Should the U.S. presidential election be decided by direct vote?
Hellz Yea!
Side Score: 48
|
 |
No Way.
Side Score: 31
|
|
|
|
|
The electoral college was originally intended to serve as a safety mechanism to protect against an ignorant mass of people electing a woefully unqualified president. But, in practice the electors elect their designated presidential candidate without exception - removing the only legitimate reason for having an electoral college. What's more, the electoral college marginalizes the value of votes in states where there's the demographics are sided towards one political party or another. Side: Hellz Yea!
If not by direct vote, I think that the process should be made more complex to allow a more thorough hierarchal system. I think the only way to have a big government, where people interact as citizens with the federal government, it needs to be able to reach across the U.S. What I mean is, take the Federal government and split it three ways. Western, Central, and Eastern, then down to states, and then splice each state into three's and have smaller federal outposts, and then break it down even further, to allow each city within a county to have at least three, city-stationed federal establishments so that people don't have to drive to churches and whatnot. Make it easy to access. It's just an idea, but these Federal establishments will streamline the process of tallying votes and communicating the results to a higher federal establishment that passes on and collects the information. I cannot say by which media the votes will be captured, because as of now, electronic voting systems are too unstable and can easily be tampered with. Paper, well, wastes paper. So I definitely think there should be a tally system, and tallies that preserve the information of the voter, so that in the end documentation can be made and checked for consistency by any U.S. citizen. Side: Hellz Yea!
4
points
3
points
In my opinion, The simple fact that the electoral college can vote anyway they see fit to shows that the u.s. president is elected by an elite few not the people. If say in a close election, like in 2000, where Gore won the popular vote, but bush won the electoral college who really appointed the president? doesn't seem like the people If say in a close election the elector's where persuaded to vote against the way the people had voted thats perfectly legal. Who choose the president? But in the end we only really had the illusion of choice, because the media does our thinking for us. Side: Hellz Yea!
2
points
|
The electoral college is better than a direct popular vote in the following ways: - Contributes to the cohesiveness of the country by requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, - Enhances the status of minority interests, -Contributes to the political stability of the nation by encouraging a two-party system, -Maintains a federal system of government and representation. Moving to a popular direct vote system would incentivize a multitude of minor parties to form in an attempt to prevent the popular majority necessary to elect a president. The surviving candidates would be drawn to the regionalist or extremist views represented by these parties in hopes of winning the popular election. Side: No Way.
The two-party farce of a system is part of the cause of governmental rot. Rather than providing stability, it has morphed into a big show of 'good cop/bad cop' where both sides know there's no other option for the people. So we really have no choice in representation, and all arguments are framed within a false dichotomy. Side: Hellz Yea!
The electoral system also contributed to over two trillion dollars of debt, hundreds of thousands of deaths in Iraq, and a plummeting dollar by making sure that Bush became president instead of Gore. Lastly, who said a two-party system was the best? Many governments are succesfully run with more than two parties. Let people directly vote for their President. Side: Hellz Yea!
Our system was not designed as a democracy, but as a democratic-republic. The framers of the constitution looked at many historical examples of democracies to determine which systems worked and which didn't. They came up with a blended method, which continues to work. It's not perfect, and it could certainly use some tweaks. But I don't believe that opening up the direct vote to every Joe-6-pack is necessarily a good idea. The electoral college offers a balance against a possible tyranny of populism. Side: No Way.
1
point
The electoral college was originally set up in order to provide for a unique voting block for each elected portion of the federal government (the house voted by direct election, the senate by state legislatures [since superseded by amendment]) and to ensure presidents were selected by properly informed individuals. The biggest problem with the system today is how the state legislatures have set up the selection process for the actually electors. In every state the electors are nominated by the parties at their conventions and on election day the people choose the slate of electors pledged to a candidate (so if you voted for Bush in 2000, you actually voted for the republican slate of electors who were already pledged to Bush). I believe we would be better off to have the electors campaign and be elected individual based on their beliefs and then they vote as they see fit rather then as a slate for a certain candidate. This would allow the people to select someone who's views were similar to their own and this person could select the best candidate. This may seem anti-democratic but remember we live in a republic, democracies are dangerous things. Side: No Way.
-2
points
The electoral college does not provide even amounts of say to smaller states; it is portioned out in the same manner as Congress (i.e. according to population). Larger states hold more electoral power than smaller states (I speak here of population sizes, not physical area). Indeed, it is possible under the current system to take about one-third of the country's states and still obtain electoral success. That said, I find good reason for the electoral college to continue to exist, not least because it puts a specifically defined end to the legal quibbling over elections. This I like. What I do not support, and have never supported, is the "winner-take-all" system currently in place. At this point, getting 50%+1 of the popular vote in any state guarantees you the electoral vote from that state. While states like Wyoming or New Mexico (3 votes and 5, respectively) do not swing much weight even under this system, California and New York do. If the college instead split votes according to the popular vote margins, with the "excess" votes going to the winner, the electoral college would become a far more effective and fair selection. The Constitution provides for cases in which a single candidate does not obtain sufficient votes to gain a clear majority; the remainder of the rules would remain in force. Side: No Way.
2
points
And you believe that's not happening now? Elections are known to hang on, just waiting for results from particular states, like Florida. Republicans in California may as well not even vote there, as it just gets canceled out by the electors. Same for Democrats in Texas. Side: No Way.
|
