US Presidential Election

[StacyX]

"The world is not black and white, so why should our political structure be? #@$%ing two party system. That's like being forced to choose from Coke and Pepsi when all you want is water!"

-Foamy

Ahhh More words of wisdom from Foamy the Squirrel.

[Centaur]

I believe this is a bad idea and that the more diverse and free each state is the stronger and more free we will be as a people.

I fail to see how strong states (each with their own set of additinal rules and regulations on top of the national ones) makes you "more free"?

And with regard to the two-party system... yesterday I was watching a program about the differences of opinion about the direction in the republican party... especially the differences between the extremely right-wing group of mainly older white people, and the much more moderate younger people. Consider the options:

1. Both groups within the party agree on a "direction" for the party, in which they will make concessions towards each other and choose a middle road that will make neither side very happy. And because of those concessions, it will not make most of their voters happy either, so the voters may well decide to vote for the democrats again next time. For example, the program showed that a large majority of the immigrants, and even a majority of the moderate young people, don't vote republican because of extremist and right-wing influences in that party.

2. The party is split up into two groups... a moderate one (which would probably also appeal to many younger people and immigrants) and a right-wing group. Both would appeal to their own share of users, and attract their share of voters. In a traditional political system, each party would get a share of the votes, and in the end, together they could easily have the majority of the votes. So while it's unlikely that either party alone would have the majority, together they would... meaning they would still have to work together (and make concessions), but only after the elections (alternatively, the moderate party could also choose to work together with the democrat party to get the majority of the votes). For example (simplified): after the elections, the democrates could have 40% of the votes, the moderate republicans could have 35%, and the right-wing republicans could have 25%.
But this simply doesn't work with the system of electors, as the democrats could well be the largest party in every state, meaning they may win the elections with 100% of all electors (even though they only have 40% or less of all the votes).
So changing to a multi-party system definitely requires changing the system of electors as well. And tbh, I don't see that happening anytime soon... I don't think the US political climate is ready for that yet.

[bokiz333]

I have never heard of/read anyone stating that the education level of our people was the reason for the electoral college.

It was put into place so that the STATES elect the POTUS and not the largest group of people. They were avoiding the Roman and British empire problems of disenfranchised populations that had no effect on national issues/representatives. We had just faught a war for our independence based mostly on the fact that we were being ruled by an entity that we had no representation to. "NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION" was the slogan. Each state sending Reps and Senators ALONG with our electoral college are our means of insuring every STATE has a say in the the direction of our nation. When you vote it is to decide what your STATE will do with it's votes. The amount of votes each state gets is the sum total of their representaion in the federal government, this in turn is decided by population.

You saying that this was put into place because of our educational system is factually wrong.

You saying that this is an old system and we need to go to one that is older is ironic.

The only rational reason for leaving this system is if we are wanting to do away with states and just have one national system. This is slowly happening and if it continues then we will, in time, leave the system we currently use and go back to the popular vote method.

I believe this is a bad idea and that the more diverse and free each state is the stronger and more free we will be as a people.

You, obviously, feel different and that is fine, but do not try and state that the founding fathers created this form of state driven election because of educational levels. It discredits them and the people that made this nation (of whom I would give more credit to for the ability to elect a person than the people of today).

As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.


That's from the first article I found on google. Funny those parts didn't talk about stetes but rather men and masses they thought were and were not qualified to pick the president. Why were these people not qualified? You can do your own research, but basically because they're uneducated masses. That is no longer the case. And I didn't say it was the ONLY reason, rather than one of the reasons and I listed others. I encourage you to read my posts more thoroughly.


And no, it is not ironic that we go to a true democracy and away from the Republic apprach, many countries do it. The "states" set up the US has is unique, but that in no way invalidates true democracy as a concept; and if you used some critical thinking skills, the issue of "old" was because the technological and education differences between those ages, not becaues the age of the concept itself has any bearing on the issue. The wheel is pretty old, I'm still a big fan.

[Toc]

I fail to see how strong states (each with their own set of additinal rules and regulations on top of the national ones) makes you "more free"?

You are free to choose to live/work in what state best fits your ideals. You are also free to participate in politics to steer your state in a direction you feel is best (doing this at a national level is a lot less likely). The more diverse each state the more choices you have.

Also, to your idea that states have laws in addition to federal laws, it is optimal to have state laws instead of federal laws. Those laws, in the vast majority of cases, do not overlap. Meaning either it's a federal law or a state law, not both. Some issues are handled federally and some by the state. If you do away with all state laws you have to make federal ones to compensate and you still have the same amount of laws. A person is more free when they can choose the flavor that best fits their ideology.

[Fey]

[Toc]

As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

You are confusing the electoral college with voting requirements. Voting requirements are set by the state and the electoral college is set federally. The point of the Electoral college is to give every state a fair stake in the voting process. How each state comes to that vote is up to it's own constitution.

Also, the Federalist's Papers are an essay on how a few men felt they would change the constitution. One thing they wanted to do was remove/not implement the "Bill of Rights".

That's from the first article I found on google. Funny those parts didn't talk about stetes but rather men and masses they thought were and were not qualified to pick the president. Why were these people not qualified? You can do your own research, but basically because they're uneducated masses. That is no longer the case. And I didn't say it was the ONLY reason, rather than one of the reasons and I listed others. I encourage you to read my posts more thoroughly.

Most states requirements to vote were male, white and land owning. Not education level.

And no, it is not ironic that we go to a true democracy and away from the Republic apprach, many countries do it. The "states" set up the US has is unique, but that in no way invalidates true democracy as a concept; and if you used some critical thinking skills, the issue of "old" was because the technological and education differences between those ages, not becaues the age of the concept itself has any bearing on the issue. The wheel is pretty old, I'm still a big fan.

I don't think that a popular vote election is "old" or antiquated, just that the electoral vote is a better idea for fairness between the states (same as when it was created). I said that the popular vote method was older because you seemed to be stating that our electoral system was old and not needed anymore. The reasons for the electoral are just as valid today as they were then. Those reasons do not include the education level of the population. Voting requirement arguments throughout our history do involve educational limits (Jay Leno told Bill O'Reily in an interview that he believed only college grads should vote in the U.S. today). This has NOTHING to do with the electoral college as it does not determine who among the population votes only in how those votes are applied to the end result.

Do you understand the difference now? Let me rephrase in caps, not to imply yelling but to be very clear.

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE DOES NOT DETERMINE WHO VOTES, ONLY HOW THOSE VOTES ARE APPLIED TO THE END RESULT. IT WAS CREATED TO APPEASE THE SMALLER POPULATED STATES AND PREVENT THE MORE POPULATED ONES FROM CONTROLING THE NATION.

[robinsiebler]

As Alexander Hamilton writes in "The Federalist Papers," the Constitution is designed to ensure "that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications." The point of the Electoral College is to preserve "the sense of the people," while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen "by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

Which sounds good until you realize that any man can be bought and that corporations and special interests groups do this as frequently as I sleep.

This message was brought to you by a Kitten Who Doesn't Trust Politicians

[Toc]

Which sounds good until you realize that any man can be bought and that corporations and special interests groups do this as frequently as I sleep.

This message was brought to you by a Kitten Who Doesn't Trust Politicians

Any man OR woman! yeesh sexist

As ole T.Jeff said, this system is perfect until congress realizes it can vote itself raises...

[bokiz333]

Toc, I'm not gonna keep arguing with you, feel free to remain ignorant on the subject. The education/literacy level of the common man definitely was a consideration and a concern when the electoral college was set up. I asked several of my coworkers today to see if they also heard what I had (perhaps in shool and/or by reading) and they both agreed that it was a part of it and encouraged me not to argue "with some guy on the internet". Feel free to think I'm wrong then. But spent and hour or two doing more research on it before you do. OR don't, either way.

[Toc]

Toc, I'm not gonna keep arguing with you, feel free to remain ignorant on the subject. The education/literacy level of the common man definitely was a consideration and a concern when the electoral college was set up. I asked several of my coworkers today to see if they also heard what I had (perhaps in shool and/or by reading) and they both agreed that it was a part of it and encouraged me not to argue "with some guy on the internet". Feel free to think I'm wrong then. But spent and hour or two doing more research on it before you do. OR don't, either way.

Man your right, I am ignorant on the subject and have proved it with all my fact based points. Instead of earning degrees in U.S. History I should have asked your coworkers... Your coworkers were also right in that you should stop "arguing" with me.

The only thing you have brought to this thread is opinion, speculation on things you "heard", your coworkers opinions and a horribly misguided quote from Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers that not only have no bearing because of their opinion based principles, but was also discussing a different topic than the one you were trying to use it to prove...

I even put it in caps... Now I think you are just being stubborn... The electoral college DO NOT DECIDE WHO VOTES, so education level DOES NOT MATTER.... It only decides how votes are applied... I mean come on, man.

Yes, I know your wrong, I even see how your logic got you to that point and it is why I tried to spell it out for you. In fact I see this as more of a failure on my part not being able to adequately explain this in terms you understand.