Where Do You Stand on the Electoral College Proposal?

[mythman]

A rich Californian proposes that we do away with the current method of electing the College to elect the President (where each state has the number of votes as it has members in Congress, no matter how many people live there) in favor of electing the president by popular vote (where highly-populated areas get more votes than the sparsely-populated).

I have the feeling that many will disagree with me on this, but I think the current plan is best. If you live in an area of low-population, you REALLY DO have a higher percentage of the power there ... which should be reflected in the way the area votes.

Don'f you think so?

[firelily99]

We have had the current plan for a very long time and I think that its the best thing that we can come up with. No need to change something that basically has been working for quite awhile.

[kayrockwell91]

I doubt it will be changed, but I think it should be. The Electoral College is anti-democratic and is an emergency switch for the "powers that be" to trump the popular will should it stray too far away from the boundaries that the elite deem acceptable. It is there to kill any third-party or independent ambition.

[Rainman]

Does it even matter if there's a popular vote or not when the candidates are picked for you? For the people who call the shots, whether the electoral college exists or not, they'll still have you vote for one of those they endorse. It's best to leave things as they are to remind everyone that democracy is DEAD.

[Azzie]

I think that the popular vote should be used instead. If you win by popular vote, that obviously means that more people would prefer you to be in the government over the other candidate. Also, the electoral college was made for ease, and they always would have preferred popular vote if they had easier means of communication that we now have.

[mythman]

I doubt it will be changed, but I think it should be. The Electoral College is anti-democratic and is an emergency switch for the "powers that be" to trump the popular will should it stray too far away from the boundaries that the elite deem acceptable. It is there to kill any third-party or independent ambition.

Does it even matter if there's a popular vote or not when the candidates are picked for you? For the people who call the shots, whether the electoral college exists or not, they'll still have you vote for one of those they endorse. It's best to leave things as they are to remind everyone that democracy is DEAD.

I think that the popular vote should be used instead. If you win by popular vote, that obviously means that more people would prefer you to be in the government over the other candidate. Also, the electoral college was made for ease, and they always would have preferred popular vote if they had easier means of communication that we now have.

Wrong. Because--as nearly any clearly-thinking (not tired-from-work or chemically-pepped-up) person can tell you--people don't "want" what's good for them. Maybe they "know" what's good for them, but not through any of the pleasure/pain senses with which we experience the world!

In fact, many of the Founding Fathers were AFRAID to start a democracy, because a 'pure democracy' can so-easily descend into "mob-ocracy" (as shown on pirate-ships--ruled by 'pure democracy'--where a captain can be mutinied & left to die on a godforsaken island if he doesn't keep 'the popular vote').

That's why they DIDN'T give us a democracy; they acknowledged that each individual serves his own "Life, Liberty & Pursuit-of-Happiness," but they GAVE US a Republic! that's "Re-Public"---the ones whom we elect govern IN OUR STEAD. That's why I like to think that--whenever I vote--I vote for the one whom I'd most like TO BE---because whoever gets elected to represent my district/city/state/country, that's WHO I AM to the rest of the state/state/country/world!