New York Times calls for the end of Electoral College

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 06:37pm

Super-Gagme wrote:The US is a Republic and the concept of the Electoral College seems to represent part of the base of a Republic. Seems pretty obvious to me, US is Republic and therefore acts as a Republic. Are people calling for a change of government or something?

Wrong. A republic is a government in which the citizens of the nation elect representatives to government (as opposed to a democracy, in which every citizen represents himself, which is totally unworkable in anything larger than a small city-state). The electoral college is not necessary to a republic at all.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 06:39pm

Finland had an electoral college from 1919 to 1987 and abandoned it in favor of a conventional democratic election.

The Holy Roman Empire had an electoral college from the late Middle Ages until the collapse of the Empire in 1806.

The only current example of an electoral college other than the United States is the College of Cardinals of the Catholic Church.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 06:40pm

And one needs hardly point out that the Catholic Church is DEFINITELY not a Republic!

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-08-29 07:25pm

Iceberg wrote:And one needs hardly point out that the Catholic Church is DEFINITELY not a Republic!

Nor should it be.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-08-29 07:28pm

Didn't notice this response till now...

DPDarkPrimus wrote: Ah, so, a candidate running on a ticket to, say, keep slavery wouldn't have a regional bias at all, back in the 1850s?

Nice job thowing in slavery there to play to people's emotions while totally ignoring the fact that the abolishment of slavery has jack shit to do with the Presidential elections.

In any case, so called "regional bias" is just a bullshit way of saying a bunch of people that agree on issues from the same area. And what of it? If a bunch of people from the south want to cast their votes for Dubya, I'm not about to claim that their votes are invalid simply because you happen to think that it isn't fair that people from the same region share an opinion.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 07:34pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Iceberg wrote:And one needs hardly point out that the Catholic Church is DEFINITELY not a Republic!
Nor should it be.

Did I say it should?

An electoral college is not a base feature of a republic (as there are many republics which do not have an electoral college), nor is the presence of an electoral college an indicator of small-r republicanism.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 07:40pm

Removing the Electoral College would reduce neither federalism (as a "federation" is a collection of states which have surrendered their sovereignty to a federal government) nor republicanism (since, as I have already demonstrated, an electoral college is not an essential feature of a republic). The only thing it would do is reduce the importance of the states and magnify the importance of individual votes in the election of the president.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-08-29 07:56pm

Iceberg wrote: The only thing it would do is reduce the importance of the states and magnify the importance of individual votes in the election of the president.

That's the problem that supporters of the EC have with removing it.

It decreases the representatiion of the states, thus eroding thier power.

It's the same argument people had against direct election of senators. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, and the House the people.

Now I wish to say I don't agree with any of this.

But the basis of thier argument is that the US is one nation as a unionof Sovereign states, not one nation sub-divided into states.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-08-29 07:57pm

But the basis of thier argument is that the US is one nation as a unionof Sovereign states, not one nation sub-divided into states.

Yeah, and it's a basis that I'm quite practiced at dismantling. Anyone ever needs to provide evidence for someone arguing the supremacy of the states, PM me and I'll give you all you need.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-29 07:59pm

Lord MJ wrote:It's the same argument people had against direct election of senators. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, and the House the people.

HoR has always been decided by POPULATION, while every state
has always, ALWAYS had the same number of senators; Two.

Lord MJ · Post by **Lord MJ** » 2004-08-29 08:05pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Lord MJ wrote:It's the same argument people had against direct election of senators. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, and the House the people.

HoR has always been decided by POPULATION, while every state
has always, ALWAYS had the same number of senators; Two.

Which is what I was saying, the Senate represents the states, hence every state getting two votes.

While the HoR represents the people, with each state getting a number in proportion to it's population, and the states being divided into districts which each elect thier representative.

Note I'm agreeing with the EC supporters here, I'm just pointing out facts.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 08:07pm

Lord MJ wrote:
Iceberg wrote: The only thing it would do is reduce the importance of the states and magnify the importance of individual votes in the election of the president.
That's the problem that supporters of the EC have with removing it.

It decreases the representatiion of the states, thus eroding thier power.

Good. Fuck the states. People matter, imaginary lines on a map don't.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-29 08:32pm

Iceberg wrote: Good. Fuck the states. People matter, imaginary lines on a map don't.

So by that reasoning, we should give the Southwest back to Mexico, as
"imaginary lines on a map don't" matter?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-29 10:26pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Iceberg wrote: Good. Fuck the states. People matter, imaginary lines on a map don't.
So by that reasoning, we should give the Southwest back to Mexico, as "imaginary lines on a map don't" matter?

If you keep taking posts wildly out of context like this, I'll simply start deleting your garbage on sight. You know damn well what he meant.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-29 10:28pm

Durandal wrote:If you keep taking posts wildly out of context like this, I'll simply start deleting your garbage on sight. You know damn well what he meant.

Wildly out of Context? he claimed that borders had no meaning. I was taking it to it's logical conclusion.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-29 10:57pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Durandal wrote:If you keep taking posts wildly out of context like this, I'll simply start deleting your garbage on sight. You know damn well what he meant.
Wildly out of Context? he claimed that borders had no meaning. I was taking it to it's logical conclusion.

And ignoring the obvious context of "decision making within the United States."

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-29 10:58pm

Durandal wrote:And ignoring the obvious context of "decision making within the United States."

In that context, would you rather have invisible state borders and allow the Blue
Laws to spread from Georgia to the entire nation?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2004-08-29 11:00pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Durandal wrote:And ignoring the obvious context of "decision making within the United States."
In that context, would you rather have invisible state borders and allow the Blue Laws to spread from Georgia to the entire nation?

How do you get "All state laws become federal laws" from "We should abolish the electoral college because it takes power away from the people"?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-29 11:02pm

Durandal wrote:How do you get "All state laws become federal laws" from "We should abolish the electoral college because it takes power away from the people"?

Because Iceberg said that state lines are invisible lines on a map that
should go away.

Quite frankly, Damien, I like Maryland laws, I don't want to live under
either Taxachussets laws or Georgia (PRAISE THE LORD!) laws.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-29 11:04pm

Shep, those lines in this case make Person A's vote worth less than person B's vote. Which shits all over the idea of one person one vote....it becomes one person, between 1/2 to 2 votes.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 11:09pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Durandal wrote:How do you get "All state laws become federal laws" from "We should abolish the electoral college because it takes power away from the people"?
Because Iceberg said that state lines are invisible lines on a map that
should go away.

Wrong. What I said was - and this is rather consistent with my positions if you haven't noticed - that states' rights should not overrule human rights.

As a Minnesotan, my vote counts less than, say, an Alaskan's, a North Dakotan's, a South Dakotan's, basically anybody who lives in a three-EV state has a greater say in who is elected President han I do, because their vote counts for more (and if I vote Democratic and Minnesota goes Republican - not likely, thankfully - then my vote means nothing at all).

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-08-29 11:10pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:Shep, those lines in this case make Person A's vote worth less than person B's vote. Which shits all over the idea of one person one vote....it becomes one person, between 1/2 to 2 votes.

Here's a time machine. Go back to the 1780s and tell the founders
they're wrong. See you yesterday.

Seriously, this system has worked for 200+ years with minor hiccups,
and keep in mind that the smaller states refused to sign the Constituion
unless checks like this were put in.

I don't think you'd be bitching if Gore had gotten a few hundred extra votes in Florida four years ago.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-08-29 11:12pm

The Electoral College is a worthless relic, Shep. Its only real effect is to magnify the self-importance of low-population states and denigrate the importance of high-population states.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2004-08-29 11:12pm

Two fallacies in a row, appeal to tradition and to motive all in one post. I'm soo impressed Shep.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-08-29 11:12pm

Also remember that the EC was NOT originally intended to be a populare vote system. Ot was intended to use the national vote as a guage, advice that was not necessarily to be taken at full value. They did this, because while a person may or may not be intelligent, the vast majority of the population, is, on average,stupid. and may or may not be informed enough to make that decision. essentially, the EC avoids a very damaging form of mob rule.