Erickson Tribune - The Electoral College > Forums

11/07/2006 7:57 PM	Alert
The electoral college system is outrageous the people should speak not some idiot political dummy by all means do away with a two hundred year old rule itis time to get real this is so out of whack.

breitse1 (guest)

11/08/2006 11:02 PM	Alert
So where is your poll on the electoral college? The only poll I can find is one for magazine covers. Your article is very biased, and full of factual errors. One example, your statement that the United States is quite unique, because very few other democrcies elect their leaders indirectly. First, the fact is that the United States is a republic NOT a democracy. The founders knew from history the inherent instability of democracies, and also knew that because the United States covered a huge land area, comprised of very diverse peoples, that a republic was a much better fit to ensure the stability of just government. So to compare a 300 million people giant, to many very small countries is just rediculous. Second, many other democacies are parlimentarian - such as Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, etc. They also DO NOT elect their leaders directly - in fact the people do NOT even have a part in the indirect selection of leaders. The people mearly vote for parties and the party leadership picks their own leaders internal to the party. The people end up with who ever the party picks. The United States, with our electorial college, is way way way ahead of the rest of the word in so many ways. Finally, the electoral college is part of our checks and balances. It assures that a winning president receives the majority vote in ALL the individual legisative districts represented in the US Congress -- As Bush did recieve in 2000. Gore may have received more total votes in the U.S. as a whole, but Bush recieved a majority of the votes in the majority of states + representative districts. You can see this in one of those colored maps that shows the red Bush areas as 95% of the U.S., and the Gore Blue areas as a few small urban spots. This ensures that the winner has the broadest possible base accross the very devirse population and geography. Without this check the country would be very unstable. To get rid of the electoral college would change the very nature of the United States from a republic to a democracy, and such a drastic change requires a clear and fair and full debate on all the details and remifications. The electorial college is NOT "anachronistic", as said by Senator Dianne Feinstein, unless you also agree that the very idea of keeping the states around is also anachronistic. By the way, California Gov "Arnold" vetoed the National Popular Vote proposal - since you said the California legislature passed it, it is only fair to be honest and tell the whole story

Zach Cheney
Posts:324

11/09/2006 9:19 AM	Alert
breitse1- The Electoral College poll is at the bottom on the story on this site, you can access the story by clicking here. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and vote, although I have a feeling I already know how you're going to vote!

Tom (guest)

11/09/2006 2:16 PM	Alert
Do not abolish the Electoral College. This prevent a few states with large populations from running the country. What is good for New York of Texas may not be good for New Mexico or Montana. This gives the small population states a voice in selecting the President.

robinguest (guest)

11/10/2006 6:28 PM	Alert
It looks like to me that we have NO say in the election process what-so-ever and I have questioned it since civics in school. WHY should we stand in lines, support candidates with our money{which comes damn hard}, listen to ALL the garbage on TV etc, and the end result be a totally ignorant, arrogant pig that says he is ABOVE THE LAW and has too much power to be stopped!!!Whether or not he got "the popular vote", there should be a choice and these unqualified "delegates" should NOT have the power to push all of us out as if we were not here!!! No, I do not have a solution either but the situation as it is now ,is ABSOLUTLY NOT RIGHT!!! Maybe in two years we can get it changed.

robinguest (guest)

11/10/2006 6:42 PM	Alert
Do you not think that a balance could be found to equalize the smaller per capita states without New York or Calif etc overshadowing everyone else? Like Wyo only has three delegates, that should change in a way where the people of Wyo had their votes counted equally as every other state. THE PEOPLE ONLY, not a party or group of influencial DAMN RICH PEOPLE THAT BUY THE VOTES.

scussel cedar crest (guest)

11/11/2006 10:25 AM	Alert
Ben Franklin said "we have given you a republic,keep it that way" Can you imagine the United States being run by New York, Chicago,Los Angeles and the illegals living here?

Bob (guest)

11/11/2006 7:08 PM	Alert
I am 71 years old and I did not until ten years ago because I learned in high school that my vote would not necesarily mean any thing because of the electoral college. I wonder how many people don't vote for that reason?

pete (guest)

11/13/2006 3:58 PM	Alert
I THINK THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE IS ONE OF THE MOST OUTDATED PIECE OF LEGESTATION ON THE BOOKS. FOR ONE NOW TO NOT HAVE THEIR VOTE COUNTED FOR THE ELCTION OF PRESIDENT IS TOTALLY LEUDICRESS.

newshound777 (guest)

11/13/2006 7:46 PM	Alert
I read Richard Daub's article, and found it very biased against the Electoral College, which treats our elections in a bicameral manner, just as our congress is set up. The myriad of sound arguments that could be offered to maintain the Electoral College are not given, only the argument of smaller states being ignored, which was grossly understated. It should be required reading to study the debate which led to the system in the first place. I don't know of anything that has changed to merit a different approach. To wit: The 500,000 vote margin that Al Gore allegedly received will never be known for sure. Massive voter fraud in Philadelphia, "where dead people still vote", St. Louis, and Wisconsin where activist students were caught voting three times, has deeply tainted elections in our country of late. The premature call by TV of the Florida count before the polls closed in a Republican part of the state resulted in a closer election there than would have been the case otherwise. Due to the electoral count, only Florida became an issue, though I believe a great disservice was done not probing the others. If winning was simply stuffing the ballot box in a couple of large cities, you can rest assured that the party bosses would do it even more than they do already, and 99% of cities and the vast majority of states would be rendered superfluous. The condescending statement about voters in early America being "common folk" is absurd. The low level of voter knowledge and sophistication in our country today is a travesty. Only a relative handful understand in the slightest how the government works. People who feel strongly on certain issues seem to have no clue that all appropriations bills must originate in the house, and all Supreme Court confirmations are in the Senate. If you vote for party candidates whose views sound compatible, but whose votes are controlled by obligations to the party apparatus, you are voting against your own beliefs. The electoral colleges system forces candidates to criss-cross the country and not leave all the smaller states out. It balances the supposed landslide margins in machine cities with the interests of smaller states, just as the Senate balances the House. In Pennsylvania, only Philadelphia has real power. No matter how the rest of the state votes, absurd majorities of people scared by absurd ads and fed only one side of every issue in Philadelphia outweigh the desires of everyone else. Do we really want states who may allow illegal aliens to vote to forever control every election in the United States? The Framers got it right, and you will notice that many of the proposals to abolish the Electoral College come from liberal politicians in large states who want to dominate the country even more than they do already. Believe me, we need this system more than ever. In looking at the last congressional election. with a barrage of one-sided TV and newspaper "news", few people understood the consequences of simplistic voting. Hugo Chavez sure did. The opposition Pakistani leader sure did, who called for President Bush's execution, and A-Qaeda sure did. They rejoiced and Al-Qaeda announced they were winning the war. They are right - they won over the overwhelmingly ignorant American voter who didn't put as much thought into his or her vote as selecting which channel of TV to watch. The election results will be just as regretted very shortly as Connecticut voters regretted voted for Lamont instead of Joe Lieberman after the next terrorist incident. What we need are fewer ill-thought-out proposals to abolish the Electoral College and more civics and history education instead of agendized mush and a balanced media that actually tells the truth for a change. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

newshound777 (guest)

11/13/2006 7:56 PM	Alert
I enjoyed your post. It made the others look like child's play. I saw it after I made my own post. I believe fraud and overall ignorance are major issues. Based upon accounts from Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Wisconsin, Al Gore's majority is in deep question. Republicans never have understood politics very well - they should have challenged the known fraud. Since they did not, it will likely reoccuir in 2008 and may make the difference next time. Also, President Bush has not taken advantage of his bully pulpit and confronted the news media head-on. The results were unchallenged allegations of no WMD's, which Georges Sada from Iraq had credible evidence for, continued misrepresentation on how much of Iraq was at peace and how much was subject to the daily killings, etc. etc. The result is now likely a lost war, no further improvements in the Supreme Court, and gutting the economy through tax hikes and even more waste than the Republicans managed to create. I have a blog on the election at politicalanimal-john.blogspot.com.

bawlmoron (guest)

11/15/2006 9:09 AM	Alert
The simple fact of the matter is that your vote does count. look at the recent senate race in VA. If you don't vote, you don't have the right to complain!!! That of course, is why I vote!

tamaraberton@tesco.net (guest)

11/16/2006 1:06 PM	Alert
the archaic useless electoral college should be abolished and the one person one vote should be initiated. that way the votes from less populated states will have the same weight. they can even out their population representation discrepancies in the house and senate. furthermore, all elected posts including the presidency should be a one-time post for 6 years. no fence-sitting for 4 years worrying about how to hide their politics as usual corruption and graft. no sitting around and doing nothing for the country and everything for their pals and special interest groups. no spending all their time planning for a re-election to waste another 4 years of our country's time and tax dollars. just one chance to make your mark on american history and do some good for our country not the politicians' back pockets. all elections right down to local towns and cities, should take place at the same time as the presidency so that there can be consistency and cooperation amongst elected officials working within the same 6-year time frame to get things done for our country, not for themselves. it's way past time to take the me out of we and make it us.

turner11030@bellsouth.net (guest)

11/17/2006 1:30 PM	Alert
This country would be controled by illegals and ghetto inhabitants of the major cities if you were to abolish the electoral college. I vote a very strong YES FOR THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

pogofan1@cox.net (guest)

11/17/2006 3:17 PM	Alert
The Electoral College has worked very well and as intended by those very wise statesmen who designed our government system. Latter day politicians, who are not nearly as qualified, who think of only self interests, are the ones who tout change. We need the checks it provides over large liberal states and the likes of Hilary C., Nancy P., Ted K., etc.. AND THE IDEA OF THROWING ALL VOTES TO THE POPULAR VOTE WINNER IS CRIMINAL TO ANYONE WHO DISSENTS AND WANTS THEIR VOTE COUNTED! If we really want change we need to have a viable third party. We then might be able to get real leadership.

kandu@ewol.com (guest)

11/17/2006 5:42 PM	Alert
We need to keep the electoral college. Without it, only big ciities would matter in the election. Places where people can be herded through the polls and votor fraud is effective would decide the Presidential election. People on farms, in small towns and cities, or in less populous states would be completely disenfranchised.

pogofan1@cox.net (guest)

11/18/2006 2:55 PM	Alert
So you were told in high school that your vote would not matter? What does that say about our educators? Our votes DO count. And you wasted too many.

Mike Java (guest)

11/18/2006 10:31 PM	Alert
as long as each person vote dose not count to shose the president directly ,people are not interested to vote and the president usualy elected by minority and in the other hand electors make the final decsion for presidency.it must be change and it will be changed anyway. Thank you

Mike Java (guest)

11/18/2006 10:55 PM	Alert
President of united state belong to the whole people of this country not to a small or large state ,so electoral college must be abolish and all people have to vote for their president directly not by electors.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Tribune Forum Group > Politics > The Electoral College

ActiveForums 3.5