Comments on: Begone With The Electoral College http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/ On the web since, I dunno, August 2003? Sat, 22 Nov 2008 07:17:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.2 By: Dominic Atibil http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-6683 Dominic Atibil Mon, 19 Jun 2006 11:59:30 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-6683 I agree with this article because why should the common people vote when a group of less people will just make the ultimate desicion for us. This is one of the dumbest things I believe in the voting process, besides the fact that people still have to go to work on voting day and by the time most people come home they are too tired to even get up, let alone stand in line for hours to vote when their vote really doen't count. Peace out!!!!! I agree with this article because why should the common people vote when a group of less people will just make the ultimate desicion for us. This is one of the dumbest things I believe in the voting process, besides the fact that people still have to go to work on voting day and by the time most people come home they are too tired to even get up, let alone stand in line for hours to vote when their vote really doen’t count.
Peace out!!!!!

]]> By: James http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-85 James Mon, 08 Nov 2004 03:54:17 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-85 How many states did Kerry win this year? Nothing near the amount that Bush got. I think my biggest qualm is simply that the popular vote doesn't technically matter one bit. That is wrong. How many states did Kerry win this year? Nothing near the amount that Bush got. I think my biggest qualm is simply that the popular vote doesn’t technically matter one bit. That is wrong.

]]> By: Richard http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-84 Richard Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:25:16 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-84 Without the electorial college, the votes of almost all states would not matter. The major population center, LA, New York, Chicago, ect would elect the president. Regardless of how the rest of the country, states like Kansas, Montana, and Ohio felt. Without the electorial college, the votes of almost all states would not matter. The major population center, LA, New York, Chicago, ect would elect the president. Regardless of how the rest of the country, states like Kansas, Montana, and Ohio felt.

]]> By: James http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-59 James Fri, 29 Oct 2004 05:32:12 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-59 What does the <em>administration</em> of the elections have anything to do with the actual election of president, senators, etc.? I'm under the assumption that people who count votes and what not, i.e. <em>administer</em> the election aren't miscounting votes for their own motives. If we are to assume that is not the case, then why vote at all if they're just going to alter it to their own choices. And as for "allowing states to come together within itself", uh, who cares. Everything I posted in the original post here shows why that isn't necessarily the best case. The problem is that not all of the state supports a particular candidate. You force a vote upon everyone when the will of the people, as a whole, isn't just that candidate, it is only the will of the majority, and sometimes not even that is the case, as shown in the original post. So explain to me what I'm missing. And you say that everyone voting a piece of legislation is a bad thing. The problem is that, that particular situation - everyone voting for every piece of legislation - is not an ideal situation. People have lives, it's simply impossible for everyone to keep up on everything. Hence, this is why we have congressmen and the other associated political folk. It will be their job to keep up on it, assuming they get elected. The president, however, is the symbol of the american people. Electing a president once every four years isn't that much to ask out of the american people. See the difference? Once every four years vs. arguably every minute of the day. One is practical where the other is completely not. The other problem with your arguement is that you think that there is (or so it seems, at least) that there is only state or federal government. Do you not see that there is more to it than that. Although I'm not limiting to it, there are at <strong>least</strong> individual, state, and federal. You neglect the individual category. If everyone voted then it would be the ultimate limitation of the federal government. They would have no effect whatsoever. If <strong>anything</strong> by allowing the popular vote to dictate the president you completely limit the role fo the government. ( Sidenote, if any of this doesn't sound coherent, I've been drinking, so, I don't know, deal with it :-) ) What does the administration of the elections have anything to do with the actual election of president, senators, etc.? I’m under the assumption that people who count votes and what not, i.e. administer the election aren’t miscounting votes for their own motives. If we are to assume that is not the case, then why vote at all if they’re just going to alter it to their own choices.

And as for “allowing states to come together within itself”, uh, who cares. Everything I posted in the original post here shows why that isn’t necessarily the best case. The problem is that not all of the state supports a particular candidate. You force a vote upon everyone when the will of the people, as a whole, isn’t just that candidate, it is only the will of the majority, and sometimes not even that is the case, as shown in the original post. So explain to me what I’m missing.

And you say that everyone voting a piece of legislation is a bad thing. The problem is that, that particular situation - everyone voting for every piece of legislation - is not an ideal situation. People have lives, it’s simply impossible for everyone to keep up on everything. Hence, this is why we have congressmen and the other associated political folk. It will be their job to keep up on it, assuming they get elected. The president, however, is the symbol of the american people. Electing a president once every four years isn’t that much to ask out of the american people. See the difference? Once every four years vs. arguably every minute of the day. One is practical where the other is completely not.

The other problem with your arguement is that you think that there is (or so it seems, at least) that there is only state or federal government. Do you not see that there is more to it than that. Although I’m not limiting to it, there are at least individual, state, and federal. You neglect the individual category. If everyone voted then it would be the ultimate limitation of the federal government. They would have no effect whatsoever. If anything by allowing the popular vote to dictate the president you completely limit the role fo the government.

( Sidenote, if any of this doesn’t sound coherent, I’ve been drinking, so, I don’t know, deal with it :-) )

]]> By: Kris http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-58 Kris Fri, 29 Oct 2004 04:37:51 +0000 http://17thdegree.com/archives/2004/10/28/begone-with-the-electoral-college/#comment-58 Eliminating the electoral college would force the administration of elections into the hands of the federal government. By allowing states to cast electoral votes, you're allowing states to run elections how they deem fit. This also allows a state to come together within itself and decide on a canidate and give its full support to that candidate (through rewarding all electoral votes). If you think every person's vote should directly matter, why don't we all just vote on every piece of legislation that goes through congress? When our senators cast a vote in congress, they're casting a vote for the whole state, and there's no reason the presidential election should be different. One of the most important features of this country is the limited role of the federal government, and that should not be changed. Eliminating the electoral college would force the administration of elections into the hands of the federal government. By allowing states to cast electoral votes, you’re allowing states to run elections how they deem fit. This also allows a state to come together within itself and decide on a canidate and give its full support to that candidate (through rewarding all electoral votes). If you think every person’s vote should directly matter, why don’t we all just vote on every piece of legislation that goes through congress? When our senators cast a vote in congress, they’re casting a vote for the whole state, and there’s no reason the presidential election should be different.

One of the most important features of this country is the limited role of the federal government, and that should not be changed.

]]>