Let's get rid of the Electoral College

Nixon was NOT impeached.
The American judicial system did NOTHING to remove him,
nor did it imply that he was not fit to govern.





David

As David has pointed out, Nixon was not impeached, nor was he removed from office by the judicial system. That he resigned, and that he may have done so to avoid impeachment is not evidence that his administration was incompetent. For example, a capitalist who engages in illegal activity can very well be competent, and may be using criminal methods to advance his capitalistic goals. Evidence of criminality is not evidence of incompetence. Quite apart from that, impeachment means to be accused of a criminal or other reprehensible act, it does not mean that he or she who has been impeached has been shown to have been guilty of criminal or reprehensible acts. Only two Presidents have been impeached, Andrew Johnson and William Clinton, and neither of them was convicted.

You state, ex cathedra, that Americans "lack any knowledge of world politics." This involves, of course, a gross characterization of all Americans which does your argument no credit. You cannot possibly know what degree and sophistication of a knowledge of world politics each and every American possesses. That you do not approve of the electoral system in the United States is not evidence that Americans "lack any knowledge of world politics"--this is one of the silliest charges you've levelled against Americans, and simply demonstrates once again your dedication to libelling Americans simply because they are Americans.

I repeat the charge of your ignorance because your remarks demonstrate that you lack basic knowledge of how the American electoral system works. It is not nonsense to point that out. To claim that i argue stupidly when i point out that you display an ignorance of the American political system reflects negatively on you, not on me. I have no idea what you mean by saying: ". . . as i don't resect you views . . ."--talk about animal noise!

Knowing how you would choose to vote is no measure at all of how much any given individual knows "how people work." Given that there was only one candidate listed as an independent--Ralph Nader--you'd have been free, of course, to waste your vote that way. You know nothing about the Democratic Party, obviously, if you believe that John McCain could ever have been nominated as their candidate--once again, you display your ignorance. If, in fact, McCain had not been endorsed by the Republican Party, had not been nominated by the Republican Party, he could not legally have been registered on ballots as the Republican candidate.

Your remark about the Electoral College choosing between the two worst candidates put forward is the expression of an opinion on your part, not a statement of fact. Once again, you display your ignorance. There were six candidates who were able to get their names on presidential ballots, and those of whom you are ignorant garnered somewhat more than one and a half million votes out of the somewhat more than 131,000,000 votes cast. Since your claim about the "worst candidates" could only reasonably be based on a comparison of all candidates, you obviously have no basis for your remark.

Once again, the Electoral College does not choose candidates, the people vote for the candidate of each voter's choice, and the college simply registers the outcome according to the instructions of the respective legislatures of the several states. You are missing altogether the significance of this debate for Americans, who do understand the system, and this is because, once again, you are ignorant of how the system works. For example, the member Robert Gentel objects strenuously to a particular aspect of the Electoral College which arguably is cause of the most dissatisfaction with the system on the part of Americans. I'm not going to tell you what that is, because if you were to genuinely inform yourself on how the system works, you would learn what that aspect of the College is. Both Joe and I have commented on the winner take all aspect of how the Electors are instructed to vote in almost all of the states. That is, apparently, something else of which you are ignorant. If you really wanted to learn how the College works, you would read the third clause of Article II, Section One of the Constitution, and you would read the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution, which amended that clause. Of course, this would still not explain to you why the Electoral College exists. I rather doubt, though, that you will inform yourself--you've given ample evidence that your only object here is to air your opinions from ignorance, while attempting to get a rise out Americans here by insulting them and their nation.

More of your ignorance: candidate are chosen in the summer, they are not chosen in January. Whoever wins the presidential election is inaugurated in his or her office in January. Furthermore, i did not say that any voter is compelled to vote for any party in an election. Speaking specifically of primary elections, i pointed out that in those states in which someone is required to register for a particular party, or as an independent, that person may not vote in the primary election of any party other than the one for which they have registered; further, i pointed out that in states in which there is no requirement to register with a party affiliation, a voter may vote in the primary for any one party, but only for one party, and may not vote in the primary election for any other party; finally, i pointed out that in the states which conduct caucuses rather than primary elections, people may only participate in the caucus for the party with which they are affiliated based on their voter registration. You are the one here who displays an inability to argue logically and intelligently; in your terms which you have used in your post, you argue "stupidly." Time and again, you erect straw men rather than fairly characterizing my remarks.

There is absolutely no reason to respond to your rants vilifying Americans and the United States. I am in no way obliged to disprove your invidious remarks about Americans and the United States, and you completely fail to provide any evidence for your silly insults.

See if you can't come up with something intelligent and informed to debate--so far, you've just puked up your ignorance and irrational hatred.

It is just amazing how routinely you display your ignorance. Edgarblythe has said that he would vote to eliminate the Electoral College--i would not. So EB has not expressed my "standpoint." Of course, if you had actually read this thread, you'd know that. But i have seen no evidence that you ever intend to remedy your ignorance--about the American political system, about the American Constitution, about Americans and the United States in general, or about this thread. Given your "contributions" as this site over the last few weeks, that is no surprise.

Obviously if you use the each and every American test.

Using the A2K test can lead to no other conclusion than the one FoW draws. I drew it long ago.

The EC, as I understand it, was a compromise at the Convention which tried to balance the elite's fear of the governed rabble against the elite's fear of the elite.

It has worked pretty well I must say and my guess is that you are stuck with it for the foreseeable future for the same reason it was chosen in the first place which is that they couldn't agree to anything else. They wanted neither a nation nor to continue with a confederation. So a federation chose itself.

Small in population, yet it is huge in terms of land area and energy, Alaska deserves to be heard with its miniscule 3 electoral votes, which is better than having virtually no say whatsoever, if lost in the sea of popular vote nationwide, a sea of popular vote that largely is ignorant of energy production and resources, especially those in urban centers. I think this point is just one point of the hundreds that could be made in favor of the electoral college.

See my reply in response to JTT. Case closed, electoral college wins.

Last point, some regional or state interests are more important than others, and alot of times those are relative to land area and resources, and one of those is definitely energy.

This is like arguing over whether there r too many stars in the sky.

No matter what anyone thinks, the small states will NOT
ratify an amendment to the Constitution that reduces their
political power qua electing a president.
Therefore, no change will happen.

Presumably, their representatives in each house of Congress
will also oppose an amendment there; hence, it woud probably
be prevented from getting a 2/3 majority in the Senate
and never even be submitted for ratification to the states.





David

What points were those. All I saw were insults and slander from you for most of us on this foram.

If there are hundreds of arguments that could be made in favor of the electoral college, why can't you come up with more than one?

Does it have to be an actual example, or would you accept a hypothetical?

My hypothetical would revolve around a candidate promising to create jobs and money in highly populated urban centers. Perhaps a Jesse Jackson type candidate promising to tax the farmers and suburbanites so the poor urban dwellers can get cheap energy, welfare, etc.

There are enough large urban centers in America that without the electoral college to constrain that from happening that the tyranny of the majority is enforced by a candidate who never campaigned in 90% of the country. Who doesn't represent the real majority of the country.

By giving a voice in who is elected to every citizen, we protect our own votes and make the President representative of the country, not a select region or environment.

But the demand for oil and the capital and technology to extract, refine and distribute it is far more important than merely knowing it is underneath the barren wastes.

I'll suggest a hypothetical. The least populated state finds a gold deposit which, if placed on the market, reduces the price of gold to $10 an ounce.

While i do think we should keep the Electoral College, and do consider it a hedge against the possibility of majoritarian tyranny by urban populations--i cannot help but observe that your hypothetical has racist overtones, is motivated by partisan prejudices, and is doesn't add up at all.



If there were no Electoral College, and a candidate were elected by the popular vote, just what "real majority" would you be referring to that you claim that candidate didn't represent?

You are a halfwit: there is no point in talking to you. I really hate to do this but I'm putting you on ignore

I think that unwisdom FoW.

Its rascist and stupid and very American> Perhaps only criminals should be elected: Name one criminal captialist you feel should be in charge: your defence of Nixon is laughable. Would you buy a used car from this man.
Your ignorance is only matched by your arrogance.

It might not add up in the eyes of the pretty things but in the real world of differential birth rates and immigrant concentrations it may very well add up in regard to preventing conflict.

I didn't defend Nixon, i simply pointed out that he was not impeached, that he was not removed by the judicial system, and that evidence of criminality does not constitute evidence of incompetence.

I've give you all the rope you've needed to hang yourself. You know nothing about the American political system, and constantly display as much. You are far too ignorant of our constitution and political system to make any kind of even superficial contribution to this topic. I intend to ignore you from now on. I won't use the ignore function, i don't need something like that to have enough sense to avoid stepping in a pile of manure which i find in my path.

Does that apply to all of us Set? It looks like it does.

Then you're still exposing yourself to whiffs of manure even if you step around them. The only reason I can see to do that is if you sometimes like the smell of manure (as many people on these threads seem to).