The Electoral College Sucks

[Moliere]

I like the electoral college a lot more than a nationwide popular vote. It doesn’t matter if it was conceived to appease southern slave owners as that fact doesn’t negate its efficacy in current times.

[frank ryan]

He hates all the gerrymandering.

Shouldn't everyone?

[creekster]

The law of unintended consequences is at work here. No highly complex social construction can be adequately modeled such that when a social policy is implemented that all consequences are predictable. The unintended consequences may be a net positive or negative independent of the original arguments for or against the policy. Knowing the original argument is obviously useful, as it should inform any future decisions on change to an enacted policy. However, a claim of irrelevancy on grounds of original arguments is invalid. In fact, the 230 year gap is of significant importance, the culture, technology, population, etc. has changed so drastically that the assumptions that would form the basis for original arguments are most likely untenable at this point.

Discussion and argumentation should primarily be about likely intended consequences given current societal norms and broadened understanding of the human psyche.

The constitution is not a policy or an argument.

[creekster]

Shouldn't everyone?

I think that would be up to them.

[Walter Sobchak]

Shouldn't everyone?

:facepalm:

Somewhere, David Burge is weeping.

[BlueK]

Without reading back in this thread much, are you in favor of a national popular vote?

yeah, I think I am because the EC is not doing what it was intended to do in the first place anyway.

[BlueK]

I wonder what BlueK thinks of the Senate?

The senate is fine as is.

[BlueK]

The constitution is not a policy or an argument.

Agreed. And there is a process for amending it as needed.

But interestingly, with the Electoral College it wouldn't really even need that because the Constitution gives states complete freedom in handing out the electoral votes however they want.

[swampfrog]

The constitution is not a policy or an argument.

Semantics, maybe wrong word? The constitution is amendable, which is similar in nature to a policy, it just has a more robust mechanism for change. Though the argument remains the same. If some believe the need for the electoral college has ended and are willing to invoke said mechanisms (which will require argumentation), then simply establishing a change to the assumptions of the original arguments is necessary but insufficient. We are not the same society.

It's the same problem with invoking the inscription at the statue of liberty as justification for open borders. Even if that inscription was part of the original statue (it wasn't), invoking sentiment from well over 200 years ago is not sufficient argument. Things have changed--and those changes have to be articulated and examined.

[BlueK]

I like the electoral college a lot more than a nationwide popular vote. It doesn’t matter if it was conceived to appease southern slave owners as that fact doesn’t negate its efficacy in current times.

What is the current efficacy outside of purely political benefits to one side or the other? If we had a multi-party system I could see the usefulness of it. But we don't have that and probably never will.

[BlueK]

He hates all the gerrymandering.

Ha ha. It would be wild if they could re-draw the lines of the states.

[Moliere]

What is the current efficacy outside of purely political benefits to one side or the other? If we had a multi-party system I could see the usefulness of it. But we don't have that and probably never will.

It preserves power at the state level, which power has rapidly diminished over the past 100 or so years. The tenth amendment is almost null and void at this point. But I think the idea of being governed at the state level moreso than at the federal level is more important.

A nationwide popular vote for president would ensure we’d have a president that is elected by the urban and suburban areas of the nation. The rural areas would have little to no say. That’s already the case with senators who are no longer elected by state reps but instead by statewide popular vote.

I guess I’m a bit tainted in that I have in-laws that live in a rural area of a liberal state. They feel like they have no say in state government and the enacted regulations are driving their businesses a couple miles east to Idaho, which hasn’t yet become as anti rural as their current state of residence.

[All-American]

if true, it's an irrelevant argument because that's not why it was instituted nor does it solve that issue. Read the article.

I did. Not irrelevant at all. It was never intended that the people directly choose their president. The EC mitigates at least some consequences of presidential election by vote of the people.

[Pelado]

yeah, I think I am because the EC is not doing what it was intended to do in the first place anyway.

Then maybe it's time to get a new Executive Committee.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Then maybe it's time to get a new Executive Committee.

Pelado is on a roll this week.