| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Should the Electoral College system in the USA be; ditched for another system ? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 5 2008, 07:01 AM (911 Views) | |
| Dandandat | Nov 5 2008, 10:21 PM Post #16 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Well then for you foreigners; its really simple to understand. The US is not a homogenize single state, it’s a union of smaller states. The electoral college is a system designed so that within the union larger states cannot make smaller states irrelevant. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 5 2008, 10:25 PM Post #17 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
Um .... nor is Australia , anyone who has spent any time here will attest to how diverse Australia is , we are at least as diverse as the USA , maybe more so. We have a federal system too , and similar state's rights issues. The men (and women) who established our federation looked at lots of different systems to come up with what they believed was the most fair , rejecting the USA system which they also considered at the turn of 20th century. They were wize men in my humble opinion. We get buy very nicely using a different system. Edited by somerled, Nov 5 2008, 10:30 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Nov 5 2008, 10:47 PM Post #18 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I have never been to Australia, but I know from my roommate that Australia is every bit as diverse as America. The population is relatively smaller however, but Australia has a wide range of ethnic groups. America's electoral system is unique in the world. Originally, the founding fathers only allowed land owning whites to vote, and as time has gone on, allowed minorites and women the vote as well as people who don't own land. But ever suspicious of "mob rule" and untrusting of the average citizen only those elected to office are allowed to vote for the executive leader. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 5 2008, 10:48 PM Post #19 |
|
Time to put something here
|
You also have a population 15% the size of ours. Your population density is concentrated much different than ours. Your GDP is vastly smaller than ours. Australia would just be another state in our union. That you would compare the US and Australia in this way is comical and non-intellectual. California works just fine with a centralized government; that is what you should compare Australia too. And on that scale you are quite right your system works fine. On the scale the size of the US there have to be safe grads in place to make sure one country size state does not dominate the other smaller country sized states. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 5 2008, 10:54 PM Post #20 |
|
Time to put something here
|
Sorry Noah that is not why this system has endured. This system has endured because of the very structure of our country. A union of states, each with its own rights to govern as they please individually and bound by a common constitution. To remove the identity of the states from our union would make our country a different place then it is today. I as a resident of NY, and a resident of the most papules area of NY would love nothing more then for my vote to trump everyone else’s. But that would simply not be right people in Nebraska need to have a voice too. Edited by Dandandat, Nov 5 2008, 10:54 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Nov 5 2008, 11:05 PM Post #21 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
I understand why it has endured. I am stating the reasons for it's creation. The system allows for smaller states to have a disproportionate amount of power in choosing the president and in the legislature in order to preserve the federalist system. I am quite aware of this. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Bug | Nov 5 2008, 11:05 PM Post #22 |
|
Supernatural = Hotnatural
|
I remember the history teacher in middle school trying to explain it to us...I still never really got it...i always thought that each vote should be counted individually...but that would take an insanely long time :dunno: |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| RTW | Nov 5 2008, 11:05 PM Post #23 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
That last sentence doesn't fit. Did you change topics mid-paragraph? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 5 2008, 11:23 PM Post #24 |
|
Time to put something here
|
That is incorrect, the system allows for an equalizing distribution of power amongst small and large states. It does not allow for a smaller states to have a disproportionate amount of power in choosing the president and in the legislature. Under the system small states are still considerably weaker than larger states. Just not weak enough to the point where they are irrelevant. Edited by Dandandat, Nov 5 2008, 11:24 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| somerled | Nov 6 2008, 02:03 AM Post #25 |
|
Admiral MacDonald RN
|
So what (size of population) ? |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dr. Noah | Nov 6 2008, 06:56 AM Post #26 |
|
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
|
Let's look at it this way. Alaska has a population of 670,053 according to the 2006 Census estimate. They have 3 electoral votes. That gives an electoral vote to every 223,351 people in Alaska. Whereas New York state with a population of 19,306,183 and has 31 electoral votes. That gives an electoral vote to every 622,780 people in New York State. Alaska has nearly three times the proportional representation as New York. One electoral vote for nearly the entire population of Alaska in New York. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Dandandat | Nov 6 2008, 09:18 AM Post #27 |
|
Time to put something here
|
That is correct; But NY has 33 electoral college votes to Alaska's 3 that's 1100% more power in the union for NY then Alaska. Even with the electoral college in place, New Yorkers have an overwhelming amount of power to direct the nation over Alaskans. With out the college Alaskans might as well not even show up to vote. As their regional concerns would never be addressed because politicians would only address the regional concerns of New Yorkers (Texans and Californians - maybe Floridians and Pennsylvanians) everyone else might as well not exist in the union. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 6 2008, 09:58 AM Post #28 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
So do we.
|
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 6 2008, 09:59 AM Post #29 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Precisely. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Admiralbill_gomec | Nov 6 2008, 10:00 AM Post #30 |
|
UberAdmiral
|
Australia's population and GDP are smaller than the state of Texas. |
| Offline | Profile | | Quote | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |




2:14 PM Jul 11