|
|
#31
11-05-2007, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: settle this debate! (a dumb one)
[ QUOTE ]
I could refer you to the Federalist papers. The system, as many things in the U. S. Constitution, was a compromise. It should also be noted that most of the authors of the Constitution regarded democracy as something to be feared, not something desirable, and felt that a popular vote was not a good way to choose a chief executive. [/ QUOTE ] That's not true. If it were, then the 13 other chief executives around at the time (the state governors) would have also been chosen by a weird two-stage election. But no, they were all chosen by direct election. 
|
|
#32
11-05-2007, 06:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: settle this debate! (a dumb one)
It wasn't just the slave states. Smaller states in general wanted to make sure that they weren't dominated by the larger states. The electoral college and the Senate (in which each state gets two senators, regardless of population) were implemented to get the smaller states to support the Constitution. Note that Virginia, a slave state was a high population state, (I think) second to New York. To say that the electoral college or the senate were implemented for the sole purpose of protecting the slave states is a gross over-simplification, if not just plain wrong. Also, the 3/5 thing was a compromise. The slave states wanted slaves counted as whole people for the purpose of determining how many representatives they go(not that they had any intention of letting them vote). The free states didn't want to count them at all. Now, I'm not defending the idea of counting slaves as 3/5 of a human being, and I'm certainly not defending slavery, but you seem to have a very poor understanding of what actually went into the making of the Constitution.
I think to say that the Electoral College is evil, archaic and pointless is an overstatement. While I personally would support replacing it with a direct popular election, if a majority were required to win (with a runoff if no one got a majority, or an "instant runoff", where voters would pick a second choice) I would not support replacing it with a direct popular vote that allowed a candidate to win with a plurality that is not a majority. I think the current system is better than that.
|
|
#33
11-05-2007, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: settle this debate! (a dumb one)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I could refer you to the Federalist papers. The system, as many things in the U. S. Constitution, was a compromise. It should also be noted that most of the authors of the Constitution regarded democracy as something to be feared, not something desirable, and felt that a popular vote was not a good way to choose a chief executive. [/ QUOTE ] That's not true. If it were, then the 13 other chief executives around at the time (the state governors) would have also been chosen by a weird two-stage election. But no, they were all chosen by direct election. [/ QUOTE ] Direct election by white male property owners. Read some contemporary writing. The founding fathers, for the most part, were not enthusiastic about democracy.
|
|
#34
11-05-2007, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: settle this debate! (a dumb one)
[ QUOTE ]
Colorado is winner take all. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe they were trying to change it, for some reason its in my head. I believe Nebraska and Maine use the district method, but have never had to split votes.
|
|
#35
11-05-2007, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: settle this debate! (a dumb one)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Colorado is winner take all. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe they were trying to change it, for some reason its in my head. I believe Nebraska and Maine use the district method, but have never had to split votes. [/ QUOTE ] I think there might have been an amendment to the state constitution proposed. We get so many of the damned things, since in Colorado you can get amendments to the state constitution on the ballot by petition (much too easily IMO), that I tend to forget them after they've failed.
|
|
#36
11-05-2007, 07:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: settle this debate! (a dumb one)
[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't just the slave states. Smaller states in general wanted to make sure that they weren't dominated by the larger states. The electoral college and the Senate (in which each state gets two senators, regardless of population) were implemented to get the smaller states to support the Constitution. Note that Virginia, a slave state was a high population state, (I think) second to New York. To say that the electoral college or the senate were implemented for the sole purpose of protecting the slave states is a gross over-simplification, if not just plain wrong. Also, the 3/5 thing was a compromise. The slave states wanted slaves counted as whole people for the purpose of determining how many representatives they go(not that they had any intention of letting them vote). The free states didn't want to count them at all. Now, I'm not defending the idea of counting slaves as 3/5 of a human being, and I'm certainly not defending slavery, but you seem to have a very poor understanding of what actually went into the making of the Constitution. I think to say that the Electoral College is evil, archaic and pointless is an overstatement. While I personally would support replacing it with a direct popular election, if a majority were required to win (with a runoff if no one got a majority, or an "instant runoff", where voters would pick a second choice) I would not support replacing it with a direct popular vote that allowed a candidate to win with a plurality that is not a majority. I think the current system is better than that. [/ QUOTE ] The advantage to small states is true, but not really relevant (because small states are naturally less important electorally). Check this out: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20011130.html
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
