One more time. Should we get rid of the Electoral College for electing a President in the US?

Status
Not open for further replies.
If I were an urban Democrat, I'd say yes. If I were a rural Republican, I'd say no. I most closely identify as Libertarian and have no hope of ever having party representation in the Electoral College system, but I still say no.
 
Last edited:
chic said:
Times have changed since the 1780's. Hence all the amendments to the constitution. Or should we allow slavery again and take the vote away from women? I'd say no to that.
Click to expand...

History before 1780s showed direct democracies weren't effective systems of government. That's why Madison and other founding fathers devised checks and balances in the US form of government.

​
“From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”​
― James Madison, Federalist Papers Nos. 10 and 51​

These leaders were elected by pure democracy: Robert Mugabe, Vladimir Putin.

.
 
Last edited:
chic said:
Times have changed since the 1780's. Hence all the amendments to the constitution. Or should we allow slavery again and take the vote away from women? I'd say no to that.
Click to expand...
The constitution allows for women’s right to vote as does it not allow slavery. Did I misunderstand your post? Many of the amendments are necessary to protect our rights. The bigger question is, “Have we gone too far?”

Now, if we could only get the DOJ to enforce some of the amendments that have been arbitrarily dismissed. That’s where the issue is. Too often, either the DOJ or SCOTUS attempts to reinterpret the meaning of the amendments, IMO.
 
I think this thread is political and that's not allowed here. I'd quit talking about it if I were you because it could start trouble.
 
What @chic said. I checked the TOS, couldn't find a reference to politics (not my best day, I guess), but agree, so I'm out. Sorry for any issues/problems.
 
Nathan said:
Absolutely. It doesn't matter where you live, urban or rural, 1 citizen = 1 vote.... equals the will of the people. It's just that simple.
Click to expand...

That's true for a direct democracy, but not for a representative democracy which is the US system of government.

.
 
AnnieA said:
That's true for a direct democracy, but not for a representative democracy which is the US system of government.

.
Click to expand...
The electoral college was devised at a time when the overwelming majority of Americans lived on farms, and communications(media) took weeks to reach most of the country. Plus, many were uneducated and so the electors became a sort of "parental" representative for those folks who were seen as incapable of making a rational decision. Times have changed since the 1780s, the constitution gets amended to stay relevant.
 
Nathan said:
The electoral college was devised at a time when the overwelming majority of Americans lived on farms, and communications(media) took weeks to reach most of the country. Plus, many were uneducated and so the electors became a sort of "parental" representative for those folks who were seen as incapable of making a rational decision. Times have changed since the 1780s, the constitution gets amended to stay relevant.
Click to expand...

That's certainly one view. Another is that the Electoral College is part of the US system of checks and balances to limit the dangers of a direct democracy. There's no better formula for a Supreme Leader than his or her claim that "I am the people's choice." History shows that mistake; current events continue to confirm it 'a la Vladimir Putin.
.
 
Last edited:
AnnieA said:
That's certainly one view. Another is that the Electoral College is part of the US system of checks and balances to limit the dangers of a direct democracy. There's no better formula for a Supreme Leader than his or her claim that "I am the people's choice." History shows that mistake; current events continue to confirm it 'a la Vladimir Putin.
Click to expand...
"limit the dangers of a direct democracy".... that is certainly one view as well. The "I am the people's choice" statement is easy for any dictator to assert, but it does not follow that a direct democracy was the reason for said dictator to have gained power.

I'd be interested to hear more on the dangers of a direct democracy, it's a foreign concept to my 50+ years of political thought.

Too much democracy?
 
Nathan said:
"limit the dangers of a direct democracy".... that is certainly one view as well. The "I am the people's choice" statement is easy for any dictator to assert, but it does not follow that a direct democracy was the reason for said dictator to have gained power.

I'd be interested to hear more on the dangers of a direct democracy, it's a foreign concept to my 50+ years of political thought.

Too much democracy?
Click to expand...

Did you grow up in America? I assume you are American since this is of interest to you, but realize we're an international mix on SF. The founding fathers' of the US fears of direct/pure democracy are well documented.
 
.

@Nathan In answer to your question from post 23: "I'd be interested to hear more on the dangers of a direct democracy, it's a foreign concept to my 50+ years of political thought."


Found this article written from the perspective of someone upset by Brexit re the US founding fathers and their fears of direct democracy. Because of those fears, there's no provision in the Constitution for Americans to vote on a national referendum such as the one the UK held for Brexit which also helps explain their thinking in making provision for the selection of President by means other than a popular vote.

Chose it because it's a good, quick overview and isn't skewed towards either of American's polarizing parties.

Brexit: The American Founding Fathers Had it Right: Direct Democracy Is a Dead Duck




(Edited for clarity. Posted in answer to Nathan's question in post 23 bolded above.)

.
 

Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top