The electoral college is still an unjustifiable way of electing a President. Any argument that state's rights are a legitimate concern ended with the Civil War, and then later the New Deal. ------------------ Boston College - Big East -East Division Regular Season Champs Worst to First in 2001!
I think State's Rights are still a legitimate concern, but not in the argument about the Electoral College. Direct election of the President doesn't bother me, but it's going to be very difficult to get a Constitutional Amendment through that allows for that. (It's tough to get any Constitutional Amendment ratified, and changing the Electoral College just really isn't all that important to most people). ------------------ Houston Sports Board
Haven, spoken like a true Bostonian. I'll refrain, however, from collaborating with you in completely derailing this thread with a discussion of federalism. I'll be happy to argue with you in a new thread though. As for the recount, I do think it's a good piece of fun. I think it shows that we need a better balloting system more than it says anything about who won. What gets me is that this (by 'this' I mean mispunched ballots, discarded ballots, people turned away at the polls, and everything else that went wrong in Florida) has been happening in all 50 states for many years now. It hasn't mattered much before because the problems got lost in the sea of votes and it's never really blocked an election. Now that it has, people are saying they weren't represented and that their civil rights have been violated. That's true, but it's been true for a long time and, as a republic, we seem to have considered that tolerable. Until now. The only difference, though, is not that people are not represented, only that it caused confusion in the election. ------------------ RealGM Gafford Art Artisan Cakes
The electorial system is based on state representation...states as individuals...not as a whole. If only 3 people in CA voted, those 3 votes would still count for all the electorial votes because those 3 votes are a representation of ALL CA registered voters. It everyone in MT voted, they'd still get the same number of electorial votes because they represent ALL MT registered voters. Simple and yet very smart. It gives the states more power (just like the House does) and yet there is the Senate - in balance - to keep (an) individual state(s) from having too much power. If you don't like a state's laws or the way it is run, you have 49 more to choose and yet you are still in the US. I like it. ------------------
But *why* is it important that an individual state be powerful? Should ND really have disproportinate Senate representation? If so, why? To me, the answer is clearly no. People are what matters. A state is not a person. Generally, the federal government has better laws than states. States do things like keep confederate flags, songs, persecute minorities, not repay debts to Monaco (really), etc. The feds don't do things like that. If you look at the history of the nation, the feds almost always behave more nobly. I think the best argument for state's rights lies in experimentation. That is to say, certain progressive states try out new programs, and this works as a "laboratory" for the rest of the country. The thing is, this is still done w/o state sovereignty. The fact that state's aren't sovereign DOES NOT mean that governance never takes place on the local level; simply that federal law always TRUMPS state law. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche
No, the feds only give african americans syphillus to test the progress of the disease. The feds only lock up entire ethnic groups to put them in internment camps and steal their property. The feds only pass draconian drug laws allowing the police to seize private proerty without even charging citizens for a crime. The feds only approve putting radioactive tracers in milk used in school lunch programs for research purposes. No thanks, I think I like the state abuses more. At least then I can move to another state if mine sucks. State rights are a very good thing imo. Now I also do not agree with the electroal college but it is not because of state rights. I think states should have much more power and leeway in other areas. ------------------
It's clear that people that live in rural areas have much different political leanings than people in urban areas. If we took away the electoral college, then the major cities will have all of the power. At least with the electoral college, the populated states have alot more votes than the Iowa's of the nation. The electoral college is like the RPI ratings in college sports. Sometimes it doesn't work, but we have no better alternative. Imagine how terrible this last election would have been if it was just a majority vote. Instead of just searching Florida for votes, we'd be searching every state in the union. I prefer focusing on a few counties in one state instead of thousands of counties in the country. ------------------
It's clear that people that live in rural areas have much different political leanings than people in urban areas. If we took away the electoral college, then the major cities will have all of the power. At least with the electoral college, the populated states have alot more votes than the Iowa's of the nation. How is this the case? If there are 80 million people in Rural areas, and 150 million in Urban areas, shouldn't the Urban areas have more say? If you actually look closely, rural areas have less say now -- because unless the majority of a state is rural, the rural votes are worth nothing. Let's say Texas was 55% Urban and 45% Rural. For simplicity, say all Urban people vote for one party and all Rural people vote for the other -- then the 45% of rural people in Texas were ignored because they lost Texas. With a national election, their votes would still count for something. I don't get how people argue that certain groups will be left out in a national election, while justifying the fact that 20 million Republican votes in California mean nothing and 15 million Democratic votes in Texas mean nothing under the current system. (numbers are pure guesses) The current system simply gets politicians to make random promises to win different "battleground" states while ignoring the ~30 states that are going to vote Republican or Democrat regardless. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
If it was just a majority vote wouldn't these politicians just make random promises to all of the big cities out there and forget about the towns in the 30 other states? The urban areas do have more say, thats why California and Texas and NY have alot more votes. If you gave them more say then what they already have then what would happen to the farmers? They'd get forgotten. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Band Geek Mobster (edited April 05, 2001).]
If it was just a majority vote wouldn't these politicians just make random promises to all of the big cities out there and forget about the towns in the 30 other states? If both politicians only make promises to the Urban votes, then they'll split the urban vote, meaning the one that also can cater to the rural voter will win. If both major candidates only catered to Urban voters, a 3rd party candidate could come in and focus on Rural votes and win that way. (both you and I are making the incorrect assumption that major issues can be broken down to Rural vs. Urban though) The urban areas do have more say, thats why California and Texas and NY have alot more votes. If you gave them more say then what they already have then what would happen to the farmers? They'd get forgotten. As noted above, this isn't true. But is this any worse than the 50 million California and Texas citizens whose votes are ignored now because they aren't in the majority in their state? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
so how far should we take this? people in harris county vote differently than people in travis county. should we have an electoral college for Texas governor? People in 5th ward have different political leanings from those in River Oaks. Should we have an electoral college for this year's mayoral election? no one is saying you can't still have the presidential election divided up by states, just add the sum total of the votes for them instead of the all or nothing system we have now. ------------------ [This message has been edited by outlaw (edited April 05, 2001).]
