Fletchette
Member
As many of you know, the Democrats have been pushing to remove the Electoral College ever since the 2000 elections. They argue that a popular vote would make “every vote count”. Thankfully, they have made little progress. However, now that they control Congress, I suspect an attempt to change this.
Since this process is delineated in the Constitution, it would need a super-majority to pass. However, in this day and age of ignoring the Constitution, I could see the Democrats implementing a mere law or even a "rule" with the force of law to the same affect.
Another election issue of late has been voting machine accountability. Ironically, the Democrats have been questioning the accuracy of voting machines (note that they do not question voting machine accuracy when they win). In any case, the real issue is transparency, not accuracy. The public needs to believe that the process was followed and no votes were added or deleted.
The Founders, in their exemplary wisdom, came up with the Electoral College. It did not require computers and was yielded very believable results. The reason for this is apparent if you consider how people decide whether an election was fair. If you live in a very liberal state, like Massachusetts, you would expect the people there to vote for a liberal. You would have less of a feel for what say, Wyoming, wants. Even a conservative in Massachusetts would not be inclined to think that the election was “stolen” if the results of the election were that the majority of the people within the state wanted a liberal. This provides legitimacy because individuals have a good understanding of what the people around them want.
If we get rid of the Electoral College, like the Democrats want, how would an individual believe the results? Can you imagine how you would feel if the election results were for say, a religious extremist, when everyone you know is vehemently against that candidate? You would have to reconcile that you live in an aberration, and that most of the country is radically different from your local area. The Electoral College mitigates this potential problem and makes the election much more believable, and hence legitimate.
In the last two hundred years the population has dramatically increased. Now the political climate can change very dramatically within a state. In 2000, many liberal voters in cities could not believe that the state voted for a conservative, largely because these urban dwellers had very little contact with rural citizens even in their own state. Many questioned the legitimacy of the election.
The solution is more electoral layers, not less. If cities or counties had electoral votes then people would be more inclined to believe the election results. Both urban and rural citizens would believe the result of their local election, and conclude that the electoral vote fore their district was legitimate.
The position of the Democrats, to get rid of the Electoral College as well as questioning voting machines, is hypocritical and contradictory. If the electoral College were eliminated even more people would question the accuracy of the voting machines. The legitimacy of every election would be questioned. If we do need to change our voting system, it should be to add more electoral layers, not subtract them. Yes, this would mean that the candidate elected might not have a popular majority, but the results would be believable.
This is a Republic, not a Democracy.
Since this process is delineated in the Constitution, it would need a super-majority to pass. However, in this day and age of ignoring the Constitution, I could see the Democrats implementing a mere law or even a "rule" with the force of law to the same affect.
Another election issue of late has been voting machine accountability. Ironically, the Democrats have been questioning the accuracy of voting machines (note that they do not question voting machine accuracy when they win). In any case, the real issue is transparency, not accuracy. The public needs to believe that the process was followed and no votes were added or deleted.
The Founders, in their exemplary wisdom, came up with the Electoral College. It did not require computers and was yielded very believable results. The reason for this is apparent if you consider how people decide whether an election was fair. If you live in a very liberal state, like Massachusetts, you would expect the people there to vote for a liberal. You would have less of a feel for what say, Wyoming, wants. Even a conservative in Massachusetts would not be inclined to think that the election was “stolen” if the results of the election were that the majority of the people within the state wanted a liberal. This provides legitimacy because individuals have a good understanding of what the people around them want.
If we get rid of the Electoral College, like the Democrats want, how would an individual believe the results? Can you imagine how you would feel if the election results were for say, a religious extremist, when everyone you know is vehemently against that candidate? You would have to reconcile that you live in an aberration, and that most of the country is radically different from your local area. The Electoral College mitigates this potential problem and makes the election much more believable, and hence legitimate.
In the last two hundred years the population has dramatically increased. Now the political climate can change very dramatically within a state. In 2000, many liberal voters in cities could not believe that the state voted for a conservative, largely because these urban dwellers had very little contact with rural citizens even in their own state. Many questioned the legitimacy of the election.
The solution is more electoral layers, not less. If cities or counties had electoral votes then people would be more inclined to believe the election results. Both urban and rural citizens would believe the result of their local election, and conclude that the electoral vote fore their district was legitimate.
The position of the Democrats, to get rid of the Electoral College as well as questioning voting machines, is hypocritical and contradictory. If the electoral College were eliminated even more people would question the accuracy of the voting machines. The legitimacy of every election would be questioned. If we do need to change our voting system, it should be to add more electoral layers, not subtract them. Yes, this would mean that the candidate elected might not have a popular majority, but the results would be believable.
This is a Republic, not a Democracy.