they're being justly represented. But to be honest, there are a great many factors besides the Electoral College that ultimately screw up our Country. As for ballot-counting... have you paid much attention to the past decade? Even when a citizen explicitly states their opinion, someone is going to find a way around listening. Sometimes not even the popular vote wins.

[font=verdana][color=green]From what I have read in this thread - being English means my knowledge of this system is sketchy - the main problem I identify is the different stances each state has.

With each different state having different policies on what happens to the votes after the results have been announced, it means that many states opinions are inaccurately judged when compared to others; for example, CA might have had a 51/49% split in favour of democrats, but all votes go for democrats, whereas Wyoming might have had a 85/15% split in favour of democrats, but 85% of the seats go for democrats. There is clearly a problem there which needs to be addressed; you either have a winner takes all approach or proportionate approach. You cannot have two different standards across the board; it them becomes a lottery system. I, personally, wouldn't want to be governed by a lottery system.

As Gravity rightly pointed out, the UK recently had a referendum on a voting change, but it was rejected. Why? Because it would have resulted in all the votes being inaccurately applied to parties who weren't voted for by a good portion of the voters. Imagine a situation where it was a 40/39/21% split; in that situation, the party with 39 percent would have won. To put it another way, with this system, Usain Bolt wouldn't have won the 100m in Beijing. The best systems adopt a system which most accurately presents the votes.

Anyway, I do have a couple of things to point out:

1) FPoD: There wouldn't be any votes in an anarchist state. If you knew what anarchy meant, then you would know that anarchy means "without a ruler" - coming from the Greek word anarchos. Therefore, there wouldn't be any government to vote in, as that would result in a ruler, which means it wouldn't be anarchy.

2)FPoD again: In regards to your claim about you not wanting to have "millions of uneducated not having a say in how this country is run"...that's just generalising and, quite frankly, wrong. That view doesn't even consider the fact that many peoples votes, which happened to be for the minority, were made with regards to what they believe in. Besides, taking that comment even further, you made reference to the president; with regards to your comment, that doesn't even cover people who voted in a majority in their state but a minority overall.

3)FPoD again: You claim to be mature and above petty remarks made to other users, but you openly admitted to be disrespecting Neko. In all honesty, it what makes me stop debating with you sometimes; if someone can't leave the toys in the pram when entering the debating sphere, then you have no right to debate on equal standing with the rest of us.

Anarchy doesn't mean "without coordination, management , administration , etc.". Anarchy is management, coordination and administration etc. without publicly recognized government or violently enforced political authority.

How this works? You, and five other people are sitting somewhere trying to decide on what you should do for food. You have all agreed to band together for hunting & farming to increase your odds of survival this winter. So how do you decide? You vote. In Anarchy, a group can put Joe in charge of hunting and Mary in charge of farming but, that doesn't mean they have "rulers".

Intro to Anarchy

Anarchist Theory

Anarchy Works PDF[/url

In regards to your claim about you not wanting to have "millions of uneducated not having a say in how this country is run"...that's just generalising and, quite frankly, wrong. That view doesn't even consider the fact that many peoples votes, which happened to be for the minority, were made with regards to what they believe in. Besides, taking that comment even further, you made reference to the president; with regards to your comment, that doesn't even cover people who voted in a majority in their state but a minority overall.

Majority of Americans only vote based one three aspects.

1). What they hear in the mainstream (drive by) media. Example? People still think the [/quote][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting]Fort Hood Shooting. was done by a radicalized Muslim. The media (Fox News, MSNBC) is biased and that bias affects the minds of voters who take mainstream media as their sole source of information. I was guilty of that for the longest time and if I was guilty of it, I know others have to be guilty.

2). Whatever some "famous" person tells them to vote. Example? Oprah and other celebrities who throw their support behind a particular candidate. Should it really matter who Bono supports? Not in a critically thinking society. Problem is, we're not a critically thinking society.

3). Whatever their friends vote/peer pressure. Ziggy voted for Obama in 2008 and she admittedly knew NOTHING about Obama or his policies. I've known far too many people who goose stepped for a certain party just because their friends or family are voting that way.

Call that generalization if you want. It's already a fact that the majority of Americans don't vote (and by logical extension know little to nothing about politics) the few who do vote are subject to a dishonest, insane and ultimately intolerable propaganda system that corrupts their votes by praying on good intentions and naivety. If the majority of Americans were really politically aware, our country wouldn't be in the shape it's in.



I'm not one to be dishonest. I simply don't care for her. I believe she is uneducated and has a typical college demographic view on politics. I assume she is capable of critical thinking but, instead she just listens to those with the same opinions around her and shuts out the alternatives. I could make the statement about repealing the civil rights act and I believe her first thought/reaction would be to accuse me of being a racist, which is far from true.



If a few words hurt your feelings, that's a shortcoming on your end. It's the internet, grow some thicker skin.

Don't think I didn't miss the thinly-veiled insult. Kinda hypocritical to chastise me for disrespecting Neko then implying I'm childish with the pram comment.

[font=verdana][color=green]I never stated that anarchy meant "without coordination, management etc", merely that it meant "without a ruler". Basically, it means "without law". If you look at many jurisprudential anarchists, they never claim to want disorder and chaos; all they want is a world where people follow morality instead of law. The lead anarchist of his time was Kropotkin; he personally believed that law restricted what the human being was capable of. Rather coincidentally, he actually came from an aristocratic background, so anarchy isn't something only those on the worse side of the law believe in.

Besides, in your situation, that doesn't have a system where people were imposed to do something by an external party. That is what is meant by anarchy.




[font=verdana][color=green]Well, that's all well and good, but might I ask what would you propose instead? Yes, having misinformed people vote isn't exactly desirable, but how would you distinguish those that are informed and misinformed? That's the main problem. Bar having the manifestos be anonymous at the polling booths (which would result in a serious drop in votes I can guarantee - which is a far more dangerous situation), there is simply nothing you can do to overcome it. Apart from change the media, but I doubt that would happen any time soon in the States.




[font=verdana][color=green]Well, I appreciate your honesty, but I don't appreciate the ways in which you express your honesty. Sure, I'd rather you be honest than not, but there are better ways of saying things; for example, instead of labelling someone a fool (not saying you called her a fool, but no doubt you think this anyway), you explain why you think they are mistaken in their beliefs. If they engage in reductio ad absurdum, then call them up on it. If they mistook what you said, explain what you really meant. It's what you see in legal/medical/political journals, so seeing as this is SD, it should be done in here as well.



[font=verdana][color=green]For example, in this situation. Unfortunately, you misinterpreted my words; I have never felt offence at words expressed on the forums, only exasperation at the things said in here sometimes which distract from the subject matter of the debate. If you say things which run parallel from the debate i.e. they won't ever mean anything to the debate, then I will just ignore you, as I don't believe that you deserve to hear my side of the argument, seeing as you went periphery to the argument. I apply the same standards to debates I have in real life to here, seeing as this is SD.

Just like you, I am honest. And honestly, I had no other way of expressing it. I tried saying it in another way, but seeing as you didn't try much for Neko, I didn't feel much inclination to try much myself.

Usually when people pull out the "without ruler" bit as their first point. They are usually ignorant of what Anarchy really is. Force of habit to clarify like that. You can still have laws in an anarchist society. By laws I mean guiding principles for the commune, society, whatever. Freetown Christiania has "rules" forbidding stealing, violence, weapons, hard drugs, and a few other things. Just because Kropotkin personally believed something doesn't mean he speaks for the entire anarchist movement.



The Federal & State governments impose their will on me by threats of violence or incarceration every day.



Driving requires a license, voting probably should too. The requirements should be a series of tests that test a persons knowledge of the U.S (similar to the test we give immigrants to become Americans) and to test the knowledge of U.S policy, political parties, etc. I'm perfectly fine with not being allowed to vote if I can't prove that I am knowledge enough to be trusted with the responsibility.




Subtlety was never my strong point. I'd rather be blunt about it than dress the words up to placate sensitivities. Regardless, I'll make an effort for you since you've proven yourself knowledgeable.

[font=verdana][color=green]Yes, that is a rather unfortunate misconception people have about anarchy. Well, the question now is "what is law?". If everyone in the community readily agrees to it, it is something which is not enforced upon them, which therefore goes against the concept of law. They follow it because they want to, not because they are told to do so. In that situation, I would label anarchy in having morals only, but anyone who breaches those morals will be expelled from the community of which they were in. This question in itself justifies an entire thread dedicated to it, so watch this space at any rate.

Of course, I agree with that, but many other academic writers have agreed with his approach. When you think of the academia behind anarchy, Kropotkin's work is definitely the work that stands out.



[font=verdana][color=green]I was talking about your example; I was pointing out that there wasn't an external party determining what Y does. The word "besides" was incorrectly used; I was planning to say something else but changed midway. Sorry for the confusion.



[font=verdana][color=green]I see; for some reason, I'm not surprised to hear the license being used. I swear I've heard of that before. But, of course, the questions would be are these tests be compulsory? Should it be a standalone concept or gradual throughout the education system? What happens to democracy if people refuse to take them? It's very easy to say "Let's have tests", but it would be hard to quantify it in reality. Also, would these be government run? A private party would find it very difficult to fund these tests, so then would people have to pay for them? That, in itself, goes against democracy as well, as it could deny people the chance to vote due to monetary constraints. It raises many important questions.



[font=verdana][color=green]I see. Thank you for that. I don't doubt the validity of points you make in SD, as well.

I'll let you make a thread about if you're inclined to.



I've reread my previous posts and I'm still not sure what you are referring to as the example.



Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers. If it was like a drivers license then it would be $20-25 for a license that lasts you 4 years. Pay the fee, take the test. There would likely be a variety of options available for those who fail the test. Regardless, private groups will take it upon themselves to educate the populace and to subsidize or even pay for the test. I personally would donate to such an organizations.

The reason we have an electoral college is because of the tyranny of the majority, used as reason by the founding fathers. The idea is that if the majority would force the minorities to their tyranny. In my opinion it is a good balance of popular vote and well informed decision making. The founding fathers feared a tyrant could manipulate and influence popular opinion and come to power such as Hitler. You could convince people that rich people need to lose most of their wage to share it with the poorer unproductive people. Odds are you probably think so too and if the majority had their way, there would be no more CEOs. This neglects the fact known by economists, that CEOs are paid that way because they are that valuable to the company. Without that CEO's work, the company would be less profitable = less jobs and lower wages. Lets face it: dumb people outnumber smart people.

It still looks like we're in agreement(especially after the comment you made about tests and licenses for voting). I never said that we should hand the reins of a nation to a mass of imbeciles. However, I do advocate the right for everyone to be able to qualify for voting, and it seems that you do too. "I would say educate the layperson and give them a voice so they too can be correctly represented."