Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Why I Voted For Trump...
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIt is indeed incredibly undemocratic. Just like each state getting two Senators regardless of population.
But that is exactly why the Founding Fathers designed it that way. They wanted a Republic, not a Democracy.
EDIT: I should provide proof of this. Here is James Madison's statement. Most of it is an argument as to why the president should not be chosen by the legislature, but at the end he explains the reason for dismissing the popular vote:
"If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."
Source
Originally posted by Ronson View PostIf not for the EC, states with the biggest cities and densest populations would win every national election.
Places like Montana and Utah may as well secede under a strict democracy.
Originally posted by JimL View PostNot to mention the votes that went to Jill Stein.Last edited by Terraceth; 12-10-2019, 07:48 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAnd what is that difference, CP?
The "several states" were left to govern themselves where the national interest wasn't greater.
The "several states" are not "the united counties of the states" or any such thing, they are each their own entity.
There are less populated rural areas and more populated big cities within states and we don't have an EC system in state.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostWhich is preferable to the states that are swing states winning every national election?
You say this as if they have a strong voice in the electoral college. They don't; the electoral college increases it slightly but only marginally. They might as well secede under the electoral college by this logic.
Just a thought.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostThey went with the electoral college because it allowed the states with a lot of slaves to use those slaves for voting power despite not actually letting them vote.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View PostI might prefer a parliamentary-type vote like they have in Britain, in how they elect their prime minister. Maybe let the House and Senate cast votes for president.
Just a thought.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ronson View PostI might prefer a parliamentary-type vote like they have in Britain, in how they elect their prime minister. Maybe let the House and Senate cast votes for president.
Just a thought.
And like prime ministers, normally presidents elected by their legislatures tend to have fairly limited powers. Which makes a good amount of sense, honestly... if the president is elected directly by the legislature, why invest them with a bunch of power rather than just giving it to the legislature in the first place?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:06 AM
|
3 responses
108 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, Yesterday, 07:03 AM
|
16 responses
91 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 02:40 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-17-2024, 09:51 AM
|
0 responses
20 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
05-17-2024, 09:51 AM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
0 responses
32 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
05-16-2024, 05:00 PM
|
||
Started by seer, 05-16-2024, 11:43 AM
|
217 responses
876 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by carpedm9587
Today, 08:04 AM
|
Comment