Consider yourself corrected. I refer you to Article V of the Constitution. And while you’re educating yourself, take a gander at Article I, section 3, which describes how senators were originally selected.
Insert standard complaint about how easy it is to graduate from junior high these days.
Well, aside from thinking the idea of Congress is pretty good and seems to have worked well so far, you’re asking our representatives to vote on whether or not to eliminate their jobs. Excuse me while I go off in the corner and chortle a bit.
Gufaw!
There, all better.
I elect Congressmen so that I don’t have to go to a voting booth every Tuesday of the year and vote on what they can take care of themselves. That’s their job. That’s why I think they’re necessary.
If their job also included voting on a President, I think I’d be fine with that (nightmares about political affiliations excluded). But they don’t ask Congress, they ask me. And as long as they’re asking me, they should at least listen to my answer.
Enderw24, if you are referring to Tedster’s post I think you missed his point. He said the “senate” and his point is obvious. If you are referring to something else, please iginore this post.
But you don’t need to get all snippy, there minty boy.
Two quick questions for those who want to abolish the EC.
1 - Do you also want to abolish the Senate? After all, by the standards you have laid out is is even less fair than the EC.
2 - With what specific system of voting would you replace it? If it is a simple winner-take-all federal election, how would you handle situations in which no candidate gets at least fifty percent of the vote?
Tedster-nice all or nothing argument there. (I believe that’s a logic fallacy, but I can’t remember which one).
We either keep the EC, or else candidates will only go to certain big areas and we might as well abolish the states, anyway…
:rolleyes:
No. We directly elect senators, which is not the case with the president. That is my primary objection to the Electoral College. Its disproportionate weighting is an annoyance at best.
I’d prefer direct popular vote, not tied to individual states at all. I would be reasonably happy with a state-by-state vote, similar to what happens today with the electoral college, but without any electors and with each candidate’s “electoral college” votes weighted proportionally to the popular vote. Also since nobody should be elected to an office without a majority of votes cast, I would support a run-off election between the top tvo vote-getters if neither broke 50% the first time around. Depending on the system adopted, such a run-off would either be nationwide or in the specific states where nobody reached 50%.
Tedster: Don’t start debating the Constitution without first reading the Constitution. It’s really just that simple.
And minty ignores the fact that the people of the nation do not elect the president or vice-president. What was that about reading?
Cite, please, Monty. I’m arguing that we should directly elect the president and vice president, not that we do so currently.
If you are arguing that you want to vote directly for the president for no other reason than you like to vite directly and cut out the middle man, then, well, first i think it’s knd of silly but in any case that is not the argument in this thread.
The argument in this thread in favor of direct elections was precisely the different weight of votes from people in different states which means a presidential candidate can lose the popular vote and win the electoral vote. It was even mentioned that the EC could stay if they just lost the two extra votes per state.
Now, if you want to be consistent, you have to dislike the senate which is much more skewed. The vote of a senator from Nebraska (population 5, all living in CA) is worth as much as the vote of the vote of a senator from California who represents many more people. So, a few people from nebraska can derail legislation wanted by millions in California.
If you are consistent (yeah, I know that’s much to ask) and you are against different weights in votes for the presidential election, then you have to be against the senate where that weight difference of weight in the popular vote is much greater. Not to mention the senate in many ways has more power than the president.
So, are we going to be consistent, or are we just playing around for nothing?
If it makes you feel bettter, sailor, I do dislike the disproportional weighting of the Senate. It’s pretty darned low on my list of grievances, however, so I hope you’ll forgive me for focusing on the Electoral College rathern than the Senate for now.
Also, you may want to note that “the argument in this thread” (your words) is not necessarily the same as the argument I’ve been making. Outside of my stated preference two posts back, I don’t think you’ll find anything in this thread in which I criticize the EC for disproportional weighting rather than its usurpation of direct voting. Feel free to prove me wrong, however.
Minty, I was not specifically referring to you or anyone else. I was just rtying to focus the issue.
It just seems to me inconsistent to want to have strict proportional representation when it comes to voting for president, where the difference in individual vote weight, as has been pointed out is very small, and yet do not care about the senate where the difference is huge and the senate has probably more power overall than the president.
So, my question would be, why is the senate OK and the presidential election not? The flaw you are criticising is much more present in the senate than in the presidential election.
But I think it is possible to be opposed to proportional weighting in selecting a president and still accept a disproportionate Senate. The U.S. is certainly a federal system, and I have no problem recognizing that (to some extent) by giving each state an equal voice in one chamber of the legislative branch. The foolish consistency would be to extend that disproportionate system to the other branches of government.+
Well, you are entitled to your views but unless you can explain it better I cannot understand them. Why would it be OK to have a very big disparity of individual vote weight in the senate (Legislative branch) and not a much smaller disparity in the Presidency (Executive branch).
I am not saying there may not be a valid reason, but you haven’t stated it yet. If it is just a personal peeve, then it’s not going to get much support in the general population. If there is a valid reason, then you should explain it. Why?
I cannot see it. The way I see it, any reason which makes it OK to give the votes of people in smaller states a lot more weight in the legislative would be equally valid to give the same people a little more weight in electing the executive. I dunno… just seems logical to me. Can you explain why not?
Monty, yes, that’s exactly how it works. Do you really see nothing wrong with this? The feds collect income taxes from people in all 50 states. Then they send some of that money to the state governments for this, that, and the other specific thing. Result: the decision on how the money will be spent is made at the federal level rather then the state level.
But that’s not all. Whenever they want to, the feds can threaten to withhold the portion of this money earmarked for “X” from any state that fails to do “Y”. They can use highway money, for example, as a club with which to beat the states into submission re speed limits, drinking ages, or whatever. Whatever money the feds send to the states is usually less then that state’s citizens paid in fed. taxes. It’s basically their money; naturally they don’t want it withdrawn from them and divvied up among the other states.
In both cases mentioned above (55 mph and age 21 drinking), every single state obeyed federal orders rather then forfeit their share of the highway money. To this day, they’re all toeing the line on the drinking age. I think a few states eventually repealed the 55 mph limit, though?
IMO the medical marijuana deal is more important. Seriously ill people are being denied a medication that provides great relief of pain and nausea, and are even being arrested and put on trial – even if their state govt has deciminalized the medical use of marijuana. What’s the justification for this federal interfearence in those states?
Because it’s not a much smaller disparity. That there’s only one president and there are 100 senators doesn’t mean the president is 100 times less powerful. The President upholds the Executive branch, he is the sole Executive check on the Legislative and Judicial branches. He’s the guy that, short of a missing intern, gets all the headlines in the paper.
All right, a touch exaggerated. But you cannot compare a president to a senator on a one to one basis. Think about Chess. Lots of pawns, only one King.
On another point, if you want another example of how the EC skews results, look at 1984’s election. I remember watching it on tv. I was only 6 or 7 at the time, but I saw that Reagan was kicking that other guy from here to Timbuktu and back again.
It wasn’t until years later I found out the true results: Reagan: 59% of the vote.
Mondale: 41%
Bergland: .25%
The EC results were 525-13-0 respectively. Talk about warped, these sets of numbers don’t even come close to looking like they came from the same election.
Speaking of Bergland, has anyone tried to argue reason #8 yet? It came later, but is still just as valid: The EC destroys a third party’s chances of winning.
I think that’s one of the EC’s attractive features, actually. I like the fact that there are only two, predominantly centrist parties out there, who incorporate the views of extremist camps but dilute them before they can influence actual policy. Take the parliamentary system–talking about disproportionate representation, would you like to see an entire government hinge on whether one or the other of the major parties can capitulate enough policy points to EarthFirst or the John Birch society so that they’ll agree to join in coalition? Or would you like to see us go through eighty-odd governments in fifty years like the Italians have, due to ever-shifting minor party alliances?
Cool. You’re not just shooting in the dark here.
Absolutely. I see nothing wrong in this as it’s not an unconstitutional action of the federal government.
No kidding. Newsflash for you: the government of the State of California collects taxes from people in all counties in the State. Guess what happens to that cash.
No kidding. The “specific thing[s]” are those things which are enumerated in the federal budget. Said budget, by the way, being enacted into law.
No kidding. You are aware, are you not, that the state budgets are also determined at the state, and not the county, level?
It’s not “whenever they want to” but rather “when it’s needed to ensure the money’s not flushed down yet another toilet.” I recognize the difference between these two statements is a POV, why don’t you?
Unfamiliar with political realities, are we? Now, if 49 of the 50 states has agreed to enact state legislation mandating, say, child-safety seats be used in passenger vehicles and the 50th state does not, and then the federal government still spends a ton of cash on improving the federal roads in that state, don’t you think the folks (as represented in the federal legislature) of those 49 other states will have something to say about flushing federal funds down a toilet on newly improved roads for folks who don’t give a hoot about safety on the roads?
Gotta ask for a cite here; better yet, a statistical table.
No, it’s basically the money owed in federal taxes. It’s no longer “their money.”
That kind of defeats the whole concept of federation, doesn’t it. Tell me again what happened last time someone tried to withdraw from the federation.
Yeah, right. Like they all did that in lockstep.
Tell me again how great the federal roads in those states would be without the federal funding.
You don’t know about the subject and are taking me to task? Bwahahahahahahaha!
Last I heard the justification is that the federal government does not recognize the medical use of weed. You asked, I answered.
What EnderW24 said, more or less. Alsaka’s senators represent Alaskans. Texas’ senators represent Texans. The president represents all of us. He does not represent Alaskans any more than he represents Texans or Californians or New Yorkers. Nevertheless, the EC ensures that each Alaskan has about four times as much influence in who represents me in the executive branch.
>> What EnderW24 said, more or less
Well, except that what EnderW24 said, more or less, makes no sense and does nor address what I said. I am not talking about individual senators. I am not comparing the president of the US with any individual senator. I am comparing the presidency of the US with the Senate and I think it is reasonable to assume their powers are comparable as they both have the power to approve laws or block them. In fact, you could argue the Senate has greater power as it controls the dough. So, in my view, the presidency and the Senate are quite comparable in power.
Now, the vote of a person from Nebraska is worth only slightly more than the vote from a person from California when voting for president. But a senator from Nebraska represents way fewer people than a senator from California which gives the people of Nebraska individually much more power over the Senate. So, a few people living in small states can block legislation in the Senate wanted by a great number of people living in a smaller number of large states.
I just do not undertand why proportional representation is requirement when we are talking of the executive and not when talking about the legislative.
Why is it OK for a few people to be able to block legislation wanted by a much greater number of people? And wouldn’t these same reasons apply equally to the executive?