Electoral College

[Anonymous]

I picture a presidential election dominated by the most denseley populated regions of the country. Highly populated states like California and New York would be the center of the presidential campaigns, while states that are mainly rural and have fairly low populations would be largely ignored.

The electoral college ensures that these states, who regardless of poulation, are given the opportunity to make a difference in a presidential election. It also gives the presidential candidates a reason to visit these states in the first place.

Do you think Al Gore or George Bush would have bothered to campaign in states like Colorado and Wyoming if the president was elected directly by a majority vote? They would have spent most of their time in the big cities like Chicago or Los Angeles while those farmers and ranchers who live in Kansas and Arizona wouldn't have even been given a passing thought by the candidates.

That is why I feel the electoral college is a vital part of our American Republic. It forces a presidential candidate to seek support not through just a few densely populated regions, but throughout the whole nation.


What are your opinions on this matter?

[vox]

I, personally, don't like the US system at all and would prefer a parliamentary system that more closely reflects the will of the people. Australia's system comes to mind.

vox

[Nateddi]

Newspaper, television, radio, etc could all target the rural areas.

Frankly, if it is a large city, I believe a candidate will visit it nonetheless.

I don't see this as a great argument. The downsides of the american electoral system outweigh any possible benefits.

I would support a european-style election with a runoff before a final vote.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from vox on 9:49 am on Aug. 18, 2002
I, personally, don't like the US system at all and would prefer a parliamentary system that more closely reflects the will of the people. Australia's system comes to mind.

vox


Vox,

What particularly don't you like about the U.S. system.

[vox]

"What particularly don't you like about the U.S. system."

This actually goes beyond just presidential races, and I should have made that clear before, though it was implied in the suggestion of the Westminster system.

What I don't like is that a state could have a 51% to a 49% split, and the US system makes it winner-take-all, which is hardly representative of the public's will. If a flaming liberal won 51% and a conservative lost with 49% of the vote, that's hardly the "will of the people," for nearly HALF of the people wanted the conservative, right? Rather, it's the will of just over half the people.

Party voting, with the option of ranking people, could eliminate this problem. If gridlock ensues, so be it. We've had it before and we'll have it again. The country can surive quite well.

On the other hand, this opens the door to third, fourth and fifth parties that, under the current system, stand no chance at all of being elected.

There may be ways to improve this system, but it's worked well in an established land for many years (with the exception of the overthrow, with the full support of the US, of the Whitlam government).

I should also say that this is only suggested considering the conditions that now prevail. Ultimately, a much more radical change would have to take place, but that's not really relevant to this thread.

vox

[Moskitto]

I remember on annother forum once someone went totally nuts at someone because they said something about Presidents only appealing to people in really small areas of land rather than large areas. The response the guy gave was something like.

"You sir, are a fool. In your system, people would get votes on the basis of how much land they own. You sound like you've never been to a city before, you see, in cities you'll notice that there's lots and lots of people, also in cities you'll notice people of all sorts of economic groups, not just poor people like in rural areas."

It was quite funny. Then again, that forum was quite a good forum. Except 95% of the people on that forum were almost totally ignored.

Simpsons quote---

"You have to vote for one of us, it's a 2 party system"
"Oh yeah, it's a 2 party system"
"Well I'm going to vote for a third party candidate"
"Go ahead, waste your vote"

[I Will Deny You]

It would be one thing if all of the states had equal populations. If each state had around five million people in it, then some states would be very small (perhaps half of New York City) and some states would be very big (the ENTIRE Midwest). And then each state could have an equal number of electors. But if you look at the ratio of California's population to its electors, and then Wyoming's population to its electors, you will see that it is very, very far from equal. This is wrong.

Lindsay