BREAKING: Democrats Introduce Bill To Eliminate Electoral College

[Idaho Bullwinkle]

Another fan of Lysander Spooner? I'm giddy. :)

That is a scary thought.
And I thought I was going to get to sleep tonight.

[Green Man]

Originally Posted by Pastor Guest
There is no gerrymandering in US Senate races since a senator must be voted on by the whole state.

Tell that to Californian voters.

You see a way to gerrymander senate races? Please explain.

[PatDaly]

Originally Posted by Green Man
The founders specified that it's the people that have the votes, votes not proportioned by wealth or acreage owned.

BULLHOCKEY!

The Founders split power between the people and the State.

WE screwed up the balance with the 17th Amendment.

The State has no effective voice.

[doat]

Coming from this countrys Public Enemy number one.

[Green Man]

BULLHOCKEY!

The Founders split power between the people and the State.

WE screwed up the balance with the 17th Amendment.

The State has no effective voice.

The PEOPLE of the states have an effective voice.

[Miradus]

The PEOPLE of the states have an effective voice.

There is only one voice which matters against the tyranny of government, and it's not a voice liberals want to hear.

The Constitution and its numerous amendments don't matter. They are useless. At best they were binding only upon those signers. They certainly were not binding on those at the time who could not sign it. And they absolutely cannot be binding upon the progeny of millions of others for all of immeasurable time.

[PatDaly]

The PEOPLE of the states have an effective voice.

Yes, the HOUSE.

The SENATE is supposed to be the voice of the STATE, and it no longer is.

Sad that so many can not see the intent of the founders.

[PatDaly]

There is only one voice which matters against the tyranny of government, and it's not a voice liberals want to hear.

The Constitution and its numerous amendments don't matter. They are useless. At best they were binding only upon those signers. They certainly were not binding on those at the time who could not sign it. And they absolutely cannot be binding upon the progeny of millions of others for all of immeasurable time.

Unless those progeny understand it is the best available instrument to secure their liberty and agree to defend it.

Then there is nothing more powerful, and we seem to have forgotten that lesson.

[jimmyb]

The PEOPLE of the states have an effective voice.

HomeCivicOpinionDebate ClubShould the United States Get Rid of the Electoral College?
The Electoral College Ensures All Voices Are Heard

By Tara Ross, Contributor Nov. 5, 2012, at 3:14 p.m.
More





The Electoral College Ensures All Voices Are Heard

More



The Founders would doubtless be surprised that their presidential election system is so controversial. They were proud of it. Yet modern Americans often think the Electoral College is merely a relic of a time when communication was less efficient.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The Founders did not create checks and balances in their Constitution because the Internet hadn't been invented yet! Instead, they knew that power corrupts and humans are fallible. Constitutional checks and balances such as the Electoral College were designed to protect against these tendencies of human nature and the shortcomings of pure democracies.
[See a collection of political cartoons on the 2012 campaign.]
As a matter of history, pure democracies implode because of the dangers of majority tyranny. As it has been said: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch." The small states, especially, could not be safe in such a world. The Founders sought something quite different.
The Electoral College gives us a unique combination of democracy and federalism. America conducts 51 purely democratic elections every presidential election year (50 states, plus D.C.). These elections determine which individuals (electors) will represent their states in a second phase of the election. This latter election is a purely federalist one among the states. A majority (270 electors) can select a president.
This dual system incentivizes presidential candidates to create national coalitions. Candidates must win many states simultaneously; they can't win with isolated support. A variety of Americans, across regions, must vote for them. The existence of "swing states" does not defeat this argument. First, swing and safe states are constantly changing. Even California used to vote Republican. Second, a currently "safe" state is not unimportant to the election; it is just a state that has already made up its mind based on the prior four years of governance.
[See photos from the 2012 Presidential Campaign Trail.]
A direct popular election would not create the same incentives. Instead, candidates who obtain the most individual votes—even if they are obtained exclusively in one region or in a handful of urban areas—can win the presidency.
America is a large and diverse country. It deserves a unique election process, ensuring that all voices are heard in the election of its president. The democratic-federalist Electoral College has served the country well in this regard. It should be kept.

[solderguy]

Yes, the HOUSE.

The SENATE is supposed to be the voice of the STATE, and it no longer is.

Sad that so many can not see the intent of the founders.

What on Earth are you whining about this time?

The founders intended the Constitution be amended when appropriate.
The 17th amendment specified that the senate be changed to popular vote from each state.
41 out of 48 state legislatures ratified it over 1912-1914 which means the switch to popular vote WAS their voice speaking.

If you don't like it, start organizing another amendment to repeal.