Electoral College Reforms

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

the electorate is required, otherwise we could be taken over by a minority group with good voting practices (think if all the white supremists nationwide got together and wanted to elect one of their own, all they have to do is get all their numbers to vote and it's over... well, as long as all the white supremists nationwide made up 50%+1 of the voting public, which they probably would). Direct voting would make a mockery of our entire political system.

I don't understand your point at least with example your citing there. The minority population already has the power to elect the president and it has already made a mockery of our electoral system. The populations of some swing States in the midwest have more power to elect the President than the rest of the union and the power of South in undeniable, it would be next to impossible to win the Presidency without winning at least one southern state. Moreover, the Dems and Reps mobilize their bases - which are a minority power - to vote out there and added with the millions of votes that are thrown about in states where only the majority vote getter gets the electors, their power increases even more. So what you are saying is already happing, the few have power over the many.

Why should the populations of NY, CA, TX and other states be penalized just because of where they live? These populations are already checked by the Senate which checks the popular House, so why must there be yet another check on population? This goes against the spirit of liberty we seem to praise so much of yet for the election of the most powerful position in the world, it ok.

The argument that there must be balance between rural and urban is a folly, there is already representation for those in rural areas via the House they dont need another outlet for representation, least of all from the President that is supposed to represent the population as a whole and not one specific area. The reasons why the rural population would still need a voice because of the equal representation in the Senate. The problem of which you speak of is the Senate not Direct vote.

[Ardentfrost]

Let me break it down real simple for you: democracy allows 51% of the population to take away the rights of the other 49%. By allowing a simple majority of voters to decide anything in this country, you allow for things the founders protected against.

This has nothing to do with what checks and balances there are in place, it has to do with giving the ENTIRE nation a fair representation in a federal election.

[grembert]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Let me break it down real simple for you: democracy allows 51% of the population to take away the rights of the other 49%. By allowing a simple majority of voters to decide anything in this country, you allow for things the founders protected against.

This has nothing to do with what checks and balances there are in place, it has to do with giving the ENTIRE nation a fair representation in a federal election.

This was an important point with the founding fathers. They did not want majority rule, but for minority interests ( in this case, smaller states ) to be protected

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

we will maintain our republican form of government in which our leaders represent our interest

That's a representative democracy, not a representative republic.

I reckon you and I have gone over this many times. Do you know the difference between representative democracy and representative republic? Or do you just insist on not acknowledging the difference?

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Let me break it down real simple for you: democracy allows 51% of the population to take away the rights of the other 49%. By allowing a simple majority of voters to decide anything in this country, you allow for things the founders protected against.

This has nothing to do with what checks and balances there are in place, it has to do with giving the ENTIRE nation a fair representation in a federal election.

Ok I am getting real sick of hearing this. In a nation of over 100 million voting citizens there is no faction big enough that can do that, especially when you take into an account that free and direct elections of the president could have more than 2 major candidates. Your presumption is just theory, in small republic yes it does happen not in one this big. However, when the majority is fragmented and minority interests have weight then the tyranny of the minority can and do happen very easily but I guess thats ok with you?

And checks and balances are important, I dont think I need to prove to you what happens if we let anyone have power unchecked, whether its the majority or our leaders themselves. So as long as there is effective checks against the majority, then there should be direct elections. Again, the minority interests are already protected in the Senate and have a good voice in the House, don't dismiss this arguement as secondary, its a major part of the system. It just doesn't make sense that a country that prides itself on liberty, doesn't have it when it comes to the most important powerful part of government

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

That's a representative democracy, not a representative republic.

I reckon you and I have gone over this many times. Do you know the difference between representative democracy and representative republic? Or do you just insist on not acknowledging the difference?

I do have a habit of using it interchangeably but that is because the system is a hybrid, we elect the Senate and the house by direct elections but not the presidency. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, as much as you claim you support the systems of our government, your belief system speaks otherwise.

[grembert]

There was an expression, at one time, that states were like " laboratories ", and could lead the way in solving national problems. But over the past 15 years, authority has been taken away from states. The use of the National Guards, laws on education, for example, have limited states' ability to control their destinies. Having a direct election for president to me would be just another step in playing down the role of states. I admit to being biased on this topic, but I could just see presidential candidates flying back and forth between New York and LA., concentrating only on getting those votes.