02-19-2004, 02:32 AM
Yep, that's the rub. The electoral college is a very strong reflection of the countries set-up. Things have changed.
People who really believe in popular vote for the president should also believe that we don't need a senate since it is the part of congress that doesn't represent people equally, it represents states equally. The house represents people equally, so just have the house. I made my analogy earlier, but as Pete stated, things have changed, the states, while still carrying power, are currently not as powerful as the individual European countries. But my analogy was for the when the system was created not for now. Of course even with the states having less power, is weakening regional representation (which is what the senate does for the states) still the best idea? Even with districting allowing regional representation based on type of population, is the coalition forming that will have to happen to get anything done for that better than having more power because of the structure of the senate?
I keep taking analogies in my head to a world governments or European government created with the state of the world right now. I keep trying to think how things would work if it was all popular and is it bad that China and India could basically decide the fate of the rest of the world? Maybe it is, but I like my thoughts better when I apply the US form of government and Presidental election to it.
I'm not sure that I like getting rid of the built in checks and balances that the electoral college has. As evidenced (especailly by the county map) of Bush v Gore. Bush really did have a much larger regional support than Gore, and the popular difference was slim enough that the popular governance issue was accounted for. I'm not convinced that regional representation isn't just as important in a presidental election. All the close elections have been won by the canidate with the more widespread support. I think I like the fact the system supports and encourages that.
A good sub link on my early site post is the Pros and Cons of the Electoral college an essay by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. William is obviously for the electoral college, but there are some good points raised and one of the most interesting arguments stating that a two party system is good. Some of my early points in this post are my thoughts on issues he raised as well. A good debate could be had on just that article alone. I'm not as convinced as he is that a popular vote is bad, but I don't think the current system is either.
It's a good debate, and the issues keep going deeper. :)
People who really believe in popular vote for the president should also believe that we don't need a senate since it is the part of congress that doesn't represent people equally, it represents states equally. The house represents people equally, so just have the house. I made my analogy earlier, but as Pete stated, things have changed, the states, while still carrying power, are currently not as powerful as the individual European countries. But my analogy was for the when the system was created not for now. Of course even with the states having less power, is weakening regional representation (which is what the senate does for the states) still the best idea? Even with districting allowing regional representation based on type of population, is the coalition forming that will have to happen to get anything done for that better than having more power because of the structure of the senate?
I keep taking analogies in my head to a world governments or European government created with the state of the world right now. I keep trying to think how things would work if it was all popular and is it bad that China and India could basically decide the fate of the rest of the world? Maybe it is, but I like my thoughts better when I apply the US form of government and Presidental election to it.
I'm not sure that I like getting rid of the built in checks and balances that the electoral college has. As evidenced (especailly by the county map) of Bush v Gore. Bush really did have a much larger regional support than Gore, and the popular difference was slim enough that the popular governance issue was accounted for. I'm not convinced that regional representation isn't just as important in a presidental election. All the close elections have been won by the canidate with the more widespread support. I think I like the fact the system supports and encourages that.
A good sub link on my early site post is the Pros and Cons of the Electoral college an essay by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration. William is obviously for the electoral college, but there are some good points raised and one of the most interesting arguments stating that a two party system is good. Some of my early points in this post are my thoughts on issues he raised as well. A good debate could be had on just that article alone. I'm not as convinced as he is that a popular vote is bad, but I don't think the current system is either.
It's a good debate, and the issues keep going deeper. :)
---
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.
It's all just zeroes and ones and duct tape in the end.