In another thread, I saw an interesting discussion about the Electoral College. I'm not trying to single people out here, but here's the post that interested me most....
On the one hand, we pretend that one man should equal one vote, but then again, we began our voting system with only white male landowners able to vote. So really... we live in what began and still somewhat is a plutocratic republic. We elect representatives, but even the highest representative (the president) is ultimately elected by other representatives in the Electoral College.
It's like there's an unwritten rule that states that the people aren't wise enough to elect a leader without the approval of the system itself.
So which is it? Are we really all "created equal?" Is the will of the majority really what our system is designed to promote?
The more I look into it, the more I realize that the answer to both of those questions is no. Money and who you know determine your worth in this system. With the Electoral College in place, you're better off as a rural voter than an urban one.
Equality in terms of representation is a joke in this system. But then again, even if the math was worked out properly and the popular vote was truly what mattered, would it really change things? It wouldn't change the fact that you have to be a billionaire to run for president. It wouldn't change the fact that corporations can buy off local government in order to receive tax "incentives" that funnel the money of the working class into corporations that crush smaller businesses.
And yet, the stupidity of the masses is undeniable... Is it really best for the rich to run things? Are they really more wise and fit to rule?
So I ask all of you: Should the Electoral College be abolished, or is it necessary due to the stupidity of the general public?
Now, I realize Hunter was being somewhat facetious in his post, but he makes some good points. In fact, if you look at the history of the Electoral College, the Founding Fathers seemed to have a similar distrust in the masses.CameronPoe wrote:
Sounds pretty undemocratic to me. I guess 'One man, one vote' and 'We are all equal' doesn't really apply then. You're essentially saying poor people are too stupid to vote properly or should be less entitled to an equal voice with the monied landed classes.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
The electoral college balances the vote between densely populated areas ( important because of their population ) and rural areas ( important because of what they produce. )
IE. The world needs Food more than Hip Hop.
You cant have what comprises the majority of the population make rules and pass legislation ( that they don’t understand because its alien to their world ) that would cripple necessary industries and Farmland, the very life line of our population ( if not most of the worlds. )
A small example.
Look what happened with the Luxury Yacht tax
“ Lets stick it to the rich because most people hate them, Good press ! “
A piece of Classic class envy legislation, pushed by liberal democrats to get Lots of Feel good press and camera time.
The American yacht industry was crippled along with the thousands of people ( upper, middle and lower class it ) employed.
The Rich bought their yachts from Europe. The European Yacht industry thrives.
Basically
The Electoral College prevents someone getting into the office by Promising Free Beer in a slum.
Or promising “ Free Health care ! If you have this card, you’re covered ! “ b. clinton 1991
You'd think after 18 years of never delivering on this promise (despite holding the White House and a democratic majority in the House and Senate ) people who vote would wise up. I guess not.
”. . .You can fool some of the people all the time ! “
Abe Lincoln
Each Electoral College ballot cast reflects the popular vote of that district, Its not really that hard to understand. Is it?
It’s a little late in the game to have to educate people on the Electoral College.
Some times I feel like I am defining "electron flow" to the Yanomamo Tribesmen
On the one hand, we pretend that one man should equal one vote, but then again, we began our voting system with only white male landowners able to vote. So really... we live in what began and still somewhat is a plutocratic republic. We elect representatives, but even the highest representative (the president) is ultimately elected by other representatives in the Electoral College.
It's like there's an unwritten rule that states that the people aren't wise enough to elect a leader without the approval of the system itself.
So which is it? Are we really all "created equal?" Is the will of the majority really what our system is designed to promote?
The more I look into it, the more I realize that the answer to both of those questions is no. Money and who you know determine your worth in this system. With the Electoral College in place, you're better off as a rural voter than an urban one.
Equality in terms of representation is a joke in this system. But then again, even if the math was worked out properly and the popular vote was truly what mattered, would it really change things? It wouldn't change the fact that you have to be a billionaire to run for president. It wouldn't change the fact that corporations can buy off local government in order to receive tax "incentives" that funnel the money of the working class into corporations that crush smaller businesses.
And yet, the stupidity of the masses is undeniable... Is it really best for the rich to run things? Are they really more wise and fit to rule?
So I ask all of you: Should the Electoral College be abolished, or is it necessary due to the stupidity of the general public?