I wouldn't trust a redneck voter either. Our founding fathers were smart people they anticipated the dumb ignorant voters this country produces. The one issue voters obviously cant see in the future like the president. The voters that vote for the same party as their parents did obviously cant be independent. If you dont know what the electoral college is, dont worry about it.
2006-09-08 20:13:31 · 14 answers · asked by Sundown 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The electoral college was designed to help voters because of transportation and information limitations. The idea was that due to those limitations, they could elect a local representative to basically do the dirty work for them.
Most ppl don't have time in their daily lives to keep informed on legislation, etc... so the concept makes perfect sense.
As far as what you said about ignorant redneck voters, etc... I tend to agree with you. Sometimes I think all voters should have to pass a political aptitude test before they are allowed to vote.
2006-09-12 19:51:13 · answer #1 · answered by BeachBum 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, the founding fathers expected much more independence in the Electoral College than the electors have ever shown. It is almost unknown for an elector to vote other than for the candidate he or she said he or she would vote for,
So an elector elected by "Dumb ignorant voters" would vote the way they wanted.
Meanwhile, the composition of the Electoral College gives a disportionate weight to the votes of lightly populated states.
There is a defense to be made of this, but the Electoral College is inherantly less democratic than a popular vote would be.
The founding fathers also distrusted pure democracy enough that they did not demand a popular vote in elections for the Senate.
That changes throughout the 19th century, on a state by state basis, and finally by an amendment to the US Constitution.
Would you like to see a return to Senators being elected by state legislatures?
I would prefer to see the college abolished, but, as you say, the founding fathers were smart people and two hundred years of a system in place shouldn't be ignored.
But the first generation after the Constitution did change the electoral process--for example, you will recall that the president used to be the person with the most votes from the college and the vice-president the person with the second most--which meant John Adams's vice president was Thomas Jefferson, a man who bitterly opposed him. And in 1800, there was a strong political play to have the man Jefferson's party ran as vice-president, Aaron Burr, made president because he and Jefferson were tied in the electoral college.
So the founding fathers themselves changed the system they created.
2006-09-09 03:32:43 · answer #2 · answered by o41655 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of good intentions, there isn't any system that cannot be corrupted by people seeking control or power. The electoral college in itself is neither good nor bad. The problem with the system lays in the redistricting that goes on endlessly. Politicians have practiced Gerrymandering for so long that voting districts, the districts that vote for the electoral college reps, are so lopsided it's pathetic. And if that isn't bad enough, look at what happened in Florida during the Bush/Gore election. A governor can just up and decided that 10000 votes in a district, a district know to be in opposition, don't count at all.
2006-09-09 07:53:52 · answer #3 · answered by Overt Operative 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent 'Mob Democracy or Mobocracy' from people that were not well educated in the 1700s to elect the President and Vice President.
People still vote for the corrupt parties: Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats and Republicans have lost the White House due to the Electoral College,so they even out.
Consider the Libertarian Party of America.
2006-09-09 03:27:15 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
In principle, the electoral college is wrong. It denies the democratic freedom of choice. On the other hand, pure democracy usually only works in small countries with well educated citizens. The USA does not qualify on either point. Having said that, I would still abolish the electoral college and take the chance that Americans will do the right thing when they have the power and responsibility to do so.
2006-09-09 03:26:58 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe the system used by Maine and Nebraska for appointing electors would be better if used throughout all the states, especially California, where such a large amount of people are having the value of their vote depreciated by the winner take all system we have in place. By giving an elector to each congressional disctrict, I believe that the wishes of all U.S citizens as a whole would be better represented.
2006-09-09 03:24:25 · answer #6 · answered by chris 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I do know what the electoral college is and I do not believe it to be a good thing - the majority popular vote should elect the President and Vice-President.
I think with the attitude and beliefs you have expressed here, I surely wouldn't want you casting any of the electoral votes.
2006-09-09 03:20:26 · answer #7 · answered by Annie 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's not inherently bad. It slightly normalizes the votes across the states.
But it is very badly implemented. As implemented (by the states), it ensures a two-party system and closes out any minor parties.
2006-09-09 03:15:12 · answer #8 · answered by coragryph 7 · 5⤊ 0⤋
No, it is outdated and just benefits the politicians and not the citizens. In this day and age it truly is a dinosaur.
2006-09-09 05:49:43 · answer #9 · answered by Thomas S 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its outdated, it was designed for a time that had no mass communication, we should move to a straight up popular vote.
2006-09-09 03:23:39 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋