MennoNet.com

Bootstrap wrote:The original idea is spelled out in Article II of the Constitution. Electors were supposed to be part of a deliberative body, and to make an informed choice. Also, the second place winner originally became the Vice President.

I'm assuming the idea of electors was adapted from the princes and archbishops who elected the "Holy" "Roman" Emperor. The title of Elector was prestigious; at the time of the constitutional convention there were 8 of them, though at that time they mostly served to rubber-stamp the Habsburg succession.

Bootstrap. Sure a huge number do not feel government works for them. I happen to be one of those in Canada. But that does not mean that when I do not vote which is normally that I do not accept the fact that my not voting means that I by default am supporting the ultimate winner. In the end the winner couldn't care less that I did not vote for him. I and millions of others did not vote for the opponent and he there for won.

As to your electoral college system. Be glad for it. In the Canadian system politicians only have to speak to what the urban populace wants and they will almost certainly win. Rural interests have dropped so far on the totem pole of importance to them we may as well not exist.

appleman2006 wrote:Bootstrap. Sure a huge number do not feel government works for them. I happen to be one of those in Canada. But that does not mean that when I do not vote which is normally that I do not accept the fact that my not voting means that I by default am supporting the ultimate winner. In the end the winner couldn't care less that I did not vote for him. I and millions of others did not vote for the opponent and he there for won.

As to your electoral college system. Be glad for it.

In the Canadian system politicians only have to speak to what the urban populace wants and they will almost certainly win.

Rural interests have dropped so far on the totem pole of importance to them we may as well not exist.

Perspective. helpful. thank you.
as well, you've helped me understand what-on-earth has been happening in Canada, which has truly puzzled me.

appleman2006 wrote:As to your electoral college system. Be glad for it. In the Canadian system politicians only have to speak to what the urban populace wants and they will almost certainly win. Rural interests have dropped so far on the totem pole of importance to them we may as well not exist.

As I said before, there are tradeoffs.

I am not eager to change the American system of government, which has managed to give us stable democracy for a long time. I do think it's helpful to think through what it was intended for, how it works, and what the relative advantages are.

Bootstrap wrote:You could design this various ways. There are trade-offs.

If we changed it now, I do think that campaigns would largely ignore the middle of the country and concentrate on the coasts. That makes me think it's good.

Originally, one of the reasons for this system was to make sure that the northern states could not vote to abolish slavery, so it had some bad consequences. And this system definitely gives less power, on average, to the inner city voter, who is just as neglected by the system as the white rural voter.

While I wouldn't change it, this certainly is not "one man, one vote". An American living in California has less of a vote than an American living in the middle of the country. Of course, there are a lot more Americans in the more populated areas.

But it's hard to escape noticing that very few of our elected officials are doing anything to fix the most basic problems of the inner city poor. And the electoral system doesn't help. Gerrymandering doesn't help either.

I can't prove this, but it appears that the founding fathers were more concerned that political units (States) were treated fairly, than to give every person in the US a vote with equal value.

Otherwise, states like Montana would be crowded out by states like California. They deliberately tried to overcome the weaknesses of democracy by doing this.

Is the system perfect? No. But nor is Canada's, more democratic, system.

the stress between city-folk and country-folk is not new.
it waxes and wanes, but it is nothing new.

the truth is, both are valuable, and are better for each other.
when things become unbalanced, problems ensue.

politicians divide - for their own personal gain.

Well...like a lot of these things...it seems that support for the electoral college depends not so much on the merits of the idea itself, but rather on how it affects one's particular team.

According to a Gallup poll, back at the last election in 2012, support for an amendment against the electoral college among Republicans was up to about 54% - now it's under 20%. While Democrat support for abandoning the electoral college has shot up from 69% to 84%.



People (including us here on MN) predictably argue for their preferred party's advantage.

Dan Z wrote:Well...like a lot of these things...it seems that support for the electoral college depends not so much on the merits of the idea itself, but rather on how it affects one's particular team.

According to a Gallup poll, back at the last election in 2012, support for an amendment against the electoral college among Republicans was up to about 54% - now it's under 20%. While Democrat support for abandoning the electoral college has shot up from 69% to 84%.

[img]http://i1279.photobucket.com/albums/y53 ... bmstw1.png[/]

People (including us here on MN) predictably argue for their preferred party's advantage.

i sensed this, and believe this to be the strongest reason-why the electroral college will stay in place.

gerrymandering, maybe not.

December 2016: appleman2006

appleman2006 wrote:Bootstrap. Sure a huge number do not feel government works for them. I happen to be one of those in Canada. But that does not mean that when I do not vote which is normally that I do not accept the fact that my not voting means that I by default am supporting the ultimate winner. In the end the winner couldn't care less that I did not vote for him. I and millions of others did not vote for the opponent and he there for won.

As to your electoral college system. Be glad for it.

In the Canadian system politicians only have to speak to what the urban populace wants and they will almost certainly win.

Rural interests have dropped so far on the totem pole of importance to them we may as well not exist.

That last post makes it look like I'm against the electoral college. Here's what I said in the OP, just to be clear. It's the system we have. It's not changing. Not much point in having strong opinions about it.

Bootstrap wrote:The power of your vote depends on the state you live in. In a presidential election, the least powerful voter is the California voter. The most powerful voter is in Arizona.

The five states your vote is worth the least in: California, Maryland, Washington DC, New York, Massachusetts. The five states your vote is worth the most in: Arizona, Iowa, Alaska, South Dakota, Ohio.

And yes, this is the system we have. You win by winning the electoral college. The "flyover" states have more power per voter (but they also have fewer voters). Love it, hate it, it doesn't matter much. That's the way the system works, always has, always will.

On the other hand, I don't think the flyover states have a lot to complain about. Individual voters in these states have more clout than they would otherwise. Presidential candidates wouldn't spend much time in Iowa, Ohio. or Arizona if we didn't have an electoral college.