Why Keep the Electoral College?

Minnesota just passed a Constitutional Ammendent that give a minimum of 40% of the state transportaiton budget to mass transit. Two areas benifit the most from this ammendent and they are Minneapolis and St Paul. This is what happens when you get rule by the majority. Who will play for their new toy train - light rail - will be the rest of the state so the few people can ride the light rail at a greatly reduced price. One estimate is that the light rail is subsidized 75% by the state.

Exactly, the big cities would decide everything for everyone.

Hello Bobmnu, NM has recently entangled itself in a similar mess. Bill Richardson allocated a huge portion of our D.O.T budget for a light rail system running from Albuquerque to Santa Fe. Of course, not only is King Bill a crook, he's also an idiot. The initial phase of the light rail was heavily matched by federal funds, then when it came time for the state to pony up the remainder, King Bill found out that we don't have enough funds to finish the project. So, we've got a partially finished light rail, with no connecting transportation options, no money to finish it, and a dangerously depleted road & bridge repair budget. All this while knowing ahead of time that the ridership of the light rail may have been a few thousand people per day, from only the central corridor of the state. And, pretty much just those people who live in ABQ and are state employees who work in the capitol - Santa Fe. The Dem leadership of the state immediately suggested a tax increase to finish funding the light rail. It was put up for a state wide vote, and was passionately denied. So, now King Bill is feverishly trying to figure out how to underhandedly get the rest of NM citizens to finish paying for the light rail debaucle. Oh, and just as an aside: the light rail proponents acknowledged early on that the ridership would be so low that every ticket purchased for $3.00 (one way) would have to be subsidized by the rest of the state and country to the tune of $13.00 per one way ticket. My point being that your example is 'spot on'. This light rail nonsense is but one example of the big cities overriding the needs of the smaller cities & rural outskirts. The light rail here was never going to provide any benefit for any NM residents outside of the Abq - Santa Fe corridor. This despite the fact that our largest projected regional expansion is in the southern 1/3 of the state.

Hello Pboreoheart & JuLuvYa, And, were/are they so wrong? Look at the popular support, and defense of their personal absurdities that Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton enjoy. At the end of my answer above, I have included a link which outlines a scenario where a feeble-minded, self-destructive elitist could use the popular vote to hijack the Presidency for personal gain. The only thing that currently prevents such an absurdity is the Electoral College. Would you either of you be happy with a President Paris? Or, a President Brittany? As much as I'm sure we would all like to say that We the American People are much to wise to ever let such a thing happen, clearly the popularity of Paris & Brittany should give us all a moment of pause.

I'm sorry that's been done already with the aid of the Electoral College...feebal minded elitist Bush hijacked the White House and used it for his and his buddies own personal financial gain-lol. And your point was? Fear tactics don't work on me- I want my vote to count. It is really sad, I think, that you really feel that THE MAJORITY of Americans are dumb enough to elect Paris or Brittany to the office of President:( This is part of America's problem with foreign policy as well. Our country is run by a bunch of people who think they are so wonderful and that it is their job or duty to save the rest of us from our stupid, lower class, lower cultured selves. Even my 7 year old is smart enough to know that Brittany shouldn't be allowed to own a dog- let alone be President.

Exactly ;)

That is a very good question, and I doubt it's ever happened, but theoretically, it could. The point isn't whether or not a state can be the deciding factor though. Each electoral vote puts one candidate closer to winning. It also all goes back to the fact that we don't have 1 national election, we have 50 state elections. Going to a straight "popular" vote would destroy that... and that would not be good.

In a single election, you are right, and I'd be up for ideas on how to make it more equal.. maybe by apportioning the electoral votes by district instead of state... but if you look over time, you see that no state has ever dominated the whole election process.

Have any of the states with the fewest electoral votes ever been considered the key factor in an election? That's a serious question there. I don't think they have, but you may know something I don't.

Exactly, it seems like more sour grapes than Constitutional logic.

right! People point to the last two presidential elections as failures in the Electoral College. I see them as examples of why it is still necessary. States like Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin would never have been "swing" states if it was 1 person 1 vote.

It is ironic that people point to the last two Presidential elections as electoral college failures. The 2000 election had Bush winning the electoral votes and Gore winning the popular vote, but had Bush lost Ohio in 2004, he would have won the popular vote and Kerry would have been President by winning the electoral votes. The tables would then be turned. Would both sides have changed positions? I think so. Sadly, I think people would want to change this system to benefit the candidate they support rather than thinking about the consequences it has for the United States as a whole. If there was any type of reform I might agree to, but I'd have to study it first, is for states to divide up their electoral votes, i.e., by congressional district, then the extra two go to the winner of the state.

That's where you don't understand the system. My vote DOESN"T count more. It counts the same. If you got your way, you would gladly suck all the resources from the country for use in the city and laugh as we feebly complained with no voice. Keep your class warfare crap out of it, it is nothing but bigotry.

You are right, we do not live in a democracy. If you did a little digging, such as the US Constitution or even the Pledge of Allegiance, you would find that the US is a Representative Republic founded on democratic principles, but it is NOT a democracy, and never was intended as one. The problems today is that a lot of people don't know enough about our countries history or the way our government works to even have a useful opinion. Every vote does count...you vote for the electors who then vote for the president, and that's the way it has always been. America is a Capitalistic Society, meaning that we believe in free enterprise, free trade and private ownership of property and business as opposed to Socialism. As a result is also one of the richest nations in the world. "I wonder whose flag you would of waved during the civil war?" I find this statement to be racist and bigoted, and also it isn't very knowledgeable either....considering that the Civil War was fought between 1861 and 1865, which means that the likelihood of anyone flying either side's flag and still being alive is fairly slim and quite unlikely. I would suggest that you augment your knowledge of our history and our government really soon, because your understanding is severely lacking.

LOL- first of all read my statement again, I said which flag he "would have" not "did". I'm well aware of how long ago that war took place. I'm not an idiot and the statement is no more bigoted than comparing city dwellers to a "mob". Also again, I said we live in a capitalistic society "disguised" as a democracy... I know we are not a true democracy which is why I stated we are hypocritical in running around judging everyone else for not being one. I don't claim to know everything but I am far from dumb my friend, so I resent the implication. The fact remains that this method of election distorts the significance of votes, as would any winner-take-all system. In any state that is heavily Democratic or Republican, voters in the outnumbered party can stay home, correctly understanding that their votes will not count. Another flaw with this method of voting is that the designated electors are not legally obligated to abide by the popular vote. Plus I'd like to add... someone stated that they heard no complaints until Gore lost... however, in 1977-78 a constitutional amendment was introduced but failed because of opposition from smaller states. So this is nothing new and I have been arguing the point since college. I've said all I care to say on the topic. Oh and to whoever said... because I don't recall and can't look back at the rest of what was written at the moment... to keep class out of it; anyone who thinks this has nothing to do with money and resources is kidding themselves. It always comes down to money. The "haves" trying to keep it and the "have-nots" trying to get it. And like one person here spoke of city people sucking up all the rsources and leaving people in rural areas with out a say- is the fear. Resources, money, whatever- you better believe it isn't poor folk with the resources to fight in 1977-78 or now to keep the electoral college. OK- I'm really finished with this topic. I hold no ill will and I appreciate the dialogue.

I don't know about kicking NYC out of the state but I do know that they are fed up with NY State Politics. In one of the last elections they were to vote on a redistricting plan and the one that had the most support was not on the ballot. It was on developed by a computer that took into consideration the demographics of the area and not party affilation. One of the suprises was the large cities lost representives because the city was considered one demographic area and the rural area was another. My sister is in a district that extends from Lake Onterio to the PA Border on the south. It included the western part of Rochester. The city of Rochester has several districts that start in Rochester and go south to the PA border. In those districts the vote of the City resident is more than the vote of the rural area. If you look at a map of the country voting patterns by county you see that the Democratics scored heavly in the large urban areas and the Republicans did well in the rural areas, even if the state went Democratic. The large cities in the Republican states usually voted Democratic. What is interesting is when you look at where the people (I may get blasted for this) who receive government support or work for the government tend to vote Democratic. To insure their reelection the Democratics need to grow government or Government welfare programs. I know people who are Conservitives who will vote Democratic to keep the federal money flowing into the state and will vote Repiublican when they retire and want taxes lower. One teacher I worked with voted for the congressman even though she was opposed to everything he stood for because he would vote for more money for education. he once got the school a $100,000 grant(earmark) and now she votes for him every two years.

Hello Bobmnu, Hubby & I are both originally from Upstate. I wonder: does a NY State Assembly Representative continue to submit a bill every year calling for the secession of NYC from the rest of NY State? As I recall, it was an annual bill for at least two decades. Of course, it failed to pass the vote each year because the city cannot support itself, without upstate & federal citizens subsidizing it.

Professor Katz has some good points. The few changes we have made so far have given power to the special interest groups. No member of Congress is supposed to have any more power than any other. Since we've allow the two houses of Congress to centralize power among a few, special interest groups need only sway those few to get their way.

ParaTed, You make a great point about the centralization of power within the two house. And, you point out the obvious resolution -- a return to Constitutional adherence. Adding to your point about returning to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, I would add: I believe the very best way to decrease the influence of lobbies & P.A.C.s is to get the elected representatives out of a centralized location. The Founding Fathers anticipated that the best way to keep the elected away from temptation was to keep them at home, in their respective districts, managing their own personal careers. I dare say, they never imagined full-time, life-long politicians who had little or no other business experience, or who had such limited contact with their constituents. There is no reason why our elected should be draining off tax dollars to have a second, pampered lifestyle in D.C. Especially when one considers that the Democrat leadership recently returned the business on The Hill to a three day work week! Conducting the business of the nation does not require 10.5 months per year in D.C. Particularly if the states are handling what should be state's issues.

You can't outlaw special interest groups without defining which citizens are allowed to speak with elected officials and which can't (which, of course, would be unconstitutional). You can, however, reduce the undue influence special interest groups have. How? By going back to the U.S. Constitution, where each member of Congress voted on a bill or issue without a select few pressuring the rest on how to vote. People keep calling or new laws, when what we really need is a return to the Constitution.

Because 1 person 1 vote means New York, Chigago and Los Angeles decide everything. Majority rule is mob rule. Do you really think any candidate would care about Florida or Ohio in the system you would like? NO. They wouldn't have to venture out of the 4 or 5 biggest cities. Yes, the Constition was designed to be ammended when needed, but when we ammend it, let's do it out of knowledge, not ignorance.

But the point was to keep our republic FROM becoming a true democracy.