Democracy in the US

[StartToday]

I have quite a few questions regarding democracy in the US, mainly about the electoral college. How are members of the electoral college chosen? Who appoints them, and what are the requirements? Do they vote like average citizens (by just forming a personal opinion) or do they have to take into account public opinion when they vote? Most importantly, are their votes really the deciding factor in presidential elections? Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, so why doesn't that amount to anything?

[apathy maybe]

removed by user request

[Guerrilla22]

Almost always the electoral college votes the way the constituents of their respective states vote. There have been instances where they did vote against the candidate who won the majority in their state, but like I said, its extremely rare and in a good number of those instances it was done so because a candidate either died or was incapacitated with illness before the electors cast their vote. I believe about half the states in the US have laws making it illegal to do so, but there is no federal law against doing so.

[Demogorgon]

Hated as it is, the electoral college is the least of American "Democracies" problems. First past the post voting springs to mind.

[redcannon]

all i know about democracy in the us is that it is stupidly reduced to "representative democracy" where we elect people to speak for us. Its so stupid, no one is heard, and the choices and rights of 300 million people are put into the hands of about 500 people.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 26, 2007 04:46 am
I wrote an essay on the Presidential Elections and how "democratic" they are.
It was quite good! It's surprising how much you managed to say in just over 2,000 words :)

[apathy maybe]

It is a university level paper. I think it should answer most of your questions (especially about that stupid electoral college, I wrote too much on it). Some of the comments are insightful as well, redstar200's comment about politicians being accountable for example.

Demogorgon: The First Past the Post system is majorily flawed, but even the best electoral systems fail to take into account that once elected, politicians don't have to keep any of their promises.

redcannon: It is a stupid system, especially considering how representative it really is.

[Janus]

Most importantly, are their votes really the deciding factor in presidential elections?
The electoral college directly elects the President and Vice President.


Like the 2000 election, Gore won the popular vote, so why doesn't that amount to anything?
The same thing happened in 1876 and 1888. A candidate can simply win by gaining the support of the 11 largest electoral states which is why the popular vote doesn't matter.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 02:44 am
Demogorgon: The First Past the Post system is majorily flawed, but even the best electoral systems fail to take into account that once elected, politicians don't have to keep any of their promises.

Naturally, but there are still ways around it. Give the people the ability to overule the politicians at any time. And the ability to dismiss them and call new elections should they becomne dissatisfied with the politicians.

Not going to hapen in America of course, but it is theoretically possible.

[apathy maybe]

Sure, but then again, why do we need politicians then? You may as well go to direct democracy, rule by the people. It is technologically possible right now to have this. Not just on a small scale, but also a large scale (such as a country). But like it is ever going to happen in the current system.

The people in power, they have a vested interest to stay in power. They don't want to give power back to the people.


Back onto the current US system, I would also recomend looking up the history and reasons beyond the electoral college. Basically, the "founding fathers" didn't trust the people and felt that there needed to be a system in place to prevent mob rule. Isn't democracy great.

[StartToday]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 03:10 pm
It is technologically possible right now to have this [direct democracy].
Technologically meaning through use of electronic voting machines? Those are scams, I would never trust them. There needs to be a paper trail. I'd love to see direct democracy, just not like this, because the people currently in power would stay in power anyways, by manipulating the system.

[Soviet Stanimir]

1.) The Adicts Rule

2.) The Electoral college is basically a system set up by the bougeoisie to control the working class. It was originally made because our "founding fathers" didnt trust the common farmer to be intelligent enough to participate in a direct democracy.

The electoral college has failed 4 times, but i can only recall 2.

Al gore in 2000 (won popular vote, lost)
Andrew Jackson in 1824 (won popular vote and electoral college, still lost)

Hope that helps a little

[Soviet Stanimir]

-edit-

Double post sorry

My question is that is particpating in such a bad democracy even worth it?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 27, 2007 03:10 pm
Sure, but then again, why do we need politicians then? You may as well go to direct democracy, rule by the people. It is technologically possible right now to have this. Not just on a small scale, but also a large scale (such as a country). But like it is ever going to happen in the current system.

The people in power, they have a vested interest to stay in power. They don't want to give power back to the people.


Back onto the current US system, I would also recomend looking up the history and reasons beyond the electoral college. Basically, the "founding fathers" didn't trust the people and felt that there needed to be a system in place to prevent mob rule. Isn't democracy great.
Well of course we are best off without the politicians. But for practicalities sake it makes sense to elect officials to do certain day to day tasks. As long as we can get rid of them as we please it ought not to be a problem.

[Janus]

Andrew Jackson in 1824 (won popular vote and electoral college, still lost)
None of the candidates in the 1824 presidential election won a majority of the electoral votes.