Why doesn't anyone talk about suspending the US Electorate?

I'm just curious. I see a lot of politics slung around every four years. Then everyone moans over who gets elected. Policies don't even enter into the fact that whoever gets elected as been preordained by a majority override of an elite group of paid off patsies. ...and no one talks about it.

Your vote is about a futile as the downward spiral of the economy. The direction of which has been lining quite a number of the electorates' pockets.

You make a good point. I think the electorate was created as a solution to the logistical voting problems of the past. I see no reason why we still need representatives in this day and age. You'd think by now we'd have a way to count votes properly. Not sure if that's right though.

"The electorate" is generally synonymous with "constituency". Do you mean just lose the facade and say that people can't vote at all? Or are you referring to the Electoral College?

Originally posted by louieprima
"The electorate" is generally synonymous with "constituency". Do you mean just lose the facade and say that people can't vote at all? Or are you referring to the Electoral College?

I'm not interested in tearing apart the details of the current Presidential election. I'll just throw out there that common voters used to elect the President more directly. The Electoral College wasn't written into Federal law until 1845.

The electoral college was established to give lower population states a say in who becomes President by equaling out the numbers. Why would you take that away?

There has only been 1 time I believe when the electorate has gone against the popular vote in our nations history.

Originally posted by CodeRed3D

Originally posted by louieprima
"The electorate" is generally synonymous with "constituency". Do you mean just lose the facade and say that people can't vote at all? Or are you referring to the Electoral College?

I'm not interested in tearing apart the details of the current Presidential election. I'll just throw out there that common voters used to elect the President more directly. The Electoral College wasn't written into Federal law until 1845.

edit on 18-8-2011 by CodeRed3D because: (no reason given)

You need to spend some time with a history book.

uselectionatlas.org...

Read that link and increase your knowledge on America's electoral college.

If the candidate is not supported by the electorate, then their ceiling is too low, the media won't even cover them. The electorate has quite a bit of say before the ballot is even cast. Someone's already written the script.

If we start talking about the history and regulations of the Electoral College, we've completely skated the issue I've raised. I don't get sidetracked easily.

Originally posted by kro32
There has only been 1 time I believe when the electorate has gone against the popular vote in our nations history.

That's great. And you'll see it again this year too.

Well the very fact that you believe the Presidents were elected by direct elections show you don't understand this issue and puts your whole thread in question.

How did the terms "Elector" and "Electoral College" come into usage?

The term "electoral college" does not appear in the Constitution. Article II of the Constitution and the 12th Amendment refer to "electors," but not to the "electoral college." In the Federalist Papers (No. 68), Alexander Hamilton refers to the process of selecting the Executive, and refers to "the people of each State (who) shall choose a number of persons as electors," but he does not use the term "electoral college."

The founders appropriated the concept of electors from the Holy Roman Empire (962 - 1806). An elector was one of a number of princes of the various German states within the Holy Roman Empire who had a right to participate in the election of the German king (who generally was crowned as emperor). The term "college" (from the Latin collegium), refers to a body of persons that act as a unit, as in the college of cardinals who advise the Pope and vote in papal elections. In the early 1800's, the term "electoral college" came into general usage as the unofficial designation for the group of citizens selected to cast votes for President and Vice President. It was first written into Federal law in 1845, and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. section 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors.

- www.archives.gov

There have been periods in history where the system was "less" corrupt. And there was a period in history where the "electorates" had less influence than they have today.

In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):


Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.

The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.

Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought, would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealing, and foreign influence.

In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice.
The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.

The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.

In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president. The vice presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of electoral votes. If that, too, was tied, the U.S. Senate would break the tie by deciding between the two.

This was before the 12th amendment.

reply to post by kro32


This is futile. The OP apparently does not understate the difference between "the electorate" and "the Electors." Abolishing the electorate means killing all the voters. Abolishing the Electors, however, is probably a timely idea. OP, please do some basic research before starting a thread.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by kro32

 

This is futile. The OP apparently does not understate the difference between "the electorate" and "the Electors." Abolishing the electorate means killing all the voters. Abolishing the Electors, however, is probably a timely idea. OP, please do some basic research before starting a thread.

Thanks for the clarification. I suppose I was confused about "entitlement". The fact that the EC can override the common voter removes their "entitlement". So I'll have to disagree not on the bases of tradition, but on the current manifestation. The electorate is the "electors", unless there is a change in policy and payoffs.

Remove the electors and you have a different electorate.

Why was this futile, when you've already identified with the problem? Again, this isn't an argument on terms, but a melee of how these terms have been manipulated.

The people "think" they have an entitlement after they're opinions have already be swayed. Again, If the candidate is not supported by the electorate the media won't even cover them. If the public's opinion isn't sufficiently swayed, their votes may be overridden.

American's "entitlement" has been riddled away in bylaws. Let's just reflect on the fact that an American's quality of life is about as "liberal" as the education 89% of them are getting.

When US foreign business policy needs new soldiers, money is shifted from the public education system to the military. Then the students aren't provided with the type of education that allows them to be smart enough to be conscientious objectors.

Soon, TPTB will be removing our right to interpret the Bible and other religious medium, because religious publication is the only "other" alternative to a liberal education. And currently, it is also the only legal bases for conscientious objection.

Another great example is all the negative hype surrounding Ron Paul. I have to laugh at the fact that the media discredits him because he doesn't have sufficient support in the Republican Primary. A way to fix this is if he wins the polls, then replace the electors in his favor, which begs for the reason why electors are even needed . Remove the electors' power to override.

Electing Ron Paul isn't going to fix the corruption anyway. He'll end up like JFK and it's business as usual.