Skip to main content

View Diary: About that Gallup poll (373 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anyone still hate the Electoral College? nt (6+ / 0-)
    •  Yeah - I do (8+ / 0-)

      But it is the rules of the game, so we play by the rules to win the game.

      Obama still would win even if there is was no Electoral College. He would have campaigned differently and run GOTV operations in major urban areas that are now, under the current rules, just an afterthought.

      One vote in New York City or Los Angeles or Chicago or Philadelphia, should be worth the same as one vote in Billings or Juneau - and they are not equal.

      The EC was set up as a hedge against the uneducated of the time electing someone deemed unacceptable to the elite/ruling class. It was never particulary fair and just, and the time for it to be a relique are long past.

      One person - one vote. Whoever gets more votes wins. Pretty simple.

      •  Oh Johnny, (6+ / 0-)

        I largely agree with you, having long thought the EC was antiquated. But it seems. . . ironic. . . that it was set up as a hedge against the uneducated. Today, it's the misinformed or misled rather than the uneducated against which we ALL need a hedge.

        then I think of all the dead innocents in Iraq, and how that should never have happened, and would not have without the EC (okay, and SCOTUS) given that Al Gore won the popular vote

      •  I'm just fine with a hedge against the south. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Losty

        The United States is extremely diverse geographically and politically, and frankly I think we'd see some secessions if we went to a straight popular vote for the presidency. Millions of people who live in close proximity to each other and rely on a completely different set of economic and social conditions would rule the executive branch.

      •  Blunting the "unwashed masses" was part of it (8+ / 0-)

        But another strong argument for the Electoral College is that it prevents a candidate from winning on the basis of a divisive regional platform.

        The schism between the north and south was apparent even to the framers, and many of the compromises present in the Constitution were placed there to prevent the inevitable Civil War.  The fear was that a candidate running explicitly as a Northerner or Southerner would drive up the vote in their region, possibly with an openly hostile regional platform, and become president with hardly any support in the other region.  That's a recipe for bad governance.  The Electoral College hedged against it by forcing presidential candidates to compete everywhere, instead of just driving up the vote tally in their home area.  We've still gotten regional candidates, but arguably not to the extent we would have otherwise.

        Clearly, Romney's national support is concentrated in one region of the country that thinks and votes differently from all the others.  If these numbers were accurate -- and I'm not entirely certain they are -- and Romney's support was that heavily concentrated in one narrow area of the country, then the Electoral College would do precisely what it is meant to do.  It would grant the presidency to the candidate who had assembled the broadest and most representative coalition.

      •  Or as a hedge against another problem (0+ / 0-)

        namely local control of the ballot boxes. The EC serves as a firewall on just how many votes any single political machine could steal.

        If the US had a unified election, one person--one vote, there would be too much temptation for local election officials to miscount the ballots & attempt to sway close elections. Instead of calling foul over the obvious hi-jinks of Florida in 2000, we could have been faced with a couple million dodgy votes from several different red states. And election officials were, er, less professional in the 18th century then even the least professional ones today, so I think the drafters had this very problem in the back of their minds, & created this monstrosity to handle it.

        About the only way a unified election could work would be if the vote counters were free of possible miscounting. Do something along of the lines of a draft of civil servants on the local, city & state level where the draftees would be redistributed to different states at random for two weeks to be trained & to count the ballots. That would make cooking the results by local election officials much harder. And it would have the side benefit of exposing rank-&-file civil servant to different government organizations & people with different approaches to problems & new ideas. If done properly, this might actually be seen as a perk!

    •  Would be a lot more campaigning in CA, NY and TX (0+ / 0-)

      Very expensive but if we could stymie Citizens United, getting rid of of the electoral college, and electing solely on the popular vote would be a good thing IMO.

      Re-elect President Obama because we don't need another selfish President

      by Timmethy on Wed Oct 17, 2012 at 01:28:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site