Current Events > What are sound arguments for the electoral college?

(+) Yeah! (+)

What are the best arguments in support of the electoral college?

Youd need a Constitutional amendment to get rid of it so just get used to it

The president was never really intended to be that important.

Also, the layers of federalism were engineered to keep the popular zeitgeist from steamrolling everything.
House: direct-election from the people of a state
Senate: nominated by the legislatures of a state
President: elected by electors nominated by whatever method any given state wants

Dont forget that the limiting of total Representatives is relatively recent

Damn_Underscore posted...

Dont forget that the limiting of total Representatives is relatively recent

We should have about 10000.

Fuck electoral college

day before the election: 100% of the population opposes the electoral college
day after the election: 45% of the population opposes the electoral college

Something Something States Rights

It keeps the people from having too much control

the US has never trusted its populace to make big decisions

So, none, right?

It gives smaller towns a voice, rather than just big cities

There are none that aren't explicitly anti-democratic. Ditto for the Senate.

Chunky posted...

It gives smaller towns a voice, rather than just big cities

He said a sound argument. Towns and cities shouldnt have voices. Theyre objects. People should have a voice and it should be equal for everyone.

Chunky posted...

It gives smaller towns a voice, rather than just big cities

So, if you live in a small town your vote should count more than if you live in a big city? Yeah, that makes sense >_>

indica posted...

So, if you live in a small town your vote should count more than if you live in a big city? Yeah, that makes sense >_>

I agree, but I had to throw something on the table cuz no one else was coming up with anything lol

Kami_no_Kami posted...

He said a sound argument. Towns and cities shouldnt have voices. Theyre objects. People should have a voice and it should be equal for everyone.

Do they not get an equal vote right now? Not 100% sure, but I believe the way it works is the electors for each state cast the vote based on The majority vote of that state. I think there are occasionally dishonest electors, but pretty sure that's rare and illegal

states choose how their electors vote, and they can change the method if they'd prefer something different

famfam posted...

states choose how their electors vote, and they can change the method if they'd prefer something different

Countdown to the Supreme Court declaring the Popular Vote Compact unconstitutional.

In a perfect world, it would keep a few select population centers from controlling literally everything.

Popular sentiment is not always intrinsically a good determining factor. Lots of things have had tons of popular support from the population, but have been morally and legally repugnant. What's more, America is quite large, large enough that the needs and issues of people on the rural plains may as well be from a different planet than those of the people in coastal cities; to say that they should forever have basically no meaningful say in anything at all is itself an issue.

The issue lies primarily in specifically what kinds of ideas have calcified in these particular regions. The smaller populations and relative isolation of these rural south-and-middle states has led to very insular belief systems being instilled in these communities, as well as a deep seated distrust of people and powers from outside the community. Furthermore, smaller populations in turn leads to smaller, more tight-knit local populations; Ina lot of those states, it's common for everybody in a community to know everyone else. As a consequence? It's very easy to isolate and drive out the "other," whoever the other" happens to be that week. As a result, voices that defy the community go to the bigger, more diverse cities, and the community gets ever more insular. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thus, a system that was meant to ensure that smaller communities can't just be permanently overlooked has instead become a system where an increasingly isolated, radical fringe is given undo power and representation. The system is fundamentally broken, but not necessarily fundamentally malicious. It's a rough balancing act: on the one hand, California and New York shouldn't be the sole dictators of national policy, especially when they really don't give a shit about most of what happens in like 45 of the states. On the other hand, 28% of the population also shouldn't be given the power to dictate the entirety of national policy, or quagmire reforms just because they don't trust them.

Regardless, the system as it stands is completely broken and desperately needs reform.

DarkBuster22904 posted...

In a perfect world, it would keep a few select population centers from controlling literally everything.

Popular sentiment is not always intrinsically a good determining factor. Lots of things have had tons of popular support from the population, but have been morally and legally repugnant. What's more, America is quite large, large enough that the needs and issues of people on the rural plains may as well be from a different planet than those of the people in coastal cities; to say that they should forever have basically no meaningful say in anything at all is itself an issue.

The issue lies primarily in specifically what kinds of ideas have calcified in these particular regions. The smaller populations and relative isolation of these rural south-and-middle states has led to very insular belief systems being instilled in these communities, as well as a deep seated distrust of people and powers from outside the community. Furthermore, smaller populations in turn leads to smaller, more tight-knit local populations; Ina lot of those states, it's common for everybody in a community to know everyone else. As a consequence? It's very easy to isolate and drive out the "other," whoever the other" happens to be that week. As a result, voices that defy the community go to the bigger, more diverse cities, and the community gets ever more insular. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Thus, a system that was meant to ensure that smaller communities can't just be permanently overlooked has instead become a system where an increasingly isolated, radical fringe is given undo power and representation. The system is fundamentally broken, but not necessarily fundamentally malicious. It's a rough balancing act: on the one hand, California and New York shouldn't be the sole dictators of national policy, especially when they really don't give a shit about most of what happens in like 45 of the states. On the other hand, 28% of the population also shouldn't be given the power to dictate the entirety of national policy, or quagmire reforms just because they don't trust them.

Regardless, the system as it stands is completely broken and desperately needs reform.

But all that has very little to do with the president and more to do congressional representation. The problem here is with gerrymandering districts rather than electoral colleges. A rural area should have a representative for them in congress to help challenge and bring in laws to support them.

indica posted...

But all that has very little to do with the president and more to do congressional representation. The problem here is with gerrymandering districts rather than electoral colleges. A rural area should have a representative for them in congress to help challenge and bring in laws to support them.

It all comes down to the same thing. The intent was to make it so that places like California and New York wouldn't have undo sway over the outcome of the president. Whether it's giving Wyoming the same number of senators as California, or making a person's presidential vote in Wyoming count 4x as mich as a California's, its all the same.

indica posted...

But all that has very little to do with the president and more to do congressional representation. The problem here is with gerrymandering districts rather than electoral colleges. A rural area should have a representative for them in congress to help challenge and bring in laws to support them.

For that reason, I actually do like constituencies being regional things and the idea that districts should be drawn in such a way that they contain people who likely have similar interests that they can then express via a representative. The challenge is doing so in a way that's fair and not easily hijacked for political purposes.

But, they don't deserve to have an outsized voice. And there are other communities that have been historically marginalized that deserve a voice: Indigenous nations, Washington D.C., and our territories (for as long they want to be associated with us). We should probably also have quotas to ensure historically marginalized minorities are adequately represented (Black people especially).

Really, we just need to write a new constitution and ignore the existing one. It's incredibly outdated and the system of government is prescribes is increasingly unworkable.

Federalist 10 spells it out for you. True democracy is bad, because all the poor people will just vote that the rich people stop being dicks, pay them a living wage, and let everyone live comfortably. So the argument for it is that you obscure the common man's voice with all kinds of layers of representation, both so that rich people can actually decide what goes on, and politicians can stay in power without having to actually do what their constiuents want.

tl:dr: the argument for it is clearly stated by the Framers in the Federalist Papers. It's to keep you down, and the elite up.

Rural/small states already get more representation through the Senate, they don't need the EC as well. One or the other.

Kami_no_Kami posted...

He said a sound argument. Towns and cities shouldnt have voices. Theyre objects. People should have a voice and it should be equal for everyone.

It's almost like the country is called the United STATES of America, and that States have rights.