The Electoral College, Is the US system really beneficial? |
 Sep 11 2008, 11:05 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Leaky's Resident Weasley Expert  Posts: 2,478 Joined: 8:52pm March 1, 2005 Location: Ravenclaw Common Room attempting to ACCIO Jason Mraz.    |
With the election coming up, and that big red and blue map being brought out to all the news networks, I was wondering:
Is the Electoral College really the best way to elect our leaders? First, a little background on the system the United States has used for ages: America operates under a system of election called a Single Member District, this is where a person comes out on top, and anyone else is left in the dust. A number of people can run for office, but the person with the most amount of votes will get it no matter what. America has employed this system since the beginning of our country So the person who comes out on top wins it all. That gets magnified 50 times during a primary presidential election. The country votes state by state. Whoever wins that state gets the number of Electoral Votes allotted to that state. Electoral votes are allotted to that state based on the population. California has very many, Wyoming very few. Whoever can reach a total of 270 votes is the new president. So basically, you have to get a majority of the vote, and then you get all the votes for that state's electoral allocations. We saw how this can be confusing in 2000 when it came down to just Florida. All of the other electoral votes were evenly divided between Bush and Gore. Florida was left with what I believe is 27 votes. So 51% of the people who vote in Florida decided the election for the entire country. We won't get into who actually won, but you can see how this has it's drawbacks. So why do we still employ it for presidential elections. Personally, I prefer Britain's electoral system. Proportional Representation. This would help with congressional seats by making districts about equal representation instead of one person. In proportional representation, a majority would still get its rule, but the minority would get their fair share as well. Allow me to explain: Party A gets 44 percent of the vote. Party B gets 26 percent of the vote, and Party C gets 30 percent. Party A would still enjoy its majority rule, but Party B would get 26 percent of the available seats, and Party C 30. The leader, Prime Minister, is not elected by the people. His party is. Then his or her party elects the head, which runs the government. An example of the success of proportional representation is Great Britain, where the labor party is on control. You may all know that the Prime minister of Great Britain is Gordon Brown, but when people voted for him, they didn’t see his name, they saw his party. Britain’s voted for Blair’s party, the Labor party in majority, giving him the leadership. According to www.bbc.com the Labor Party now has an overwhelming majority of seats, but every percentage of every person who voted for another party, also get the equivalent seats. To me this seems to make more logical sense. What do you guys think? -------------------- Check out my newest post DH R/Hr fics!~Or my author page!~One Big Happy Wealsey Family!~My Livejournal Avvie by rupert-grint.us |
 |
  
 
|
|
Sep 12 2008, 07:39 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 99 Joined: 4:07pm August 18, 2008 Location: tennessee home of the blues and rock and roll |
The Brithish way seems better to me. The thing about ours in America is that the Electoral College doesn't have to vote the way that the state does. It just isn't fair. The thing I really liked about the British way was that every vote counts to get the government set up. In America a person can win popular vote but lose the election which doesn't make sense. I remember the election in 2000 and it was a complee disaster. Anything to improve the system is fine by me. But I can't vote yet so I really have no say in the election anyway.
-------------------- OOTP movie ticket: $8
DH book $18.50 Being a Harry Potter Fan: priceless |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2008, 08:10 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Daily Prophet Photographer Posts: 861 Joined: 10:04am June 8, 2005 Location: Yes, it's a stuffed Homer in towel. You can stop staring now. |
In Mexico, the elections system is very simple, so simple that cheating is a common practice for everyone involved. First, the voting credential is the standard ID for every mexican of age, so everyone who's over eighteen years old can vote, and you can vote for president on any booth, no matter where in the country you are. Then, the votes are counted and the party with the most votes wins, its candidate becomes president. It's a way too simple method, and there has been a lot of cheating in the past, but the main problem with it has always been abstentionism.
--------------------  |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2008, 01:41 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Leaky's SIR Seriously Senior Mad Scientist  Posts: 3,365 Joined: 10:31am January 28, 2007 Location: Behind a bubbling cauldron |
Many Europeans do not believe that the US electoral system is truly representing the voter's opinion.
The problem is that although the majority of the voters decided otherwise, a person can become President of the United States because the Electoral College decides so (for whatever reason). Historical examples are: John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Grover Cleveland (1888), and George W. Bush (2000). The latter (heavily debated here) illustrates perfectly, what we believe to be the central misconception: Mr. Bush defeated Al Gore after narrowly and controversially winning Florida by a margin of 537 votes. If I'm not mistaken, this narrow margin (to say the least) has led to a majority in the Electoral College and then Gov. Bush became the 54th President of the US, albeit the majority of all cast votes went to John Kerry. How can the opinion of the majority be so blatantly ignored? (A majority of voters by far exceeding said 537 votes.) The vote of the Electorate College should, at least that's what I think, reflect the the overall political opinion as demonstrated by the proportion of votes cast for a candidate. The German electoral system guarantees at least that the majority is not ignored. <beging shameless self-promo> I have tried to outline our system here.<end shameles self-promo> -------------------- *** OPAST (and proud of it) *** |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2008, 02:25 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Severus Snape's Personal Assistant  Posts: 2,288 Joined: 11:44pm November 29, 2005 Location: In the Hogwarts kitchen eating cookies. |
The whole voting system in America needs to change. It's ridiculous, and I'm glad that more and more people are seeing it. It's a shame though. A lot of people don't know about the electoral college. I mention it occasionally and I sometimes get, "what's that?" There are people that just don't know. The government doesn't care, or want us to know, imo. The less people on the whole know, the more they can manipulate things. I mean, was it a coincidence that George W's brother was the governor of FL four years ago during the whole voting debacle? Hmph.
QUOTE(innkeeper_tom @ Sep 13 2008, 01:41 PM)  Many Europeans do not believe that the US electoral system is truly representing the voter's opinion. It's true. It's not. That's why it needs to be changed. --------------------  W.L.Y.J. We love you Jo |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2008, 02:29 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Gringotts Goblin Translator Posts: 1,222 Joined: 5:46pm April 7, 2007 Location: On a date with the giant squid |
I'm doing this for my debate class and from what I have been researching I think the Electoral College should be dissolved.
-------------------- *Avatar baulid *
There was a clatter as the basilisk fangs cascaded out of Hermione's arms. Running at Ron, she flung them around his neck and kissed him full on the mouth. Ron threw away the fangs and broomstick he was holding and responded with such enthusiasm that lifted Hermione off her feet. Page 625 |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2008, 02:36 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Knight MacMod The Great Protecting The Memory Of Sense Posts: 2,511 Joined: 7:17pm February 17, 2006 Location: 3rd door on the left, Hogsmeade  |
Despite its obvious problems and shortcomings, I favor the electoral system over a direct majority of the whole population for what I believe are some significant reasons. First, it reduces the dangers of a "tyranny of the majority"--a condition in which a majority will ignore the human rights of a minority and will exploit that minority. After all, what is slavery if not a direct and very simple "majority rule" system. If there are no limits on majority rule (such as the First Amendment), a simple numerical majority will always exploit a minority. The electoral system (like the larger, parallel Senate/House of Representives system) that balances majority representation with regional representation, insures that a region like Iowa, which produces a great deal of food, can't be out voted and exploited by a single city like Los Angeles, that consumes that food. If consumers ALWAYS have their way, they will naturally impose limitations and controls on producers and could easily exploit them--and my experience with human nature tells me that people generally will exploit others without even thinking about what they are doing. Secondly, I think the system makes it more difficult for a demagogue to grab power. The system slows down the process and provides a chance for cooler heads to speak their minds. Naturally, these advantages also present distinct problems in themselves, and no doubt there are many ways the system could be improved. However, I would NOT favor a single, national election that bypasses those individual national constituencies known as states--that is, a single, winner takes all national polling would present far more dangers than the present system--as complicated and screwed up as it may be.
I would ask those Europeans who disapprove of our system if they were willing to allow the majority rule of all Europeans to determine a uniform set of laws and a single leadership for all of Europe. Would the smaller nations of Europe allow themselves to outvoted and ruled by citizens of Paris because the population of Paris is greater than the population of their entire nation? Would the nation of Greece (population about 10 million according to Wiki) allow its internal laws and affairs to be determined by the population of Paris (about 12 million)? I think it is even doubtful that they would permit a single executive for the whole of Europe to begin with. All that aside, in one sense, it is an almost meaningless debate. Changing the system would require a Constitutional amendment--a process which requires the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. I promise you that the states with small populations like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, etc., are NOT about to approve a system that reduces their political power to less than a single populous city like San Francisco or Chicago. This post has been edited by wordsaremagic: Sep 13 2008, 02:37 PM --------------------  click the Q "And, if there is need to speak in brief summary of this power, we shall find that none of the things which are done with intelligence take place without the help of speech, but that in all our actions as well as in all our thoughts speech is our guide, . . ." Isocrates, Antidosis |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2008, 03:26 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Severus Snape's Personal Assistant Posts: 2,288 Joined: 11:44pm November 29, 2005 Location: In the Hogwarts kitchen eating cookies. |
QUOTE(wordsaremagic @ Sep 13 2008, 02:36 PM) Despite its obvious problems and shortcomings, I favor the electoral system over a direct majority of the whole population for what I believe are some significant reasons. First, it reduces the dangers of a "tyranny of the majority"--a condition in which a majority will ignore the human rights of a minority and will exploit that minority. After all, what is slavery if not a direct and very simple "majority rule" system. If there are no limits on majority rule (such as the First Amendment), a simple numerical majority will always exploit a minority. The electoral system (like the larger, parallel Senate/House of Representives system) that balances majority representation with regional representation, insures that a region like Iowa, which produces a great deal of food, can't be out voted and exploited by a single city like Los Angeles, that consumes that food. If consumers ALWAYS have their way, they will naturally impose limitations and controls on producers and could easily exploit them--and my experience with human nature tells me that people generally will exploit others without even thinking about what they are doing. Secondly, I think the system makes it more difficult for a demagogue to grab power. The system slows down the process and provides a chance for cooler heads to speak their minds. Naturally, these advantages also present distinct problems in themselves, and no doubt there are many ways the system could be improved. However, I would NOT favor a single, national election that bypasses those individual national constituencies known as states--that is, a single, winner takes all national polling would present far more dangers than the present system--as complicated and screwed up as it may be. I would ask those Europeans who disapprove of our system if they were willing to allow the majority rule of all Europeans to determine a uniform set of laws and a single leadership for all of Europe. Would the smaller nations of Europe allow themselves to outvoted and ruled by citizens of Paris because the population of Paris is greater than the population of their entire nation? Would the nation of Greece (population about 10 million according to Wiki) allow its internal laws and affairs to be determined by the population of Paris (about 12 million)? I think it is even doubtful that they would permit a single executive for the whole of Europe to begin with. All that aside, in one sense, it is an almost meaningless debate. Changing the system would require a Constitutional amendment--a process which requires the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. I promise you that the states with small populations like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, etc., are NOT about to approve a system that reduces their political power to less than a single populous city like San Francisco or Chicago. That's the thing, though. Technically we have a minority overruling the majority...if they want to. Who's to say they know what they're doing because of the position they're in? Look at the last 8 years. I understand your points. There just needs to be another way besides this. -------------------- W.L.Y.J. We love you Jo |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2008, 03:58 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Leaky Cauldron Napkin Folder Posts: 3,417 Joined: 3:30pm April 5, 2007 Location: In my Gringott's vault. The ride made me kind of....*turns green* |
QUOTE(innkeeper_tom @ Sep 13 2008, 01:41 PM) The latter (heavily debated here) illustrates perfectly, what we believe to be the central misconception: Mr. Bush defeated Al Gore after narrowly and controversially winning Florida by a margin of 537 votes. If I'm not mistaken, this narrow margin (to say the least) has led to a majority in the Electoral College and then Gov. Bush became the 54th President of the US, albeit the majority of all cast votes went to John Kerry. How can the opinion of the majority be so blatantly ignored? (A majority of voters by far exceeding said 537 votes.) First off Pres. George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. Just wanted to clarify that first. And the reason that we have the Electoral College is because without it smaller states (as far as population) would have little to no say in the election of the president. Why would campaigns go to states such as Wyoming with populations of a million or less when they could get more voters by going to large urban areas? Smaller states would have little influence in elections, but with the Electoral College every states has at least 3 electoral votes. This gives them much more political influence than they would otherwise have.  -------------------- "If you believed as he did. Could you take away his soul?" ~Carlisle, New Moon   Thanks to {{voldy}} for the awesome siggies! |
|
|
|
|
Sep 13 2008, 04:28 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Knight MacMod The Great Protecting The Memory Of Sense Posts: 2,511 Joined: 7:17pm February 17, 2006 Location: 3rd door on the left, Hogsmeade |
QUOTE(Overcast @ Sep 13 2008, 12:26 PM) QUOTE(wordsaremagic @ Sep 13 2008, 02:36 PM) Despite its obvious problems and shortcomings, I favor the electoral system over a direct majority of the whole population for what I believe are some significant reasons. First, it reduces the dangers of a "tyranny of the majority"--a condition in which a majority will ignore the human rights of a minority and will exploit that minority. After all, what is slavery if not a direct and very simple "majority rule" system. If there are no limits on majority rule (such as the First Amendment), a simple numerical majority will always exploit a minority. The electoral system (like the larger, parallel Senate/House of Representives system) that balances majority representation with regional representation, insures that a region like Iowa, which produces a great deal of food, can't be out voted and exploited by a single city like Los Angeles, that consumes that food. If consumers ALWAYS have their way, they will naturally impose limitations and controls on producers and could easily exploit them--and my experience with human nature tells me that people generally will exploit others without even thinking about what they are doing. Secondly, I think the system makes it more difficult for a demagogue to grab power. The system slows down the process and provides a chance for cooler heads to speak their minds. Naturally, these advantages also present distinct problems in themselves, and no doubt there are many ways the system could be improved. However, I would NOT favor a single, national election that bypasses those individual national constituencies known as states--that is, a single, winner takes all national polling would present far more dangers than the present system--as complicated and screwed up as it may be. That's the thing, though. Technically we have a minority overruling the majority...if they want to. Who's to say they know what they're doing because of the position they're in? Look at the last 8 years. I understand your points. There just needs to be another way besides this. I would ask those Europeans who disapprove of our system if they were willing to allow the majority rule of all Europeans to determine a uniform set of laws and a single leadership for all of Europe. Would the smaller nations of Europe allow themselves to outvoted and ruled by citizens of Paris because the population of Paris is greater than the population of their entire nation? Would the nation of Greece (population about 10 million according to Wiki) allow its internal laws and affairs to be determined by the population of Paris (about 12 million)? I think it is even doubtful that they would permit a single executive for the whole of Europe to begin with. All that aside, in one sense, it is an almost meaningless debate. Changing the system would require a Constitutional amendment--a process which requires the approval of three-fourths of the state legislatures. I promise you that the states with small populations like Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, etc., are NOT about to approve a system that reduces their political power to less than a single populous city like San Francisco or Chicago. I would, however, take a slight bit of exception to the example you gave earlier about Bush's brother being the Governor of Florida during the famous recounting. According the US Constitution, the electors of a particular state are determined by any method established by the legislature of that state, not by its governor. The governor has no say in who will or will not be an elector (an "elector" being a member of the so-called electoral college). After the Democratic party filed a suit in the State court, and the Republican party filed a suit in the Supreme Court (?election by lawyers?), the state legislature of Florida met and made its own decision, technically rendering the judgments of both courts null and void under the Constitution. They exercised their power, established by the Constitution, to choose the state's electors. They (NOT Jeb Bush) chose the Republican candidate. Legally, he was out of the loop. Further, on independent recounts, including one made by the obviously liberal New York Times, the Republican candidate did receive the majority of the votes in the disputed counties. But again, once the Florida legislature met and voted, those votes (even if they had gone the other way) were beside the point. Am I a Bush supporter?--no, not particularly. But as screwed up as things got, I do not see that a huge travesty of the system was perpetrated on the nation. I don't like all the things that have resulted, but I can't see that anything was done that subverted the due process established by the Constitution. Just because I don't get my way on something doesn't mean I am going to overthrow the whole system. I would certainly like to see some improvements and corrections made to the system, but I wait for specific, practical recommendations rather than just agreeing to "abolish it." I say practical, because I see that simplistic solutions such as just calling for a simple national majority rule are neither desirable nor possible (for the reasons I mentioned earlier). So, I ask everyone, what practical and possible steps can we take to improve the situation while avoiding overly simplistic solutions that ignore the human and civil rights of minorities while maintaining a government of the people? -------------------- click the Q "And, if there is need to speak in brief summary of this power, we shall find that none of the things which are done with intelligence take place without the help of speech, but that in all our actions as well as in all our thoughts speech is our guide, . . ." Isocrates, Antidosis |
|
|
|
