What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Political questions (1 Viewer)

Tackle Breaker

Footballguy
Has the Electoral College historically been effective at representing the will of the people?

2. Does the general public have any Actual influence in todays Government?

 
Has the Electoral College historically been effective at representing the will of the people?

2. Does the general public have any Actual influence in todays Government?
The whole purpose of the Electoral College was to thwart the will of the people.

 
We need a new system.  The current system is based on a representative democracy.  An idea that was created when towns needed to send a representative on horseback to Washington.  I don't know the solution, but there has to be something better. 

 
The whole purpose of the Electoral College was to thwart the will of the people.
No. That's not exactly correct. The whole purpose of the Electoral College was an extension of federalism, which the Anti-Federalists wanted, and which has long served us well against direct democracy. I would recommend reading Herbert J. Storing's volumes on the Anti-Federalists to familiarize one with the purposes and aims of them.  

eta* It's not thwarting the will of the people; the will of the "people" is encoded in the College. 

A great essay is called "What did the Anti-federalists want?" by Storing, in which he explains why federalism matters, and why there would have been no government without the pressures of the low-population areas in the new world. 

Clllllll peas...Davinci.   :P

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We need a new system.  The current system is based on a representative democracy.  An idea that was created when towns needed to send a representative on horseback to Washington.  I don't know the solution, but there has to be something better. 
IMO, if we are going to stick with the EC, then we need to get rid of the :bs: "winner takes all" in most states.

Split the EC votes up based on the percentage of the votes.. 

 
Oh, yeah. But "if" then we have to go to root causes. 

What would the difference really be between proportional voting and strict Federalism? It would be a true move to urban areas and cities, no?  
:shrug: not my expertise.. I just think having all the EC votes go to the winner of the state is ridiculous..

When's the last time a Republican vote for president mattered in California.. 1984??  How about New York?
When's the last time a Democrat vote for president mattered in Texas?

 
The "will of the people" would be direct democracy.  The EC was a compromise to get the slave states to agree to the Constitution.  Voters in slave states (and in small states) were disproportionally represented.

 
:shrug: not my expertise.. I just think having all the EC votes go to the winner of the state is ridiculous..

When's the last time a Republican vote for president mattered in California.. 1984??  How about New York?
When's the last time a Democrat vote for president mattered in Texas?
Agreed. Never. It depresses poll turnout and makes people like even me not vote. It doesn't matter. Great point, I'm just not sure how to address it. Finer minds than mine haven't been able to...

Seriously, not so much a debate as you raised a great point. I live in Cali and Conn and vote Republican. My vote is only a protest vote.   

 
The "will of the people" would be direct democracy.  The EC was a compromise to get the slave states to agree to the Constitution.  Voters in slave states (and in small states) were disproportionally represented.
It's the "will of the people" that troubles me as a poli sci guy. The will of the people was encoded in the Constitution by its very structure, both by Federalists and Anti-Federalists. That's why I chimed in. Again, you're not wrong about the people's will, but the people's will was decided a long time ago, and for a good reason. We'd have two countries without. And, if I'm not mistaken, NY was very anti-federalist, which would be turned on its head today. We always advocate for the position of direct democracy when it benefits us, we think little of it when it doesn't.  It also imbues itself in so many other life decisions...is it true democracy? Probably not. We're a republic. I know, I know, pedantry, but it seems thet pedantry is in order sometimes. 

Don't get me started. The EC is wonderful, IMO.  

 
:shrug: not my expertise.. I just think having all the EC votes go to the winner of the state is ridiculous..

When's the last time a Republican vote for president mattered in California.. 1984??  How about New York?
When's the last time a Democrat vote for president mattered in Texas?
Agreed. Never. It depresses poll turnout and makes people like even me not vote. It doesn't matter. Great point, I'm just not sure how to address it. Finer minds than mine haven't been able to...

Seriously, not so much a debate as you raised a great point. I live in Cali and Conn and vote Republican. My vote is only a protest vote.   
:hifive:

Here is a scenario that should put most of us in a :oldunsure: state of mind when it comes to the EC....

Imagine Hillary gets most of the votes and most of the EC votes but, thanks to Gary Johnson winning a couple of states, she doesn't get enough EC votes to win the presidency.
It now goes to the House and no matter how much most republicans don't like Trump, they dislike Hillary more, and thus Trump becomes President.

:scared: of the reaction of the people..

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is a scenario that should put most of us in a :oldunsure: state of mind when it comes to the EC....

Imagine Hillary gets most of the votes and most of the EC votes, but thanks to Gary Johnson winning a couple of states, she doesn't get enough EC votes to win the presidency.
It now goes to the House, and no matter how much most republicans don't like Trump, they dislike Hillary more and thus Trump becomes President.

:scared:
I don't think they'll vote Trump in the House. That's why the EC works, IMHO.

 
I don't think they'll vote Trump in the House. That's why the EC works, IMHO.
well, as Gary said himself, that is his hope and plan..
Wonder how the people would react if both Hillary and Trump were given the boot out the door and Johnson, or some other republican is chosen.

Wait..  Maybe that has been Paul Ryan's plan all along... Let Hillary and Trump fight it out and get the House to vote him in... :oldunsure:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
:shrug: not my expertise.. I just think having all the EC votes go to the winner of the state is ridiculous..

When's the last time a Republican vote for president mattered in California.. 1984??  How about New York?
When's the last time a Democrat vote for president mattered in Texas?
I know you were speaking rhetorically, but California went for Bush in 1988. New York tabbed Reagan in 1984. Carter took Texas in 1976.

You're right though, most Americans may as well stay home as vote against their state's predominant party for Federal elected positions.

 
It's the "will of the people" that troubles me as a poli sci guy.
Me too. When I see things that are dictated by the will of the people - whether it be movies that get made or TV shows that get (or don't get) renewed to much-needed school referendums that can't get passed - I'm not so sure the will of the people is such a great thing sometimes.

 
The Electoral College doesn't really do anything.  It has picked the popular vote winner almost every time.  The only times it didn't pick the popular vote winner, the vote was a tossup anyway.

 
The Electoral College doesn't really do anything.  It has picked the popular vote winner almost every time.  The only times it didn't pick the popular vote winner, the vote was a tossup anyway.
Gore won the popular vote by 500K in 2000. Hardly a tossup

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top