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.
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.
Last edited by bokiz333; 11-08-2012 at 08:08 AM.
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.
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".
Most states requirements to vote were male, white and land owning. Not education level.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.
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.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.
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.
The world is full of pain and sorrow.
Life is fleeting and true moments of joy are few and far between.
Happiness is laced with shards of pain.
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.
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.