Electoral College and Pesidential election

Closed Thread

  #1  
Old 04-24-16, 09:51 AM
Norm201's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 5,547
Electoral College and Pesidential election

With Presidential campaigning in full swing and much talk about winning delegates for each party, we might well remember that any president is not directly elected by the popular vote but instead by an Electoral College.

Many people do not understand the process and many dis-agree with this process where a candidate can lose the popular vote but still win an election. In fact this has happened as early as 1824 with the election of John Quincy Adams (8th president and the country was only about 50 years old) up to George W. Bush in 2000 and several in between. However in most cases the election by the Electoral College does reflect the popular vote.

Hardly seems fair and does our vote count?

Perhaps the biggest question in people’s mind is why this unique US political practice takes place. Even in Russia the popular vote directly elects a president. Pray tell are the Russians a more democratic country than we are? Seems so. But not fast. The Founding Fathers had good reason to incorporate this election method into our political system.

The textbook answer is this system prevents a densely populated region of the country, say an Atlantic Seaboard (that might be very conservative), from stealing the Presidency from the more rural or less densely regions, such as the heartland. A question of equal representation. Also it makes a candidate bring his candidacy (ideas and program) to all parts of the country.

The more realistic reason the Founding Fathers took this method is to help guarantee States Rights and a big lack of confidence or trust in the people (who, back then were not well educated...just about the same as today). The thinking then as now is that Electoral Delegates are better informed and each state still has an enormous amount of autonomy or swing in the nation's future political scene.

Many think this system is outdated and still unfair. There are several modifications to the Electoral College or alternative ideas being touted about every election. But the chances of bring about a Constitutional amendment is slim.

I for one like it for exactly the reasons stated above. Although in light of the last several elections it doesn't always work out for the best.

Most of this rant was taken from today’s issue of PARADE. A good read if you want a better understanding of elections.
 
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-24-16, 10:29 AM
the_tow_guy's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: SW Fla USA
Posts: 11,514
The electoral college is a relic of the 18th century and long overdue to go away, but not going to happen in my lifetime unfortunately. As with the example you quoted that may be true, but it's also true that the majority of states are solidly either in the red or blue column, so the elections are decided on a half-dozen "swing" states. That means the minority party voters in those states votes are meaningless, i.e. Republican voters in California & New York or Democrats in the deep south. Only takes 50.1% and the winning party takes ALL the electoral votes; the other 49.9% in that state get zippo.
 
  #3  
Old 04-24-16, 11:35 AM
Norm201's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 5,547
What you say is true. Reform is a long way off. However, the "Red and Blue" states can be changed legally and over time if people would get out and vote at the local level. And if a state such as New York is solidly Blue then so be it. It's the peoples wish of that state. In our society there is still time to change political machines one for the other. Is it better? It depends on which machine you belong to. Those swing states can be swung by political activism. And that is a good thing. I should say it's a good thing as opposed to a system that can't be changed like a dictatorship or your communistic state.

Besides I like the State Rights thing even though I'm sympathetic to a strong central government. That may sound contradictory but I think it can be done and is fact pretty much true as we now have it. After all we are a confederation of united States whom each willing suspended their sovereignty for the greater good of all the states and it's own benefit. I'm of the belief that any state can and at some point in the future will decide to succeed from the Union. It happened once but for the fortunes of war we could very well be two separate countries. But I stray from the original post.

Great discussion. Like to hear others opinion.
 
  #4  
Old 04-24-16, 11:57 AM
ray2047's Avatar
Group Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 32,528
My view is simple. No political parties choosing candidates. No electoral votes. Just people who want to be president in a nationwide election with one or two run off elections if no one gets a simple majority in the first election. Anyone can run in the first election if they get enough signatures on a partition. Number of signatures needed based on percentage of people who voted in the last election.

I'd outlaw political parties all together. If the idea was good enough for George Washington it is good enough for me.
Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
Source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rica/?page=all
 
  #5  
Old 04-24-16, 02:29 PM
Norm201's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 5,547
Ray, it can't happen. Any two or more people who think alike or have similar view will band together and push their agenda. Call it what you will but that's a political party. Besides, as I mentioned in the first post, densely populated areas would always win an election if not proportionately divided to level the playing field. For instance if New York is a welfare state with a large population then any political party, candidate or group will pander to that group to get votes. Is not Hillary and Sanders in fact doing that very thing? For that matter so is Trump by calling up our basic fears, but he's doing it nation wide. But all candidates must at least try to garner other interest throughout the country with different interest (the farm or agri industry).

The Founding Fathers and George Washington were also idealistic at time when testing a new government was just right. But they also had to play lots of politics among themselves to get all states to agree even a little bit,. It's wonder that they were able to agree to anything. Many people think divine intervention was needed to make our nation start.
 

Last edited by Norm201; 04-24-16 at 03:37 PM.
  #6  
Old 04-24-16, 02:33 PM
Gunguy45's Avatar
Super Moderator
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 20,791
Our local officials (City and County) do not run under a political party (though they are endorsed by them). It's easy to tell their leanings by their views though. We are pretty much an R area, but more than a few times I thought the D or I was a better candidate and voted as such. Of course they lost miserably.

The EC could work, but only if there were no winner take all States.
 
  #7  
Old 04-24-16, 05:50 PM
chandler's Avatar
Banned. Rule And/Or Policy Violation
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 39,968
Wife and I are knee deep in this year's political process. She volunteered to be a county chairperson for a candidate, which led to our being selected as delegates to our district convention a couple of weeks ago and to Augusta, GA in June as delegates to the state convention. Why me???

It has been interesting and informative for both of us just how the political process works. In state primaries although one candidate will receive a larger portion (not a majority) of the votes, it is not written in stone that he/she will get all the delegates, as this is determined in the conventions. I'll not go too deep into it, but the Georgia conventions a couple of weeks ago woke one candidate up, abruptly. He got skunked by better organization.
 
  #8  
Old 04-24-16, 05:54 PM
Norm201's Avatar
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 5,547
Larry, would like to hear some of the inside stories and what a delegate has to do. When you get time fill us in.
 
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Display Modes
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:02 AM.