So I had to start this after reading this thread.

Limpubus said:



First off, believe it. The Electoral College exists, and it's never going away.

Second, I'm not surprised that you can't see how anyone would disagree with your non-belief in the Electoral College.

Not to launch a personal attack, but you need to do some research. The EC was devised and implemented for some very good reasons.

With no EC, the states in "fly-over country" have no voice in government. South Dakota wouldn't even get a vote.

Does anyone out there who has actually read the Constitution disagree with the EC? If so, why? I'd really like to know.

Mike

Come on Mike don’t be too harsh, after all they don’t teach the US Constitution in Public school any more. But there is hope…I can see it in him. My advise as a student of the Constitution, and a believer that it is really a passage of scripture passed down to George and the Crew from God himself, is to get yourself a copy and read it.

Just so happens that if you visit the www.cato.org website you can order a FREE pocket size edition of the actual document.

And FYI no this is not a living breathing document. It is a holy grail of government, the only withstanding such document that has an entire nation behind it. No other experiment in democracy has succeeded like the US Constitution. Therefore you have reason to say it is perfect.

The way it should work is one vote for one "man". I don't see how you can argue that. Just because there are less people in South Dakota doesn't mean anything. We are a country, not a bunch of states. So everyone in South Dakota just like everyone in Wyoming and Rhode Island get the same worth out of there vote. But I guess the next step in my process of debate should probably be to read the so called constitution.

Time for a history lesson. When the Constitution was ratified the states still saw themselves as sovereign entities. In fact, in order to convince the small states to break away from the Articles of Confederation and accept the Constitution one major issue had to be overcome - getting the states to give up a small bit of their soveriegnty. This horrified some of our founding fathers, like Patrick Henry and Edmund Randolph, who saw the Constitution as "the fetus of monarchy."

What troubled them the most was that the voices of small states would be drowned out by the larger ones. Thus, a few comprises were made and are still evidenced today in our Constitution. The three main protections provided by these states-rights advocates were the Bill of Rights, the Senate and, yes, the Electoral College.

So, Limpubus, while obviously "we are a country" we are ALSO a "bunch of states." These two matters can and have already been reconciled by our insightful founding fathers.

I have found some useful links to further underscore the need for the Electoral College. If you would like a scholarly, historical perspective, try: Fred Schauer on Why We Need the Electoral College. For those of you who prefer seeing the numbers and the statistics supporting the Electoral College, check out: Case for the Electoral College.

ALL states should have an EQUAL say in who leads them. Otherwise, it might be construed as "state-ist"

I went to one of the link that youlisted and it doesn't change my views. Saying that one state won't get represented as much says nothing to me because I think the country should be run the same way across the board. Hence I think we are a country not a bunch of states( to clarify my statement). I'm sorry but i don't agree with what the rest of seem to whole-heartedly believe in.

Limpubus- I think you may have missed the point. Our country IS being "run the same way across the board" as long as the electoral college is effect. It is the same because each state gets a weighted vote. Thus, the large states are prevented from acting as dictorial entities to the small ones.

The small states would be disenfranchised if the electoral college did not exist. This would then destroy the very fundamentals of our democratic republic. These states would be forced to accept whatever the large states wanted to force down their throats.

The electoral college is the only fair solution to this big state/small state problem we have always faced.

Let me try this again...as far as I'm concerned states don't exist...now where those people are doesn't matter to me either. All that matters is that the majority of our country gets what they want.

Once upon a time a MAJORITY of our citizens wanted slavery. Once upon a time a MAJORITY of our citizens wanted to destroy Hollywood because it was "full of Jews". Once upon a time the MAJORITY thought it was OK to round up the Japenese & put them in internment camps.

Let's be blunt. The MAJORITY is full of idiots and I don't want them ruling me. I actually feel safer with our representatives doing it. At least the system with the way it currently works, is SLOW. Thus, we avoid making rash mistakes that would occur if we let popular opinion sway us.

And I am overtly thankful that states do exist. There's not a chance you could convince me I should pay taxes on the level of California or Massachusetts. One of the reasons I moved to this state was it's low taxes.

Eliminating statehood is the first step to a both a socialistic and fascist regime and I refuse to live under either. And, Limpubus, it doesn't bother you that small states would be DISENFRANCHISED? Wouldn't that be just another step towards socialism and/or fascism?

Do we really what people who live on the coast controling how the rest of the country is run? Between California, and New York running the show freedom would be swallowed up in a matter of years.

Not to mention the intense East Coast-West Coast rivalry that would accure.

It should come to as a relief to everyone to know that Limpubus was reading the Constitution the other evening...

And now the majority wants an electoral college...

One person, one vote. Nothing could be fairer. The EC needs to go. It's an insult to democracy. I completely agree with Limpubus.

Our country is not a democracy. We are a democratic republic (meaning the democracy "the people" elect the republic "the representatives"). Our forefathers were very specific about that differentiation.

I'm standing firm on this one. I have yet to see a convincing argument that popular opinion is a good thing. An electoral college IS fairer than populism. I refuse to disenfranchise small states because a lot of people live in New York or California.

btw-welcome to the debate justagrrrl, I was getting sick of debating only Limpubus on this one!

Just when you thought i was gone for good, i found the internet access at school. The problem here is a total misunderstaning of the constitution. there is one vote for one person. if you dont thing the people of america want that, and fight to keep that then look at the Election of 2000. those people didnt care who got elected, they just wanted their votes counted. and this IS a problem, in califonria over 40 thousand votes were thrown out because they were absentee MILITARY ballots. Dont you thing that the people dying for our country should have the right to at least vote.

The electorial college is to prevent polical swings, and corruption of ultimate power. It is MENT to be a little difficult to work with, and not always will the majority win. but it is the best system in the world, if you dont think so...show me one better, one you would feel happy living under, one that is more fair.

I agree with several of the above. Without the electoral college only the big cities would decide the election. Our forefathers new what they were doing. We, as one person has already said, are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. Our system is a great one of checks and balances. If you really want a good slant on what the people want just take a look at the counties won by Bush in the last election. It is a beautiful picture of how the big cities are trying to control the country.

how can you debate one vote for one person...in every election there are hundreds of thousands of people whose votes get rounded off and therefore not counted because of our system...if you can't see that then give me one reason why i should go to the poles, waste my time, and have my vote trimmed from the list...

Limpubus-

Seeing as you probably would vote directly in contrast to how I vote, and we live in the same district, I'm inclined to agree with you. Don't go vote . There's no reason .

But seriously, I undersand your 4 angry faces. The system is confusing, and at times may not seem completely fair.

But let me ask you this:

Should we have a Congress, or should every bill be put to vote by the general public? If we do it that way, how does one propose a bill?

After all, our Congressmen's votes are our votes. They represent us.

Mike

Wow..I am amazed to see such a lack of insight. The Constitution is an incredible document. I hope some day you will really understand what it's all about and see the wisdom. I suppose if Gore had won because of the electoral college we would see the same thing...lol no. Republicans tend to be more educated and understand the process.

Darcaine

there were reasons for it back them, and i think that it should still apply for new reasons now. ive said this bfore but democrats like to goto specials interest groups and say, what does it take for your following to vote for me ... its affective, yes ... legal, yes ... but buying votes with promises isnt very moral. not like buying votes with money((even tho some would compare the 2)) but with things like abortion. most ppl think republicans are against it all together, not true. human heart beats as early as 18 after conception, most scientists agree that a fetus is considered a human being((and most democrats say the oppisite)) ... after what else will you call it, a llama? well seroiusly a zygote((or whatever)). but its still human and its still entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. but the republican standpoint sways toward public opinion a little, wanna keep up with the times of course and treat it like the death penalty((bad choice of words heh))and let the state vote on instead of just having it a national standard, and right.

Okay. Here's my question. How can the people of a state be certain that their electoral college candidates are actually voting for the popular candidate of the state?

Actually that is a GREAT question. If you didn't notice last election there were alot of people trying to get the electoral people to vote for Gore anyway. Alot of sleezy tactics and threats and bribes were done. This has happened before in history were an elector voted for someone else than they were sworn to do.

Darcaine

Alot of sleezy tactics and threats and bribes were done to get the justices to HAND the presidency to Bush.

This has NEVER happened before in history!

Madtown

Your right. At NO time in history has a party (Democrats) sent in over 100 lawyers to disrupt a lawful election in a state before (sad). They circumvented Florida State law and the matter had to be resolved at the highest court in the land. And when they couldn't win one way they went after electors saying something about popular vote and such nonsense. It's really pathetic to see someone or someones go to those lengths to cheat and win.

We can go at this all day because not only am I right, I have every shread of proof on my side on what happened.

Darcaine

What you have on your side is that the republicans proved that they can
rig an election.

I seem to recall Dole and company trashing offices to stop the counting of the votes

Don't ever think the popular vote nonsense. It tells the selected president that over half

of the people who voted did not vote for him and he has no mandate. Lucky he can start

a war. You are wrong.

Really, Madtown? In the 2000 election in Florida?

I have NEVER heard that. I would be interested in learning more.

Rig an election? Proof please.

Dole and company? Proof please

The last one I can answer. The crap economy Clinton left us with. The attack on the US...lest we forget. More people support Bush than ever did Clinton lest you forget the 3 way race on his first nomination. I THINK he carried 43%. I think your poster boy Gore should have won his own state. I tell ya..the sea of states Bush won should tell you something. The only rigging was done was on the Democratic side.

No one is lucky they can start a war..only to finish it.

Darcaine

Dole & company....for goodness sakes, it was all over the news, where were you...still learning to walk?

Poor Darcaine just can't accept
His/her president is inept

The economy has gone sour
Stocks going down by the hour

But hey!
He volunteered for the Nat'l Guard
Worked very hard, what a man!
While other served in Vietnam

Madtown,

I must have made my point. Where ya been lately the economy has perked up this week! Bush inept? I saw 8 years of ineptness to know what that is...and it isn't Bush and his team. Madtown, I don't WANT to go to war but, damn well am not afraid of it. If I had to go I would.

Darcaine

Jaime.

While trashing offices might be a slight exaggeration, Dole & Co. did burst into offices

where ballot counting was going on and they did stop it.

I'm surprised you didn't see it on the news. I remember his explanation after,

his hair was all wild & he kept saying "Nobody was hurt, nobody was hurt.


I'll try to find something on it if I can.

Mt

Dole info regarding the 2000 Presidential election (all results from Query Server search for "dole election florida"):











And there's a bunch more....

Mike

You really DON'T get it.
WE ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!!!!

Mouse,

People who don't think don't care about truth. You might as well try and argue beliefs with that kind of statement.

Darcaine

4 words (New Jersey Senatorial Race)

LOL...that is SOOOOOOOOOOOO true.

Darcaine

The electoral college is not just in place it is a neccesity! You have talked about how it should be one person one vote one man. That would work except for one small problem, not everybody who is elligible votes. If not everyone votes for whatever reason it is we do not really know what the people want. The electoral college is good because it allows each state to choose through the majority in their state. Whoever wins the most and usually the larger states wins the election. And there is no way that you can prove this method to be unconstitutional. The United States will continue to have the electoral college and if it does go away it will not be any time soon.

The electoral college debate seems to come back every time we have a president elected by it, not accompanied by the carriage of the popular vote, which is very rare, indeed. We may not always like the results of it, but it is an important protection to ensure that people in "smaller" states are fairly represented.