I understand that the electoral college provides smaller states with correct representation, but why do there have to be people (electors) involved? Why can't it just be a counting process?
-
Too many ads? Join our community of cat lovers now to reduce ads by 90%! Click here to join for free!
Do you vote in elections?
- Thread starter AbbysMom
- Start Date
No, it doesn't. The electoral college is based on the number of congressional seats a state has, which in turn is based on population. So the smaller states don't get a larger influence under the EC than they would under a direct election system. The US Senate gives smaller states a louder voice, not the EC.
The EC is outdated and undemocratic. It was designed to make sure slave states could count at least some of their population when deciding who determines who the president is. This fact combined the the winner-take-all system in 98% of states (as opposed to a proportional representation system) makes the EC ridiculous.
Direct election would be a much better way of choosing the president, now that we've outlawed slavery.
Thanks, speakhandsforme... I remember studying it in political science and found it confusing then. Now I've just forgotten how it works. That was very succinct and makes a lot of sense.
You're welcome! I'm a poli sci major 
Now, when you say you studied it, was it in high school or college? Cause we barely even make our high school students study the US system anymore, let alone other countries' politics. I'm curious to know how many other countries have their students study the US political system as a matter of course.
Now, when you say you studied it, was it in high school or college? Cause we barely even make our high school students study the US system anymore, let alone other countries' politics. I'm curious to know how many other countries have their students study the US political system as a matter of course.
Let me preface this by saying I was at University over 30 years ago.
I did political science and we covered Australian, UK and US systems in the first year, but it wasn't a major and I didn't follow through.
The US may not study other political systems (there is a general belief outside the US that the States is pretty insular) but we do as the politics of the US ripples out significantly to the rest of the world. Especially Australia, when it comes to defence, as we are tied into a treaty with the US. And certainly world-wide for economic reasons. We certainly follow your elections very closely.
I really don't know about our high school syllabus.
Fascinating subject, though, don't you think?
I did political science and we covered Australian, UK and US systems in the first year, but it wasn't a major and I didn't follow through.
The US may not study other political systems (there is a general belief outside the US that the States is pretty insular) but we do as the politics of the US ripples out significantly to the rest of the world. Especially Australia, when it comes to defence, as we are tied into a treaty with the US. And certainly world-wide for economic reasons. We certainly follow your elections very closely.
I really don't know about our high school syllabus.
Fascinating subject, though, don't you think?
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,152
- Purraise
- 86
It's indirect, but it does benefit the smaller states, because the number of electors comes from both houses and Senate seats count, too. So even a state with a really low population will always have at least three electors--two for their senators, one for their congressman. Theoretically, if I could declare my house a state with a population of one, I'd get two senators and one congressman--offices to which I'd probably have to elect my cats.No, it doesn't. The electoral college is based on the number of congressional seats a state has, which in turn is based on population. So the smaller states don't get a larger influence under the EC than they would under a direct election system. The US Senate gives smaller states a louder voice, not the EC.
Actually, come to think of it, my cats would probably do a better job than some politicians...
Edit: You could technically elect a 25-year-old cat born in the United States to serve in the House of Representatives.... but only if you could get the cat declared to be a "person", because a Representative has to be a citizen and a citizen must be a person.* There's no requirement for Representatives to be human; it's just assumed. There's a cat who's been the mayor of a small town in Alaska for fifteen years, apparently.
*Edit again: Because a cat is not competent to make legal agreements, it cannot fit the legal definition of "person" (yes, that means a child is not a legal "person" either; weird, huh?) But... you could make a cat a legal person by registering the cat as a corporation. So CEO Fluffy could, if he lived to 25, become a US Representative.
Okay, I'm done now. Back to your regularly scheduled non-silly debate.
Last edited:
The idea of the electoral college was to be sure that no demagogue could get elected by capturing the vote in a few large cities, mainly. It's probably served its purpose and could go away.
However, if that happened, you can bet that there would be a very big push for voter ID, because then every vote everywhere would have the same weight in the election. That sounds like a good idea, until you realize that if you could get the votes of New York, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, you could win the election. Theoretically, of course.
Most years, it wouldn't make any difference.
What some people dislike about the electoral college is that it concentrates the political attention on a few large cities and states.
These days, I don't think it would make the difference it did when Boston, New York, Richmond, and Philadelphia could essentially elect a President over the desires of the rest of the rural country.
However, if that happened, you can bet that there would be a very big push for voter ID, because then every vote everywhere would have the same weight in the election. That sounds like a good idea, until you realize that if you could get the votes of New York, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles, you could win the election. Theoretically, of course.
Most years, it wouldn't make any difference.
What some people dislike about the electoral college is that it concentrates the political attention on a few large cities and states.
These days, I don't think it would make the difference it did when Boston, New York, Richmond, and Philadelphia could essentially elect a President over the desires of the rest of the rural country.
I totally agree with you on this. I follow State politics way more than I follow federal. I had the TV on halfway listening to all the Presidential stuff, but I was hooked to the internet watching the local races to see what our House and Senate would come out as. But, I also work for a policy organization that is thinking of putting up a bill in response to a recent United States Supreme Court decision. What party rules each branch drastically changes the likelihood of the bill passing!
You are correct. I hadn't gone through the math all the way in my head... 270 is not half of 435 :lol3:It's indirect, but it does benefit the smaller states, because the number of electors comes from both houses and Senate seats count, too. So even a state with a really low population will always have at least three electors--two for their senators, one for their congressman. Theoretically, if I could declare my house a state with a population of one, I'd get two senators and one congressman--offices to which I'd probably have to elect my cats.No, it doesn't. The electoral college is based on the number of congressional seats a state has, which in turn is based on population. So the smaller states don't get a larger influence under the EC than they would under a direct election system. The US Senate gives smaller states a louder voice, not the EC.
But, still. The EC still very much disproportionately favors the voters in populous states that are ALSO politically divided. I think New Hampshire is the only small state that can actually affect the election under the EC.
I really don't get the "but they'll just focus on the big cities!" argument. As it stands, they only focus on a few states anyway.
Mrblanche, I'm not against voter ID as a matter of course. If they could make a way for everyone to have a state-based or national-based voter ID that wouldn't impose significant burdens on people, that would be fine. Like if you could scan in your Social Security card and order it online, or maybe my phone/mail. The controversy this year, IMO, was not the concept of voter ID itself, it was that conservatives were blatantly using it to disenfranchise the most vulnerable, ie people the most likely to vote Democrat.
I vote in every single election. I vote on every single issue that comes up locally as well. I feel that it is the way people can put their voice out there to be heard.
I vote in every election. I think that the only thing less responsible than not voting is not researching the issues and candidates for yourself before voting.
I admit though, that there have been instances where I couldn't make up my mind on a referendum and chose not to vote on that particular issue.
I admit though, that there have been instances where I couldn't make up my mind on a referendum and chose not to vote on that particular issue.
