Lifestyle > Train of Thought
The same dumb motherfuckers who wanted to get rid of the Electoral College in 00
Machiavelli:
Well for one its in the Constitution, maintains a separation of powers and keeps the 3 branches in check to minimize threats to liberty. Keeps the federal character of the nation. It neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states.
Most importantly it forces a candidate to seek popular support over a majority of the country. Since a candidate cannot count on winning the election based solely on a heavy concentration of votes in a few populated areas the Electoral college avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire.
The only problem I have with the system is that it encourages stability through the two-party system and has a negative effect on third parties.
Turf Hitta:
--- Quote from: Machiavelli on March 06, 2008, 11:10:37 PM ---Well for one its in the Constitution, maintains a separation of powers and keeps the 3 branches in check to minimize threats to liberty. Keeps the federal character of the nation. It neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states.
Most importantly it forces a candidate to seek popular support over a majority of the country. Since a candidate cannot count on winning the election based solely on a heavy concentration of votes in a few populated areas the Electoral college avoids much of the sectionalism that has plagued other geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and the Roman Empire.
The only problem I have with the system is that it encourages stability through the two-party system and has a negative effect on third parties.
--- End quote ---
How does it "maintain a separation of powers?" I don't even know what you mean by that in this context.
You're placing too much value on states. States don't vote. PEOPLE vote. What is a state? Essentially the only thing differentiating any state from any other state is imaginary lines. You're basically saying that a person in Wyoming deserves a louder voice than people in more populated areas simply because they live out in the middle of nowhere. The electoral college is flawed because it can allow for the loser of the popular vote to win the election.
Turnout disparities should not matter. You have yet to present a single reason why any person should have a louder voice than any other. That kind of undermines the nature of democracy when you imply that one person's vote should be more significant than another, don't you think?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version