Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
There's no such thing as a perfect system. The same criticisms can be given against direct democracy as well, and moreso. If the president were elected through a purely democratic vote (which isn't some new idea, it was thoroughly considered and rejected by the founders), that person could appeal strictly to, say, white voters, and completely ignore minorities and still win the election. Or, that person could campaign only in heavily populated regions (such as new england and the west coast) and ignore the needs of other regions.
|
I agree, perfection isn't attainable. An old friend of mine used to say "the last guy that was prefect they nailed to a cross, don't want any part of that job."
But the EC doesn't insulate against candidates ignoring this state, that demographic or even a particular region. Heck the GOP currently has one candidate who's ignored, basically, every state but Florida so far. I don't think his strategy is going to work. But it could be argued he'd be less likely to even attempt this political chess move if it weren't for the EC. Could also pull out a bunch of graphs and stats and argue that the EC is the only reason he would try such a move.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
Also, the idea that everyone's vote is 100% equal is not something the founder's sought: rather, they sought to prevent the tyrrany of majority, which the electoral college does rather effectively. It's impossible for a president to win an election without appealing to the area where the votes are "less important" such as California, but the electoral college makes it so that those candidates must also appeal to other, less populous states in order to win. It's the same reason Iowa and New Hampshire have their primaries before everyone else: on a national level, the interests of Iowans are generall ignored, but by giving them some weight in choosing the candidates it ensures that their opinions are heard as well.
|
Not sure about the "tyrrany of majority" or the origins of the Iowa caucus or the NH primary. But I'm also not sure I disagree with what you're saying. I would add the founding fathers were also looking to find a way to deal with the logistical problems facing a national election in a country geographically spread out over so many miles with no modern means of communicating.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by SecretMethod70
No doubt, there are people whose views and needs are ignored right now. Like I said, no election system is perfect. But the number of people who are ignored - and the degree to which they are ignored - could be far greater were we to fall into the temptation of direct democracy. Our republic does a great deal to spread out influence and force compromise.
|
Some people are ignored and some are not. No doubt about it. Currently our system seems to spread the influence to those most able to spread wealth in the right direction. Would doing away with the EC solve this or create a larger deeper wound? I honestly don't know. I do find it odd that the one election we use this type of system is when we're electing the person those going to hold the highest attainable office. Every other time we use a one person, one vote system.
Bottom line is I read your statement:
"The electoral college is a different story, and actually increases the value of everyone's vote."
And thought it sounded impossible.