Electoral College

[kmusser]

There seems to be a widespread belief that the electoral college was established because our founding fathers didn't trust the general public enough to vote directly for the president. I just want to say for the record that that is complete bullshit. The electoral college was established because the states didn't trust each other or the Federal government. The college's purpose was to ensure the president had support across a broad geographic range.

I dug up an excellent article that gives a detailed history of the college and pros and cons for the college in today's political climate here:

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

Anyone at all interested in electoral politics should read it.

That said I'm all for abolishing the college for two reasons.

One is purely partisan. The college has a bias in favor of less populated/more rural states that tend to be more conservative and I'm a liberal.

Two is that I don't like the two party system and the winner-takes-all aspect of the electoral college makes it pretty much impossible for third parties to be heard. I think having more viable parties would be a good thing and offer voters more real choice.

Comments

[klyf23.livejournal.com]

But the Illuminati isn't keen on us having real choices.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

"less populated/more rural states that tend to be more conservative"

It certainly didn't used to be this way. The book I'm reading (and posted a line from already) talks about how it all changed. Thing is, the economic realities of the republican party and how its harmful to the "average joe" and favors the rich staying richer, simply never even enters into the midwest's and south's decision process. Many voted against Gore just to thumb their nose at the status quo -- they merely wanted change, without considering that the change would NOT be in their favor in any way whatsoever, economically speaking.

They've been blaiming clinton for so long, that they really don't remember that it all started under Bush Sr. and Reagan. Flint, MI didn't die under Clinton's watch. It died under Bush Sr.'s. But they've forgotten all that history of how things came to be simply because they feel like blaiming Clinton 'cause he couldn't make it any better...

[metaphorge.livejournal.com]

Excellent points, and I agree fully.

[hexar-le-saipe.livejournal.com]

Considering my surroundings, I'm a liberal... by New England standards I would probably be considered right of center (but not by much I hope.)

For those of us in the "flyover" states, getting rid of the electoral college would, in essence, take us out of the presidential picture. Candidates would be free to concentrate on New York, California and a few other population centers and ignore the rest of the country.

For your last point, I'm not sufficiently convinced that getting rid of the electoral college would be enough to give a third party a foothold in presidential politics.

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

yeah; i posted this somewhere before, but i guess it was in someone else's comments 'cause i can't locate it.

i find the two-party system as it is now (and the inability to get rid of it) to be the result of the "join the winning side" attitude. The parties today exist, or adjust themselves, to be intentional opposites of each other. They exist to be against the other, not for any particular cause that isn't the result of manuveuring against the other.

By contrast, the european parties are all small, and exist in persuit of an aim, not to keep an aim or set of aims from happening. SNP exists for scottish freedom. Sinn Fein exists for those who support a united, independent Ireland. LibDems exist because labor doesn't go far enough in the direction they feel it should go. The parties can more broadly stand for the people they represent because they exist to enact the people's goals, not to counteract the opposition's.

Nader came along and represented a minority (albiet, a minority among the majority) viewpoint, and got votes, and proved to the conservatives that all you have to do is divide your opposition and you can't lose...

[kmusser]

You're right, smaller states would get ignored completely.

For the 3rd parties what would probably be best is keeping the electoral college, but without the winner-take-all aspect. Our existing parties would never let that happen though.

[hexar-le-saipe.livejournal.com]

Even though I always vote 3rd party in the presidential election, I don't think much would be accomplished by having a Green Party in the office (for instance) with a strictly Democrat & Republican congress. There would be too much hostility for the president to get anything done without seriously compromising the 3rd party principles that got hir there (for reference on what happens when a president sticks to principle: see Carter, Jimmy)

I really think that if we're going to have real political change from the two-party system, we're going to have to start electing 3rd party senators and representatives. I'm not holding my breath though.