|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:32 PM |
1. We are a represenative democracy which means we vote represenatives int o represent us, we don't do things based off popular vote 2. The founding fathers feared that somtimes the people will make the wrong decision which is why it is possible to win the election without the popular vote 3.Without the electoral college the campaigns would focus on the population centers the rural areas would be completely ignored which means millions of people would just be shoved to the side. 4.The electoral college empowers ########## to stand up to the majority and be heard. For example in the 2016 election the pennsylvanian coal miners were one of the main reasons trump won penn, they wre usually ignored and just brushed to the side but as soon as they were adressed by president trump they rallied their friends, neighbors, family members to vote for Trump which definitely helped him win Pennsylvania.
-Liberals will say rural areas are irrelevant but that is not a fact, without the midwest Trump would not have won the presidency, it is a fact NEW ENGLAND PHILLY MANHATTAN AND SOUTH WESTRN CALI SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER AN ELECTION, if the electoral college was abolished it would. Thanks to the electoral college all states count and matter. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:34 PM |
We are more of a republic than a true democracy.
Democracies really only work in smaller communities. imo |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
riav
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15452 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:35 PM |
| Explain how a few thousand people overall matter more than 3 million people |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:35 PM |
yeah a pure form of democracy would never work |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
JNICK
|
  |
| Joined: 10 May 2008 |
| Total Posts: 3601 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:35 PM |
we are a republic
democracy is an excuse to spread our freedom |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:38 PM |
| @riav nice to see you long time |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:39 PM |
"Explain how a few thousand people overall matter more than 3 million people"
that's not at all what happened this election and you're exaggerating
to answer your indirect question though, its purpose is to force candidates to appeal to places all over the country - and not just the bay area and NYC.
this is why you have trump winning 82% of the counties in the country |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
riav
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Dec 2011 |
| Total Posts: 15452 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:57 PM |
it fails hard at that, there should be no reason a few thousand people according to the state matter more than 3 million other people. No matter if they are trying to appeal to other areas, popular vote by margin that large should always win.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 08:58 PM |
2/3's of the Presidental campaign visits went to 6 states, all swing.
So much for giving other states more attention.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 09:00 PM |
Also why is a popular vote based democracy impossible to achieve?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
flybomb
|
  |
| Joined: 14 May 2010 |
| Total Posts: 3659 |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 09:00 PM |
| Someone ewoth sense finaly. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
igotzit
|
  |
| Joined: 19 Jul 2014 |
| Total Posts: 500 |
|
| |
|
|
| 23 Jan 2017 09:04 PM |
"it is a fact NEW ENGLAND PHILLY MANHATTAN AND SOUTH WESTRN CALI SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER AN ELECTION"
all i hear from this is "THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTROL OVER THE ELECTION"
This pretty much goes against Majority Rules.
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 03:27 PM |
| ^ The majority of people live in such a small portion of the country, I am not saying ignore them I am saying it is a fact that a group that lives in such a small portion of the country should not control the entirety of the country. If that were to be true America would be a oilarchy not a represenative democracy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 03:42 PM |
Look, the United States operates on a system of Federalism / Dual Federalism / Cooperative Federalism
Meaning that power in the US is shared at various levels.
So, see the office of the President as not only a national authority or source of power but likewise a State / local source of power and authority.
Legislators aren't voted nationally, are they? No. Sure, their constituents are districts per the constitution. However, take notice of how State law will overrule local (city / county / etc) laws.
Because the power of the President applies at the local level, there needs to be local elections. This comes in the form of the Districts (Iirc requiring ~700,000 people?). Those are the local rounds of elections, fair because power is shared and therefore equal representation in the US Federalism demands that they receive attention.
However, the districts obviously are not evenly proportioned across each state. Hence why California and NY have greater numbers of congressional representation- and therefore a greater number of Electoral College votes.
the EC to begin with wasn't supposed to be a system of following the State. The electors were intended to be a counter to Mob Rule.
The problem with voting simply on a popular vote is the possibility of mob rule- something the framers of the US Constitution sought to counter as well as Tyrannical rule / "the crown".
Likewise, the EC and the division of the Districts means that rural America would go unrepresented in a Presidential election.
After several years of people having their vote go unheard, they'd want to secede. Because the President they elected, most likely as a majority, did not come to power and never would.
Because the bigger cities and districts, save for unforeseen natural disasters, are probably going to continue to grow in size much larger than Rural America.
So? At the end of the day, although not expected of a typical democracy, the EC does more to protect democratic values such as equal representation particularly because of how this country's governance pans out. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 03:53 PM |
"Mob rule"
Who is the mob in our current society and why should their vote be disregarded and unprotected?
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 03:56 PM |
america is not a true democracy
that is why the popular vote does not determine the victor of an election
go sit in the corner of a circular room |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 03:57 PM |
america is not a true democracy
that is why the popular vote does not determine the victor of an election [2] |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 04:01 PM |
| Zepe: I'm not implying we have a mob majority* today. There are mobs, plenty. Such as BLM and other small but vocal ########## (NRA for example). Rather, I'm arguing that our electoral college was designed to prevent mob rule. Which it has done a fairly good job of doing so. Why? The electoral college and our system of federalism play a large role in it. No one region takes precedent over every other district. This would not be possible in an absolute or classical democracy. Which by the way shouldn't be the direction we take. We have a functional system already that is compatible with federalism. Before you counter my historical framing of the electoral college, please consider that the EC functions in context with our federalism. Without it, or by barbarically replacing it with a simple majority vote, you're taking away from the federalism in this country- something that is a true cornerstone for democracy in the US. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Xoniac
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4265 |
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 04:02 PM |
its a representative democracy/republic, almost all democratic governments are actually the people dont vote on every issue they send representatives.
"Mob Rule" was for when the majority of America was rural and uneducated, times have changed.
the way the electoral college works is awful, a state shouldnt send all or a % of the vote, because it doesnt reflect the actual vote of the people.
If each state county got a vote and those were counted rather then electoral votes from individual states the elections would be MORE representative of the people and get rid of the electoral college if this system were a thing i think the elections would look a lot different and be more representative. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 04:05 PM |
So it's okay when the minority takes control of majority regions but not the other way around...
|
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 04:08 PM |
"the people will make the wrong decision"
how can the people of a country make a decision that can be deemed wrong when it is about the future of their personal lives?
"Oh man. What kind of left-wing hootenanny is this?" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 04:10 PM |
Well, I personally am against the current First-Passed-the-Post trend in the majority of States (I believe only 2 states break that trend) I think that each county should vote for their President and their 1 District goes toward that candidate. That would be much more representative.
However, I totally disagree with an absolute and overall popular vote. It's just incompatible with this country's government.
As for mob rule being an old concept. I caution you to remember that times are always changing for the world. Being modern does not make our people unable to be coerced or to amass as one to take the reigns.
Besides, what's wrong with the electoral college as is? Why does it need to be an absolute popular vote?
I want to know why you think the system is broken or doesn't work, because so far it looks like it's working pretty well from a historical context. And if you think for a second that the Framers of this government weren't looking far into this country's future, as far as they could, you're mistaken. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Xoniac
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Dec 2008 |
| Total Posts: 4265 |
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 04:12 PM |
i agree with ervinn pretty much 100% but the electoral college has a 7% rate to choose the president that wasnt elected popularly. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Jan 2017 04:14 PM |
Zepe: That's only because of the First-Passed-the-Post deal with most of the States.
The electoral college is a problem because of that- because the electors are promising their votes to whatever margin wins the majority of districts in said state instead of pairing with each district within it.
To a certain extent, you could say that the EC would be unnecessary in an America absent of a First-Passed-the-Post. However, we'd have to arrive to a point where people reconcile that it's not District representation or a lack of popular vote that is a problem.
Rather, that the Electoral College as it stands now just adds needless confusion to the process.
But I maintain again that this country should not move toward a national popular vote. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|