Opinion Talk

By rich in roswell

November 5, 2007 7:23 PM | Link to this

you dont want to junk the electoral college. the only reason its being discussed is because folks point to a disastrous presidency with bush. but, the electoral college was put in place by jefferson because he feared the tyranny of the urban populace as much as he feared the potentially oppressive nature of a simple majority, ie…this is the reason why we have a senate. so, if we wish to be consistent then if the electoral college goes away then so to should the senate leaving all votes to the house and its representation of the popular will.

bad bad idea.

By Billy

November 5, 2007 10:13 PM | Link to this

this is the reason why we have a senate.

Yes. So let the Senate do its job of “protecting the little states”. People who live in small states shouldn’t have votes worth more than those in other states. Why divide the vote by states today anyway? The Ga/Fla/Ala water war is the first state-versus-state issue I’ve really heard about in a while. Like it or not, we’re a more federalized nation now. Georgians have never been as similar to Californians as they are today, and Californians never as similar to Hawai’ians. We can move from state to state with little effort and are occasionally required to do so by our jobs. I am not a Georgian first and an American second.

We should go the popular vote route so someone from Wyoming doesn’t have more pull than a Californian or Texan. Or how about if we keep the electoral system but do away with the two electors per state from their Senators?

Perhaps if Bush’s Fla campaign chair weren’t also in charge of the state’s election during a year in which thousands of black voters were purged from voter rolls for fabricated crimes there wouldn’t be any litigation necessary during a popular election…

By John C. Snider

November 6, 2007 8:02 AM | Link to this

I’m for popular elections, for a couple of reasons. One, the vast public perception is that they are voting for the president, not the electors. If the electors actually decided to vote en mass against the popular vote, we’d have riots on our hands. Two, the electoral vote has only rarely gone against the popular vote, so it seems the Framers created a system to prevent a problem that isn’t really a problem.

www.americanfreethought.com

By Anonymous

November 6, 2007 8:05 AM | Link to this

The usual argument is that abolishing the EC would be “unfair to the less populous states.”

Of course, the current system is unfair to the MORE populous states, but no one seems to mind that.

By Rick in Lawrenceville

November 6, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

I would like to support the “popular” vote, but our elections can be targeted by non-citizens!

Our elections are open to significant voter fraud.

Boards of Elections across the country have not been checking the citizenship of voters. This is one of the essential requirements of voting in any local, state, or federal elections. Most Boards of Elections will readily admit that citizenship checks are not being done.

This opens up the possibility that voter fraud by non-citizens/illegal aliens could affect the outcomes of many political races across the country, especially with the number of close elections.

The following states currently grant or in the recent past have granted drivers licenses to illegal aliens:

(1) New Mexico (2) Maine (3) Hawaii (4) Michigan (5) Oregon (6) Utah, has issued a different type of license to illegal aliens after 2005 (7) Washington (8) Maryland (9) North Carolina until August, 2006 (10) Tennessee until May, 2007

Elections in these states are certainly open to fraud by illegal aliens since they possess government issued photo identification needed to cast a ballot at a polling center.

Elections in other states are at risk due to the reciprocity agreements between states to exchange drivers licenses between these states and those that do not “originally” grant these licenses to illegal aliens. These new drivers licenses are granted without citizenship checks.

Voters are signing affidavits affirming their US citizenship under penalty of perjury. However, significant numbers of illegal aliens have procured and presented false documents for employment purposes and to obtain other benefits given only to US citizens. This evidence suggests that the mere penalty of perjury will not deter non-citizens from falsely affirming their US citizenship for voting purposes. They have a large stake in the outcomes of local, state, and federal elections.

I ask what will be done to prevent voter fraud from non-citizens affecting the outcomes of our election processes?

By Anonymous

November 6, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this

I ask, what has been done to prevent electoral fraud via privately-owned voting machines with no code review, no paper trail, and easy access to hacking the results? That’s an existing problem, not just a potential one.

By Mara

November 7, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this

proportional voting, that’s the ticket. Assigning electors to the College by proportion of voters per candidate. Example: In a state like Georgia, with 15 electors…Candidate A gets 30 percent of the popular vote, she gets 5 electoral votes (of course, one would have to do some rounding to avoid a Soloman-like splitting of a delegate LOL!). Candidate B gets 20 percent, he is allocated 3 votes and Candidate Y, who gets 50 percent, gets the other seven votes.

The current winner-take-all approach negates the votes of those who don’t support the winning candidate. Conservatives in California are ignored as much as liberals in Kansas. It doesn’t seem fair for their votes not to count.

By bob

November 7, 2007 8:32 AM | Link to this

The founding fathers were right about most of the things they did, including the electoral system. Why should a few states like NY and CA elect the Pres. We may as well just split up now and let the lefties have their states and the righties have thiers. Of course after a few years the lefties will have to be kept out with a fence because the will be a country full of people waiting for handouts.

By Benjamin Bonner

November 7, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this

As usual the AJC and most for profit media peddlers don’t give you enough information to make an informed decision about anything important in government. If you want brief factual information read “The Electoral College” by William C. Kimberling, former Deputy Director of FEC, Office of Election Administration. You can search his name and article title on the net. The article is about 20 pages long and it may give you a different perspective on the electoral college.

By Deborah

November 7, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

Bob - if they moved all uneducated people (i.e., can’t spell or use proper grammar) like you to one area of the country, that would be fine with me.

By John

November 7, 2007 11:15 PM | Link to this

Deborah, attacking the messenger and not the message leads me to believe you’re a Liberal and the worst kind of Democrat. Your kind will be the Death of America as a free society.

By dionysis

November 8, 2007 5:50 AM | Link to this

The main problem in the arguements posted here for the popular vote is the misconception that we live in a Democracy. We do not. Our form of govt is a Constitutional Republic. The electoral college forces candidates to address the concerns of Montana, Wyoming and others instead of focusing on Newark, NYC, LA etc. Our founding Fathers were wise indeed

By Anonymous

November 8, 2007 8:29 AM | Link to this

And, as already stated, the electoral college gives greater representation to the “smaller” (i.e., less populous) states. How exactly is that WISER than giving everyone equal representation?

Just saying “I prefer the red states to have more disproportionate influence in our government” is not a principle, and it’s certainly not a cornerstone of wise governance.

By Mara

November 8, 2007 8:39 AM | Link to this

Bob said “Of course after a few years the lefties will have to be kept out with a fence because the will be a country full of people waiting for handouts.”

I suppose that’s true, but not in the way you meant it. “Blue” states, that is, those that tilt liberal, give substantially more in taxes than they receive in benefits. “Red” states get more benefits than they pay in taxes.

So who was it again that will be sitting around waiting for handouts? That’s right…conservatives.

By Mike

November 9, 2007 8:33 AM | Link to this

Mara -

Your logic is childish and wrong. Even if red states receive more benefits than they give in taxes, that does not mean that conservatives are taking those benefits. There are still plenty of non-conservatives in these red states.

Of course, while we are comparing Red and Blue states, we should take a look at chartiable giving. Citizens in red states give far more of their income to charity than do those in blue states. How about that?

By Rosey

November 9, 2007 5:09 PM | Link to this

The election should have always been based on the popular vote.Had it been ,Gore would’ve been president,doing his job instead of playing golf in 2001.

By Rosey

November 9, 2007 5:25 PM | Link to this

Response to Mara&Mike

(Gettin’ on the Soap box…. just a sec…) Okay-this went from EC vs popular vote all the way to “handouts” Now I’m going to speak my peace as far as the “Conservatives” Go. Conservative-the definition of that word should read well to do religious freak on Sunday but raging party animal anytime they think they won’t get caught.Screaming about morals and taxes so they can keep more money in their pockets because there is no rule in the book of Morals (the bible)about loving thy neighbor or helping their fellow man.A single mother of 3,2 with disabilities,I work&go to school full time.I get no help from anyone,can’t even get the state to help with child support because the “CONSERVATIVES” decided that poor people were getting to much help or some something.Handouts? No I don’t think its handouts they want they’d have to take their hands out of their pockets for that.

By Rosey

November 9, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this

Charitable giving???? Take a look at the “charities” that they give too,arte they in this state,or the state where they live,what type of charities,who they are run by,see my personal opinion,though it has no value at all,is that at least 75% oif the charities that most politicians,red blue green yellow purple polka-doit are just somewhere they can drop off money til they need it again or so they can get something in return.For instance the businessmen that help&helps,not too much but just enough to get publicity.Not because the people need it,not for the salvation of his soul or because its the right thing to do but to get his name out there so ask yourself Mike is it really charity or payment for services renedered.

By Dave

November 10, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this

What a good idea. Then we can let the five largest states elect all our presidents and we in the smaller states can just stand back and watch and pray.

By Jim

November 10, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

When I was a young high school student, I was certain that the electoral college should be eliminated. It seemed so obvious — let the popular vote rule. However, as I’ve gained the wisdom of age, I realize how lucky we are to have the electoral college for the only two federal nationwide offices in which every voter can participate. We are not an homogenous nation. We are a “united” group of different and individual states. Over the past 250 years the population has continually become more concentrated in a few major metropolitan areas along our coastal regions. A national popular vote would dilute the representaion of the the vast central areas of the country. People living in states like Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota and many others would be entirely at the mercy of the people living in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and the other crowded megalopolises. That’s wrong. The electoral college works well in giving fair representation to all states, just as we balance the total number of elected congressional members (representatives and senators) among the varied states.

By CJ

November 11, 2007 7:50 AM | Link to this

First, if a developing country like Brazil can hold nationwide elections without recounts, then we should be able to do so as well (Brazil has electronic voting machines that are proven reliable and in which the people have confidence).

Second, no person should sit in the oval office because of easily manipulated quirks in our electoral system. For example, as we speak, friends of Rudy Guliani are trying to manipulate the electoral system only in California to make it even easier for a Republican to win the White House without the popular vote.

Last, it’s ludicrous to suggest that the vote of a person who lives in a less populous state should count more than the vote of a person who lives in more populous state or city. One person…one vote.

It’s long past time to scrap the electoral college.

By Tara

November 11, 2007 10:40 AM | Link to this

I agree with CJ on the one person, one vote thing.

When I vote for President, I’m not voting as a representative of my state; I’m voting as an individual. So my vote should not count any more or any less than any other individual’s vote because of where I happen to live at the time that I cast my ballot.

One person…one vote? Yes. The electoral college needs to go.

By Bill

November 12, 2007 7:05 PM | Link to this

I think we should abolish popular voting altogether or at least intitute some type of test showing knowledge of history, economics, etc. before being allowed to vote.

By GaLiberal

November 12, 2007 9:36 PM | Link to this

No. The electoral college levels the playing field preventing states with large populations from controlling the entire election process. Politicians would only campaign in large population states with like CA and NY to get elected. Well, maybe that’s a good thing. That way all the uneducated, racist, redneck, homophobic people that put Bush/Cheney into office TWICE wouldn’t matter.

When you vote Rethuglicon, you vote against your own best interests. And Bush/Cheney are living proof.

By Anonymous

November 13, 2007 8:37 AM | Link to this

GaLiberal, your final point is a good one—unless you’re rich or stupid, voting Republican is a bad idea—but the “level playing field” already doesn’t exist.

There are already a large number of states that candidates of either major party can safely ignore, year after year. Remember the term “swing states”? That was a way of saying “the states whose votes actually MATTER.”

By M'Karyl

November 13, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

It is my understanding the Electoral College was created because it was believed at the time of its inception that the average American who was eligible to vote was not erudite, astute, literate or well-enough informed to be responsible for electing a Presidential candidate solely by popular vote.

I would like to believe that we as citizens of a Republic are well passed the need to have this “reassurance” of electing a qualified candidate left to the authority of the Electoral College process. I think that it is a disservice to the voting citizens of this country to continue allowing this process of electing our president. Abolish it!

By Anonymous

November 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this

That’s another good point. Remember, we needed a Constitutional amendment to directly elect our senators, too… because “the masses” couldn’t be trusted with too much input into the government.

By M'Karyl

November 13, 2007 12:55 PM | Link to this

I think that the entire electoral process needs to be evaluated by a more modern standard of procedures. What exactly should they be? I am not 100% certain, I do have some ideas and I have also listened to comments by others as well.

We must begin to govern ourselves as citizens of a Republic and we must most certainly begin asserting our rights to a government of the people, for the people and by the people by becoming more actively involved in how we elect our representative officials.

What comes to mind is the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin. When ask by young citizen what type of government the delegates has given the American people, he was said to have replied “…a Republic, dear, if you can keep it.”

By M'Karyl

November 13, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

I think that the entire electoral process needs to be evaluated by a more modern standard of procedures. What exactly should they be? I am not 100% certain, I do have some ideas and I have also listened to comments by others as well.

We must begin to govern ourselves as citizens of a Republic and we must most certainly begin asserting our rights to a government of the people, for the people and by the people by becoming more actively involved in how we elect our representative officials.

What comes to mind is the famous quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin. When ask by young American citizen what type of government the delegates has given the American people, he was said to have replied “…a Republic, dear, if you can keep it.”

By M'Karyl

November 13, 2007 1:02 PM | Link to this

Bill, this is why we have the Civil Rights Voting Act in place because various test, taxes, fees, etc. were used to prevent eligible voters from doing so-mostly black, Southern and poor in fact.

Any tax paying citizen of the Republic who has reached the age of voting consent should be allowed to vote.

By 2D

November 13, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

I guess the debate on WHY the electoral college exists hinges on the public education we received growing up. My understanding of the college was for a variety of reasons:

A color coded map showed that Gore won the heavily urban areas, and President Bush won everything else.

President Bush was the leading vote getter in more States than Gore.

President Bush was the leading vote getter in more Counties than Gore.

President Bush was the leading vote getter in more preceints than Gore.

President Bush’s party won both Houses of Congress.

So, upon further analysis, the “popular vote” does not tell the entire story. In this case the college achieved exactly what I believe it’s primary purpose was, to prevent one region, in this case the urban centers, from dominating the selectiion of the Chief Executive of this country.

On a side note, quite frankly, I think making Senators directly voted upon was the second worst Ammendment ever passed, after Income Tax. The Senate has far too much power to allow for the masses to directly vote on them. Too many voters simply do not understand what they are voting for, or in the case of 2006’s Montana election, the candidate didn’t even know he was running for Senate.

I also believe that the Senate would be a more civil and moderate chamber if we went back to the old system with the Governor appointing and the State Legislatures approving. In many states, there is sharing of power among the Governor and Legislatures. That would lead to more moderate, even-keeled appointments. Not the partisan ones we see today. Take Massachusettes for example, there’s no way those two knuckleheads would still be Senators because Governor Romney would have never appointed them. He and the Legislature would have had to come to a compromise on those two Senate seats. Unfortunately, we here in Georgia would still be stuck with the buffoons, but maybe, just maybe, we could have gotten a more common sense candidates.

By M'Karyl

November 13, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

2D:

Your comments are very well-articulated. And have a veritable value in the overall context information.

I, too, was initially taught about the “theory” of the Electoral College as a means of balancing the popular vote, etc( seventh or eighth grade history). But I started to do some research on the Electoral College about 2-3 years ago, and I came across some very good articles regarding its history. This information helped me to reassess my views and ideas about the necessity of the Electoral College.

P.s I just moved away from GA after 24 years (I am originally from up top-Illinois). In my opinion GA will always have bufoons from there and running it. No offense but I do not like Georgians as Southerners. Not them, jes’ me.

By 2D

November 13, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this

Mara… Your proportional voting is actually carried out in some States like Nebraska. I believe what they do is the following:

The winner in each congressional district gets the vote associated with that district and the winner of the state gets the two assoicated with the Senators. I may be off, but I think this is their apportionment.

The Constitution does not spell out the “winner take all” format that we run into today. If a State chose to give the electoral votes propotionally, then they could.

However, I still don’t believe that would have kept Bush out of office the first go ‘round. As stated in my previous post, he won virtually every geographical cross section of the country except the heavy urban areas. And since the electoral votes being distributed both by population and geography, I would bet he would have still won. In fact, while it may be a tedious process, I think he probably would have won even more convincingly.

By 2D

November 13, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

M’Karyl…

I too am from up North, but do not have an overall negative view of Georgians. I simply think that many of them are very myopic. That goes for both sides of the aisle, whites, blacks, men and women.

I too have heard several “alternative” reasons and theories surrounding the the electoral college. However, none of them have made me change my mind on the need to change the Presidential Election to a purely popular vote. I could see altering the college (see previous post), but not its total demise.

I agree with the framers and their assertion that the masses should only directly vote for their direct member to the House Chamber, for a variety of reasons, and quite frankly, those reasons extend to myself and I consider myself a highly informed and engaged individual when it comes to politics, policies and current events.

By M'Karyl

November 13, 2007 2:37 PM | Link to this

2D:

I suppose that in my experience from living in GA, I have never met a more articulated group of bigots in my life by issues of identity as is related to race, class and gender-black and white. I was born in 1960 and I experienced a far more integrated and tolerant upbringing. I found a very pervasive attitude of derogatory identity devaluation based upon perceptual discrimination of a individual. And it is back up by the history of the regional culture.