Pages: 1 2 3

 

Poll

Which System is Better?

Electoral College19%19% - 9
Popular Vote80%80% - 38
Total: 47
2008-04-25 00:51:42
Spark
liquid fluoride thorium reactor
+874|7099|Canberra, AUS

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And that is exactly why the Founders implemented the EC...to prevent tyranny by the most populated states, recognizing the importance of each state's contribution.
One could argue the current system presents a tyranny of the few.  Not only is this tyranny drawn along class lines, but it also applies to rural/urban divisions.

So, in effect, we have put into place a system that is no better than what they aimed to prevent.  Logically, you could argue it's actually worse by nature, because it contradicts the principle of individual equality.
Question if I may: why can't you do what many other countries including Australia does, and split the nation into electorates of roughly equal population? That way you don't get disproportionate representation at elections.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
2008-04-25 02:00:12
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6835|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And that is exactly why the Founders implemented the EC...to prevent tyranny by the most populated states, recognizing the importance of each state's contribution.
One could argue the current system presents a tyranny of the few.  Not only is this tyranny drawn along class lines, but it also applies to rural/urban divisions.

So, in effect, we have put into place a system that is no better than what they aimed to prevent.  Logically, you could argue it's actually worse by nature, because it contradicts the principle of individual equality.
Your beef is with the candidates, not the electorate or the system. It's not the few who elect, it's the few who run for office.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2008-04-25 02:07:56
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6748|New Haven, CT

FEOS wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Only if you think the Congress is an inaccurate proportion system, since they are exactly the same.
No.

The House is proportional on population, the Senate is equal to each state.

The result is that the people in smaller states actually have "more say" than larger states, because the ratio of state population to electoral votes is closer to one.

Look at Wyoming vs. California.
Yes, so the number of Congressional seats (House + Senate) for a given states is exactly the same as the number of electors, and is based on (mainly) that state's population (proportion). The Wyoming vs. California thing shows why the electoral college was put in place: so that the States (it is the United States of America) have more of a peer-to-peer relationship when it comes to electing the President of the United States of America.

The electoral college means that candidates (and incumbents) cannot ignore the less-populous states. If we went to a pure popular vote, then only a handful of states would ever get anything, which is contrary to the intent of the Founders on the role of the Federal government.
I'm sure that Obama will spend equal amounts of time in New Mexico and New Hampshire as he will in Pennsylvania and Ohio...

...the EC encourages ignoring less populated states, because when forced to prioritize resources, you are invariably going to appropriate them to areas of greater returns, which are the more populated states, not the less populated states.


That wasn't the point of what I said, though. I was just trying to show how the electoral votes are disproportionally allotted across the populace.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard