Electoral college, why vote if our votes don't matter?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: neo96
At any given time only a handful of states determine our elections.

It actually prevents it from being determined by a few states. A direct democracy is no better than anarchy.

Hows that ?

Since votes are 'already' locked in like the super delegate 'issue'.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

maybe, but removing the electoral college and installing a direct voter system on a state level with all the oversight and regulation of state leaders would open up the candidacy to the millions of potential leaders we have in this country.

What the electoral college does is protect access to the office for a small crop of little princes not fit for more than heading a moderate sized company, and usually, only with the help of corporate welfare they designed and voted into law since they are not good business men.

There are no engineers, doctors, philosophers, educators, scholars, scientists, mathematicians, artists, or general jack of all trades journey men becoming president.

We have lawyers and businessmen. The same is true for congress and the senate. They protect access and keep it from people not in their circle. Exactly what our system is supposedly meant to curb.

originally posted by: neo96
Hows that ?

Since votes are 'already' locked in like the super delegate 'issue'.

There is no court ruling on faithless delegates who can change their vote. The Electoral College, as determined by the Supreme Court, must vote for the winning candidate. These are two wholly different systems.

originally posted by: tadaman
maybe, but removing the electoral college and installing a direct voter system on a state level...

That is exactly what the Electoral College is, a state by state direct voter system.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Yet its not direct democracy so its not like what I propose. In our current system, we let our representatives vote on a state level and if they defy our popular vote we can choose to not vote them back into power....yeah.

No, you tally up total votes from a direct voter system and submit such to DC, and our representatives have no say more worthy than their constituents.

Also, you make any candidate wanting to be president to go through qualifiers, and once he passes by most of his state accepting him, you put him on a circuit established to get every state candidate to every other state to be heard and voted on. FREE OF CHARGE AND OPEN TO ALL.

originally posted by: tadaman
Yet its not direct democracy so its not like what I propose. We let our representatives vote on a state level and if they defy us we can not vote them back into power....yeah

Wrong. They are legally bound to vote as per the votes cast at the state level based on the particular state's Constitutional apportionment.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Excuse my ignorance, and thank you for the correction, but where does the popular vote then get defied, like when bush was elected?

Who is voting against the popular vote? Why then even have anything beyond the popular vote if it is supposedly legally protected?

If the electoral college can defy the representatives, isnt that redundancy just a fail safe to keep a small crop of candidates in the mix?

a reply to: tadaman

The popular vote in Florida was allocated to Bush and the electors voted accordingly. If you are talking about losing the national popular vote than that has happened several times.

The Electoral College prevents the large urban areas from dictating to the outcome to rest of the country. The less densely populated states have a higher voter to delegate ratio than states like California or New York. Would you like both states to pretty much determine the outcome since they are two of the most populated? The Electoral College somewhat minimizes there population by limiting the overall number of delegates available.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

in my system proposed each state would still only get one vote, So California could have millions voting to decide their vote, and Utah could have less but still produce one vote equal in sway as any other.

The electoral college is top heavy redundancy masked as a necessary component for balanced results.

Each state is essentially not trusted to have their vote mean a thing. (once the electoral college is trusted to interpret the results and what is best for the people)

The logic escapes me, and that may be my own deficiency, but it doesnt seem fair and balanced at all.

originally posted by: tadaman
in my system proposed each state would still only get one vote, So California could have millions voting to decide their vote, and Utah could have less but still produce one vote equal in sway as any other.

That would be even less a direct democracy (by several magnitudes) than the Electoral College.

Each state is essentially not trusted to have their vote mean a thing. (once the electoral college is trusted to interpret the results and what is best for the people)

The is no 'interpreting' the results. They must vote as their state voted.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Well, I dont agree.

Thanks for your time and responses though.

Have a good one
Hold it down.

a reply to: tadaman

No worries. We all have our opinions on these topics.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Hey masonicus, what is with your confusion about my thread? It's pretty clear and deeper than you realized because nobody has attempted to answer my question, if the electoral votes aren't actually bound to popular vote(even though they do seem to honor it) what is the actual point of a recount like in the 2000 fiasco that resulted in the Supreme court illegally deciding the election?

Did that set some sort of legal precedent that will be used in the future?

That is what I really want to know.

originally posted by: Mryhh

...if the electoral votes aren't actually bound to popular vote...

Did you even bother to read your own thread? They are legally bound as has been determined by the Supreme Court.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

We sure do have our opinions on this.

Like this graphic representative of the 2012 election, and how the people voted.



Fly over country doesn't matter.

The blue gets to call it simply because that have more EC votes than the little guys.

a reply to: neo96

You must not be paying attention either. Without the Electoral College 'flyover country' would have even less of a say. The Electors per voter proportion is higher in flyover country than on the coasts. Wyoming has 195,000 people per Electoral vote versus 711,000 in California.

Your image, if used on a strictly popular vote, would have still seen Romney getting trounced. The Electoral College made the beating less severe.

a reply to: neo96

This map adjusted for population might help you better understand... unless you're suggesting that the GOP should automatically win because there's fewer GOP voters?

a reply to: Sillyolme

Even if i were American i probably wouldn't. But thanks.

a reply to: Mryhh

You should probably be asking "why vote if our votes don't matter when it comes to electing the US President". Because our votes definitely matter in elections for Senators, the House of Representatives, State Senators, State Representatives, governors, mayors, city councils, many judicial positions, etc.

The Electoral College only applies to the US Presidency. So try asking candidates for any of the positions I just mentioned if voting matters or not. Plus, I can guarantee you that 3rd parties and independent candidates will also tell you that voting matters.

(Sigh...) Sorry. I don't mean to aim this at you. But I get really sick of seeing this apathy. Literally the only reason the 2 headed snake has a stranglehold on our political system is because of the "why bother?" mindset.

As for the Electoral College, you're right to an extent. But you have to understand something: The US was never originally intended to be the representative democracy we see today. Under the Articles of Confederation, the President was appointed by Congress to 1 year terms. And even in 1789 when the Constitution was ratified, most Americans still couldn't vote. That includes most white males (and women weren't guaranteed the right to vote until 1920). The whole point in suffrage movements has been to allow more citizens to be able to vote and for those votes to have more meaning.

Constitutionally, the Electoral College is the last ditch attempt to stop voters from electing the "wrong" candidate (according to our powerbrokers). And do you know what happens if no candidate gets a clear majority of the electoral college? There's no do-over or reelection! The House of Representatives gets to select the President! So yes, we need to reform the Presidential election process. But abolishing the the electoral college is only one of the reforms that need to be made.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
And do you know what happens if no candidate gets a clear majority of the electoral college? There's no do-over or reelection! The House of Representatives gets to select the President!

You can have a one vote electoral victory and still become President, you do not need a 'clear majority', you only need a simple majority. The only time it is deferred to anyone else is if it is tied, then the House votes on the President and the Senate on the Vice President.