 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| ACS
| Commons
| Calendar
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | Color Chart | Photo album | IRC Chat |
|
| | ||
| 0 user currently in World Affairs / Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - In the USA, should the electoral college be abolished? |
 |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2306/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| I'm sure for those that would visit this forum regularly, you don't need to be told what the electoral college is... if so, ask, and then someone (probably not me, cause I'm tired right now) will most likely explain it. Anyway, here are a few common arguments for and against it (I won't give my arguments yet, because I want to see other opinions first): Pro-Abolition Argument(s) : The electoral college discounts the votes of many in several states. The power should be given back to the people, and not be kept with the delegates. There is better communication, so the delegates have no political edge over a normal people now. Anti-Abolition Argument(s) : Changing something of this magnitude could force a change in many other parts of the constitution, and that would be way too time consuming. Before you make a constitutional amendment, you have to see what effect it has on the rest of the document. Furthermore, if it were a popular vote, then the small states, which there are many of, would have little to no significance in the election. With the electoral college, they are significant. Again, I'm not going to state my side until others have stated theirs. Don't try to guess what side I'm on and start attacking me one way or the other, either. So, what is YOUR opinion on this? EDIT: fixed bold tags (edited by Kefka on 10-24-04 04:29 AM) |
|||
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67  Posts: 696/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| The electoral college favors states rights, in that it entitles them to power commesurate with state status, and then some if they have larger population. When it comes to a presidential election however, my concern is not my status as a citizen of my state, but as a citizen of the nation. Thus, I prefer the abolition of the electoral college on those grounds. The problem was made especially clear when Gore won the popular vote and Bush won the electoral vote. MY vote is essentially wasted, given I tend to vote Democrat in Indiana, a largely Republican state. Who knows though, maybe this election will be different. But that should be beside the point. I shouldn't have to move to a different state to make a difference in the presidential election. I agree that State's rights are important, but not with respect to this. If your state has a small number of people, they should only receive that much respresentation. Hm... also, I think it's ridiculous that electoral votes are winner take all. Subdivide them by percentages or something b/c a Republican win in my state effectively silences my voice. This of course, doesn't really apply to states that have only one electoral vote. |
|||
|
The SomerZ Summer, yay! Level: 45  Posts: 553/862 EXP: 618182 For next: 41982 Since: 03-15-04 From: Norway Since last post: 2 days Last activity: 3 hours |
| ||
| The electoral college should not be abolished, however, it should be changed. Delegates should be elected to the electoral college through proportional representation, not through single-district plurality voting. I've explained my stand on this many times, so I don't think any further explanation would be needed, unless somebody wants it, that is. | |||
Dracoon Zelda The temp ban/forum ban bypasser! Level: 84  Posts: 1614/3727 EXP: 5514391 For next: 147561 Since: 03-25-04 From: At home Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 5 hours |
| ||
| SomerZ, I have never heard the full of your argument and I would like to hear the full thing. I do want it to be abolished, because with the elctorial college there is absolutely no chance that anyone not sponsered by a party will win. Even though I am from a mostly rebublican state, and I can't vote, I am sure that many in the state would like to be heard and not just tossed aside. That is exactly what the electoral college does. We don't really pick the president some other people do and it is very meaningless to even vote. If this is a democracy, like it is supposed to be, everyone should be heard. I do know we are not a direct democracy, but when the leader of our nation is being picked I see no reason why we shouldn't be. |
|||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2307/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
| You only need to have the majority of the population in favor of you in 11 states to win the election. 11/50 states hold the majority of the electoral votes! Now, some mentioned how the votes of the people in smaller states would have no significance if it went to a popular vote... however, in HUGE states, such as California, there are tons of people who's votes don't count because they were not in the majority in that state. There are plenty of Bush-voters in Southern California whose votes aren't worth a crap anymore because practically all of Northern Cali voted for Kerry. Even if only 30% of Cali's population voted for Bush, that would still be more votes than the total amount possible in smaller states such as Rhode Island. You are potentially throwing away a huge number of votes with the electoral college the way it is now. I think that if you are going to have an electoral college of sorts, then you need to do it in a way where the individual electoral votes come from each individual district in a state as opposed to the state as a whole, because the way it is now, as I have said, tons of people in states like Cali and Florida are not being counted afterwards because they were in the minority for the entire state's vote. If it was a popular vote, you wouldn't have that problem. Everyone's vote would count. To say that the electoral college is what makes every vote count where the popular vote can't do that is foolish, because it is the exact opposite. To put it in numbers: Cali has 54 electoral votes. They also have 30 million potential voters. Florida has 27 electoral votes, and 15 million potential voters. Suppose that everyone in those states decided to vote, and they decided to all vote for either Kerry or Bush (though this would never happen, bare with me, as you will see the point). In California, 16 million people vote for Kerry, and 14 million vote for Bush. Kerry carries all 54 electoral votes. In Florida, of the 15 million voters, 14 million choose Bush, and Kerry gets 1 million. Now, in these two states, Bush has a very big lead, with 28 million votes to Kerry's 17 million. However, because of the electoral college, Kerry wins this segment of the race because he leads 54-27 on the electoral scoreboard. Now, if you are a Bush fan and saw these statistics, you would be irate, no? Just some things to think about when considering the electoral college and the popular vote... Now, as for my opinion, we should actually keep it, but break each state up into further districts so that we don't have a crapload of votes all being in one state. Deleware has districts for this, so why can't Florida, Cali, etc. ? I think that would solve a lotta problems. Oh, btw, don't let my post fool you... I HATE Bush |
|||
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38  Posts: 399/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| The electoral college should be abolished. Period. There's a dozen obvious reasons why, but I'll mention one of the less-obvious ones: The electoral college gives states weight roughly in proportion to their population (except for small states, but let's assume for the state of argument)... however, within these states, the turnout rates don't matter. Thus, low-turnout states (like the South) have their votes artificially inflated in comparison with high-turnout states (like the North). To illustate an extreme example, if 1% of the population voted in Pennsylvania and Bush won, and 100% of the population votes in Illinois and Kerry won, then every vote in Pennsylvania will have been worth 100x as much as every vote in Illinois (assuming equal populations). This is fucking ridiculous. The anti-electoral college argument isn't a good one. There have been plenty of changes made to the electoral or procedural mechanisms via the Constitution over the years: Look at the 12th, 15th, 17th, 19th, 20th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 25th, or 26th amendments. Granted, some are more important than others (mainly the 12th and 17th), but don't tell me it can't be done without opening some kind of Pandora's box. |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67 Posts: 714/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| Well that part about the voter turnout may be true, but it is not under control by the system. It is not a constraint that the government can tweak, only voters can decide how much their vote is worth, relative to another state, by voting as much as possible. Your vote has a potential value commesurate with the number of electoral votes it has the possibility of winning. How much actual value you assign it is a matter of perspective. There are nonvoters who think it has no value whatsover b/c they think the system is corrupt, it won't make a difference, it's all the same Dem or GOP, etc. | |||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 405/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| And that's relevant how? It may not be under the direct control of the system that some votes count more than others, but if this outcome arises incidentally and naturally from the system, you still have a bad system. | |||
|
Kefka Indefinitely Unbanned Level: 81 Posts: 2313/3392 EXP: 4826208 For next: 166641 Since: 03-15-04 From: Pomona, CALIFORNIA BABY! Since last post: 4 hours Last activity: 4 hours |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins Yea, but with a popular vote, they only count the votes of those that voted, and don't consider how much weight a state has a possibility of holding. |
|||
|
MathOnNapkins Math n' Hacks Level: 67 Posts: 727/2189 EXP: 2495887 For next: 96985 Since: 03-18-04 From: Base Tourian Since last post: 1 hour Last activity: 32 min. |
| ||
| What I'm saying is that if someone's vote in state X becomes worth more than a vote of a person in state Y, X and Y being of equal size, it is not the government's fault that happened. It wasn't mandated by them. Theoretically everyone who has the right should vote, and when there are disaparities you have the non voters to blame. Of course, you can always blame the gov't for making the volatile system in the first place. |
|||
NetSplit Koopa Level: 19 Posts: 4/117 EXP: 30378 For next: 5399 Since: 04-05-04 Since last post: 1 day Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
Originally posted by MathOnNapkins The idea of voters in one state being penalized by non-voters in another state (or, alternatively, voters in one state gaining more power because of non-voters in their own state) is rather ridiculous to me. People who decide not to exercise their right to vote should not affect other voters in any way, so this is definitely not the sign of a good system of representation. Also note that the number of electoral votes isn't directly related to population. No state can have fewer than 3 votes because each state has 2 senators and a minimum of 1 representative; what this means is that 100 of the 538 or so votes (that's nearly 20%) have absolutely nothing to do with population. It's my opinion that the electoral college should be abandoned in favor of the popular vote because it ignores large amounts of voters and it misrepresents areas due to those extra 2 votes. *shrugs* I just don't see any benefit coming from it. |
|||
drjayphd Beamos What's that spell? pimp! Level: 56  Posts: 728/1477 EXP: 1387410 For next: 10766 Since: 03-15-04 From: CT Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| I think we can all agree that there's a need for massive overhauls with the US electoral system. But not simply abolishing the EC (as all the kids aren't calling it). Maybe have them decided by Congressional district, rather than state? (shrug) Then award the two bonus votes for Senators to the winner of the whole state. Believe Maine does this, and there's that initiative in Colorado. But PREFERENTIAL VOTING, people. I'm not thrilled with Kerry, but I'm'a votin' for him because I loathe the opposition. We need more choices here. |
|||
|
NSNick Laidback Admin Level: 85  Posts: 1258/3875 EXP: 5895841 For next: 2699 Since: 03-15-04 From: North Side School: OSU Since last post: 9 hours Last activity: 1 hour |
| ||
| A nationwide popular vote would eliminate gerrymandering and other shady voting practices. I personally know at least two people that registered to vote here in Ohio instead of their own states because the race is so close here, and their vote would make more of a difference. (edited by NSNick on 10-30-04 03:55 PM) |
|||
Arwon Zora Level: 35  Posts: 194/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| The problem with the presidential election though, drj, is that no matter how you slice the vote, there can only be one winner. Someone will be president, someone else won't. It's a very all-or-nothing situation however you do it. Preferential voting can still work - it does in Ireland - but in the end you're still going to only have 2 or 3 realistic presidential candidates. That's one of the big flaws in the "strong president" republic model the US and Latin America (also the Philipines) uses. Because the president is the head of state and govt, it's a lot harder to have comprimise, coalitions,and so forth. Whereas in a more parliament/diet/congress/duma centred model, where the president is more beholden to the legislature and might even be just a ceremonial figurehead (Ireland, India, Germany) coalition govt is easier, since the main action happens in a legislature with lots of seats for people of all different stripes. The president is still an "all or nothing" post but it's less central to the running of the country. --------------- I think a lot of people are confusing congressional racing and the presidential race together. NSNick speaks of "gerrymandering" then talks of people registering in a different state. That's not gerrymandering, gerrymandering has nothing to do with the presidential election. --------------- The electoral college is kind of weird as far as republic models go, but given the US's status as a federation of 50 nominally independant states it kind of makes sense. A good contrast though is Brazil where they have lots of states but the president is elected by popular vote. I guess the difference though is Brazil started out as a single entity whereas the US didn't. It's a historical curiosity and a bit odd, but the electoral college isn't really the thing that will fix things in America. That said: State Population per Electoral Vote Wyoming 167,081 DC 187,795 Vermont 206,369 North Dakota 211,279 Alaska 216,273 South Dakota 254,770 Rhode Island 269,041 Delaware 272,497 Montana 305,874 Hawaii 314,402 ... Ohio 571,790 New Jersey 575,893 Georgia 578,981 Pennsylvania 588,831 Michigan 592,940 Illinois 602,550 New York 619,036 Florida 630,336 California 645,172 Texas 650,544 ----------- Finally, I think a much more interesting reform would be proportional election of the senate, rather than "2 per state". (edited by Arwon on 10-31-04 12:15 AM) |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 420/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| It's my opinion that having a President rather than a Prime Minister is a good thing, because it allows for divided government, which has always put restraints on one-party dominance. Also, having a Prime Minister system isn't a sufficient condition for a multiparty system, since the key to a multiparty system is proportional representation, which is a completely different issue.. the fact that the President of the United States is stronger than a Prime Minister in another country isn't due to the President / Prime Minister system, but rather just due to the way that the insititutions evolved over time.. it's been my impression that in general, Prime Ministers tend to be more powerful than Presidents, because they'll always have the Legislature on their side. The EC is an artifact. Originally, the President was not directly elected by the people, and so the EC kinda made sense. But obviously that's no longer the case. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 195/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| Well the equivalent role to Prime Minister in your government is the Majority House leader, so they're by their nature different roles. Plenty of countries (Ireland, France, Germany except they call the PM a chancellor, India) have both a president and a PM, where the president is head of state and may or may not wield some degree of day-to-day power, but the PM is head of the day-to-day government. A PM can have a great deal of power, our PM's 2-party coalition controls both houses at the moment, but it's a more ephermeral and shifting sort of power... he is also more answerable to things like no confidence motions, losing the support of his own party, dismissal by a president or governor general, and prime ministers are also a lot more exposed to the press and public through "question time" and such, than a president in a system where he's the head of state and government. Also, the need to continually please 70 or 80 MPs and 40-odd senators does tend to keep things fairly moderate. In a president-centric system, however, it's harder to remove an implacable leader even if he's unpopular. Impeachment is hard and difficult, and if push comes to shove the president commands the military. It's a much more "all-or-nothing" system. Bear in mind, the stability and continual democracy of the US is the exception, not the rule, to the "strong president" model. There's an entire continent of Latin American counter-examples as well as a couple of other places (the Philipines, Liberia) that underscore the problems with having such a strong unaccountable head of government. These countries have a much worse record with maintaining democracy than parliamentary systems - where a burgeoning tyrant usually first changes the system to make it more president-centred and less parliamentary. (edited by Arwon on 10-31-04 12:52 AM) |
|||
alte Hexe Star Mario I dreamed I saw Joe Hill last night Alive as you and me "But Joe you're ten years dead!" "I never died" said he "I never died!" said he Level: 99  Posts: 1576/5458 EXP: 9854489 For next: 145511 Since: 03-15-04 From: ... Since last post: 2 hours Last activity: 2 hours |
| ||
| In a MAJORITY government, the role of the opposition parties is dulled. Whereas in a MINORITY government, the power of the any of the given opposition parties greatly increases. To say that a Parliamentary system doesn't work is to not look at all the aspects, but then again, for the past decade people whined about how bad having a strong Liberal majority was, yet Canada's standard of living went up (and swiftly crashed when the political infighting began). But really, it should be put that each nation has a unique sort of mentality when it comes to politics, their democracy, and most importantly their nation identity. And that is what defines what works best in a nation. Given that the US is strong, economically and quite stable, the Presidential republic works beautifully. But, in another nation, as Arwon has said, the President has unfettered power and can exercise this somewhat unfairly...Such as President General Musharaff. As for the PM having power, it is depending on the situations of the nation. Currently in Canada Paul Martin's Liberal sit with a minority government, meaning a voting down of a bill can cause a dissolution of Parliament, aka a vote of no confidence. It is a problematic system, but thus far it has worked in our nation. It yanks the arm of the ruling party to do what the other parties want and amend bills and ratify legislation. I don't know much about other nations senatorial systems, but Canada's are implaced by our Prime Minister, and for the most part...Well, it is more or less a cautionary board of elderly men that look over incoming legislation for grammatical errors. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 422/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| A PM can have a great deal of power, our PM's 2-party coalition controls both houses at the moment, but it's a more ephermeral and shifting sort of power... he is also more answerable to things like no confidence motions, losing the support of his own party, dismissal by a president or governor general, and prime ministers are also a lot more exposed to the press and public through "question time" and such, than a president in a system where he's the head of state and government. Also, the need to continually please 70 or 80 MPs and 40-odd senators does tend to keep things fairly moderate. In a president-centric system, however, it's harder to remove an implacable leader even if he's unpopular. Impeachment is hard and difficult, and if push comes to shove the president commands the military. It's a much more "all-or-nothing" system. Most of your facts are merely contingent on the political traditions of various countries, not on the necessary facts created by having a PM or Presidential system. There's no reason a President couldn't have "question time" and whatnot if that's what you like. And a President generally does have to appease Congress, because he can't just do whatever he pleases... and since the President isn't the head of government, often he'll face an opposition-led legislature, which is something you don't see in PM systems. But really, it should be put that each nation has a unique sort of mentality when it comes to politics, their democracy, and most importantly their nation identity. And that is what defines what works best in a nation. So India's caste system was the best system for India? The Taliban in Afghanistan was the best system the Afghanis could hope for? Give me a break. |
|||
|
Arwon Zora Level: 35 Posts: 197/506 EXP: 278115 For next: 1821 Since: 03-15-04 From: Terra Australis Incognita Since last post: 5 hours Last activity: 10 min. |
| ||
| So is France a "PM system" or a "presidential" system? they have both. When I say "presidential system" I'm not referring simply to any system where there is a president - India has a president, Ireland has a president, but they're both very parliamentary systems with PMs - I'm talking about systems where the president is very powerful and wields significant day-to-day authority as the executive. Systems where the president and the legislature have pretty equal mandates and it's easy for them to end up at loggerheads with no constitutional way to solve it. The president can be removed - impeached - for misconduct, but there's usually no other mechanism to replace him before his term is up. Look at the history of a country like Ecuador for example, whose constant conflicts between the legislature and executive in the 70s and 80s bordered on the absurd. This is the usual reality of systems with a powerful unaccountable president. |
|||
|
hhallahh Bob-Omb Level: 38 Posts: 424/607 EXP: 365476 For next: 4971 Since: 03-15-04 From: Portland, OR Since last post: 73 days Last activity: 60 days |
| ||
| When I say PM system, I think of something like Britain, wherein the PM yields a fair amount of power. And are you implying that removing a popularly-elected President would be a legitimate thing to do if there was too much friction between him and Congress? That's a pretty contraversial thing to say. The only power the President has over the legislative branch is his veto. Although Presidents in the United States are often associated with certain legislative agendas, they have no actual power to make these agendas happen... it's their metaphysical mandates which may or may not do so. Although the President does kinda yield some legislative power through the beuracracy, few Presidents create huge amounts of legislative gridlock. And if they did, it's not really a terrible thing, necessarily. I'm not familiar with the Ecuador example, but... different things work to different degrees in different places (and no, I'm not contradicting what I wrote to Ziffski.) I mean, the culture of the United States would probably allow us to have a monarchy that might not work so bad.  You say that the unaccountability of the President is a problem, but I wouldn't say it's created a problem here. The President is not some popular hero who can yield power as he sees fit.. he's a public servant who's expected to reflect the interests of his constituency, party, and country. |
| Pages: 1 2 | Add to favorites | "RSS" Feed | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - World Affairs / Debate - In the USA, should the electoral college be abolished? |
| | |
