My brother and I have a disagreement. His position is that the very existence of the electoral college system in the US is as much a conspiracy to keep the powerful in power as were the denial of the vote to women and blacks.
I say it's simply that it was a practicality due to the technological limits of the time.
EDIT - I also feel that we need full time politicians who are specialists, just like we need our doctors and mechanics to be specialists. Thus we have the representative system.
I'm off to read the Wikipedia entry. What do you think about the electoral college system?
He also argues that having two senators from each state is part of the same conspiracy.
..the senate was created in order to allow the large economic interests an opportunity to have some stability for their enterprises ( which could easily be destroyed by a mob democracy )...it has always been this way...the landed senators gave way to the railroad senators to the mining and ranching senators to the wall street and oil senators. etc....it is a natural protection for the money base to have a safeguard...the electoral college is the same..but in reverse..to protect the weaker economic states from domination by the more powerful ( in these days city populations..i.e, mob rule ) must be balanced out by states with less or more less municipal oriented bases...the electoral college provides this balance...the american system is intended to be a balancing act between parties and thus it has survivied for more than 200 years with only one civil war and one great depression..
Originally posted by Sam The ShamThe paradoxical beauty of it is the fact that it usually increases the clout of each individual citizen’s vote in determining the outcome of an election.
Have your brother read this and give it some thought:
http://weirdrepublic.com/episode16.htm
It seems to me that this is only true for the minority in the low population states. The majority who live by the coast - like me - lose political power. You can't increase EVERYONE'S political power.
..i like the proposal pending in california...each overall winner gets two automatic electoral votes and the rest of the votes are divided up proportional to the percentage of each person on the ballot by their percentage of votes..this way a minority party strong in a few states is
able to make some national presence in the college even if only a small
minority margin..it gives them the right of respectability in the national forum for the voice of their message..
Originally posted by reinfeldI didn't know that was pending in CA! Have a link? I know Maine has a different system than the rest of us which splits their votes.
..i like the proposal pending in california...each overall winner gets two automatic electoral votes and the rest of the votes are divided up proportional to the percentage of each person on the ballot by their percentage of votes
Originally posted by AThousandYoungActually, it was to limit bigger states ability to dominate totally the smaller states. So, in effect, it was to limit power, not protect it.
My brother and I have a disagreement. His position is that the very existence of the electoral college system in the US is as much a conspiracy to keep the powerful in power as were the denial of the vote to women and blacks.
I say it's simply that it was a practicality due to the technological limits of the time.
EDIT - I also feel that we nee ...[text shortened]... em?
He also argues that having two senators from each state is part of the same conspiracy.
Originally posted by MerkI always heard it was to prevent the election of a demagogue who, using convincing lies, managed to fool enough people to win the poplar vote.
Actually, it was to limit bigger states ability to dominate totally the smaller states. So, in effect, it was to limit power, not protect it.
Originally posted by MerkLimit the power of the high population states, increase the power of the low population states, same thing. It seems as though the inner states were given a boost at the expense of those of us on the coast.
Actually, it was to limit bigger states ability to dominate totally the smaller states. So, in effect, it was to limit power, not protect it.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere were no "inner states" and there was only one coast in 1787.
Limit the power of the high population states, increase the power of the low population states, same thing. It seems as though the inner states were given a boost at the expense of those of us on the coast.
If you read the Debates at the Constitutional Convention, you'll realize that they were having great difficulty deciding how the president would be elected. The Electoral College was a gimmicky compromise. It's archaic now and should be replaced with a direct vote but the small states would never agree to that, so we're probably stuck with it.
Originally posted by no1marauderWas it a conspiracy to keep people in power?
There were no "inner states" and there was only one coast in 1787.
If you read the Debates at the Constitutional Convention, you'll realize that they were having great difficulty deciding how the president would be elected. The Electoral College was a gimmicky compromise. It's archaic now and should be replaced with a direct vote but the small states would never agree to that, so we're probably stuck with it.