The Electoral College Reform Discussion Page

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree. The only argument I hear about keeping the electoral college is that it prevents federalism, which is kind of bogus in itself.

It's actually supposed to promote federalism since the states are to chose how the electors are chosen. However, the states have since nearly it began given the choice of electors to the people, so the people indirectly chose the president now, which is counter to federalism since it really makes the states pointless in this regard.

[jabarto]

It's actually supposed to promote federalism since the states are to chose how the electors are chosen. However, the states have since nearly it began given the choice of electors to the people, so the people indirectly chose the president now, which is counter to federalism since it really makes the states pointless in this regard.

Maybe I chose my words poorly. I meant it more in the regards of preservation of state's rights, a concept that I deeply resent.

Or maybe that's wrong too. It's been a while since I seriously argued about the electoral college.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe I chose my words poorly. I meant it more in the regards of preservation of state's rights, a concept that I deeply resent.

Or maybe that's wrong too. It's been a while since I seriously argued about the electoral college.

Yeah it does preserve states rights since it is the "states" that are choosing the president with its electors. States have the ability to choose how their electors are chosen.

Elaborate on why you don't care for states rights and why it should not be a factor in choosing the president please.

[jabarto]

Yeah it does preserve states rights since it is the "states" that are choosing the president with its electors. States have the ability to choose how their electors are chosen.

Elaborate on why you don't care for states rights and why it should not be a factor in choosing the president please.

State's rights have historically given strong benefits to corporations at the expense of the people. Look at the credit card companies. They're all based in Delaware because that state is a corporate haven. But the kicker is that they can still operate in other states, even in ways that are illegal there, simply because of "state's rights". And since coporations are far more mobile than the average person...well, you can put two and two together. This isn't even touching on things like racism, for which some modern conservatives STILL trot out the "states' rights" line and which has, in the past, been an argument for such lovely things as segregation.

To clarify, I think the states *should* handle things that are unambiguously local, but there should always be federal oversight, and things that aren't unambiguously local - like healthcare, poverty, rasicm, etc. - should be entirely left to the federal government.

[Crazed Rabbit]

The reason that credit card companies can operate in other states is because people want to use their services. In fact, IIRC, the reason they can operate in all states is because of the opposite of state's rights - the commerce clause, preventing states from taxing or regulating goods from other states as though both states were sovereign nations. What you want is more states rights, so some states can ban certain credit card company practices.

I wouldn't mind a divvying up the electoral votes based on what percentage a candidate won in a state. So getting 40% of the vote gives you 40% of the electoral votes.

Having a simple majority vote would simply lead to candidates pandering to the largest groupings of people, and ignoring the rest.

CR

[Beskar]

The reason that credit card companies can operate in other states is because people want to use their services. In fact, IIRC, the reason they can operate in all states is because of the opposite of state's rights - the commerce clause, preventing states from taxing or regulating goods from other states as though both states were sovereign nations. What you want is more states rights, so some states can ban certain credit card company practices.

I wouldn't mind a divvying up the electoral votes based on what percentage a candidate won in a state. So getting 40% of the vote gives you 40% of the electoral votes.

Having a simple majority vote would simply lead to candidates pandering to the largest groupings of people, and ignoring the rest.

CR

Actually, he was advocating taxing them all the same. Then doing the same with national health service, etc, opposed to just "state" services.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, he was advocating taxing them all the same. Then doing the same with national health service, etc, opposed to just "state" services.

I'm pretty sure he's not talking about taxes.

CR

[Ironside]

I wouldn't mind a divvying up the electoral votes based on what percentage a candidate won in a state. So getting 40% of the vote gives you 40% of the electoral votes.

Having a simple majority vote would simply lead to candidates pandering to the largest groupings of people, and ignoring the rest.

CR

Divvying up the electoral vote in that way would have very similar effects as a general popular vote. Same pros and cons.

They do that with the electoral college, too. States with few votes or votes that come late in the game get altogether ignored. I can count he Democratic pres candidates visits in the last 4 elections on 1 hand, even the the state legislature has been historically democratic.

"Counts to 4 on 1 hand..."

[Crazed Rabbit]

"Counts to 4 on 1 hand..."

You know over half a dozen candidates try to get the Democratic party's presidential nomination each election cycle (without a Democratic incumbent) right?

That's 10 or so serious candidates over those 4 cycles, and 25 or more in total.

CR