shit fucking sucks

>reform
If it's not broken don't fix it.

>>754670
That's about all I feel like contributing, I want other's opinions on the matter.

>>754673
If you like living a democracy in name only state, then yeah, it's fine.

They're there on behalf of the population to make an educated decision. Usually (except in the cases of Mass/ or Maryland) they are supposed to vote with the majority vote of that state.

>>754673
Yeah, certainly didn't fuck the American people over in 2000 did it? Maybe you were too young to remember.

It's merely a remnant from the days when people couldn't even elect senators. Just do away with it.

>>754656
lol i see a TOEFL book

works fine. not enough people know how it works, and they should learn, but i don't see any problems with it at the moment

>>754703
>works fine. not enough people know how it works, and they should learn, but i don't see any problems with it at the moment

>Totally nonsensical numerical election system that was used in the 18th century to keep as much power from the people as possible. Numerous times in American history it's kept the winner with the majority of votes from the White House, most notably 2000.

We know what it is dipshit, it has no modern relevance and is just a relic of 18th century America.

>>754702
That means that this Korean is educated!

The American Electoral College system has already been rendered obsolete for better voting systems. The US desperately needs to get rid of the electoral college and replace it with a direct election system for the President.

>>754703
>but i don't see any problems with it at the moment
>I don't see any problems with electing people based on the total number of arbitrary points they get winning certain key states while totally ignoring the popular vote.

>>754729
>keep as much power from the people as possible

wat

how does it being from the 18th century negate it's relevance? say something useful

>>754755
Direct popular vote? FOR CHOOSING OUR PRESIDENT?

GET A GRIP.

>>754766
>>754766
Someone who hasn't even taken a basic polisci class confirmed.

I'll summarize it for you. The framers of the Constitution wanted to give people power, but not TOO much power.

In 18th century America your vote was only directly responsible for one thing, the US house.

Senators weren't directly elected by the people then, and the president was chosen by an informed group of people who voted party based on how the state voted, but also on whether or not they believed it to be a good decision. This was called the Madisonian model, and it's design was to give people only enough power to be involved in the process, but not directly control it.

Gradually, people were given more power (direct elections of senators, electoral colleges forced to vote for who won the state, etc.), and so we're left with a system that was designed in the 18th century with 18th century in mind that's been changed very little and has outlived its use and function.

Whether or not its been relatively unchanged since the 18th century is completely relevant to the discussion.

>>754766
>He thinks a calling a system out for being designed 200+ years ago for a country with a mostly agrarian population of a few million and still being used isn't relevant to the discussion
>He doesn't know anything about the Madison Model

it kept al gore out of office.
shit works

The electoral college stands in direct opposition to the idea of one man, one vote. Instead, we have one man, one vote if he is from California and four votes if he is from Wyoming. And our system of presidential primaries is just as bad. Iowa and New Hampshire matter more than California, New York, Texas, and Florida all put together when it comes to presidential primaries.

>>754893
> Put Bush in office
> works

...

Al Gore would have been better.

That's one of the reasons i liked ron paul

he was going to get rid of it

pretty sure gore wouldn't have gotten us into war for war profiteers in iraq

Electoral college is great because you get millions of people to vote and then a couple of rich cats can look at the majority, scratch their chin about which vote will earn them more money, and then disregard the majority if they choose.

Democracy? Sort of. In the same way that peanut butter is a form of butter.

If we didn't have the Electoral College then we may as well not have senators. The people are represented by the Congress by population, the Senate represents the states making all states equal as each only gets 2 senators. Which is why bills go from the Congress for a vote and then to the Senate for another vote. That way the more populated states can not force their will upon the less populated ones.

Take the state of New York's population verse the population of a mid-west state like Montana. In the Congress New York holds more seats so gets a larger vote, in the Senate they both get 2 votes. It provides a balance between population and rights.

Because the US is not a democracy it is a Constitutional Republic. All a democracy is, is a rule of masses. Mob rule.

You people need to take a real history lesson instead of what they are brain washing you in school with.

>>755023
>Implying we can't keep the senate to protect the rights of smaller states, but ditch the electoral college in favor of a direct election system.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense. The people on the electoral college are chosen by the party that won, obviously ensuring they will vote for who won the state. Essentially we do have mob rule, except we have it with an arbitrary system in place that doesn't really keep "mob rule" in check, it just kind of makes the process a little more retarded.

Also lol at the whole balance between states rights/ population point you tried to make about the electoral college. By giving a state the bare minimum of votes you're ensuring that it's unimportant in the election.

>>754839
>has outlived its use and function.

still haven't said why

>>755117
Damn your reading comprehension sucks. Here, I'll just say it nice and SIMPLE for you dipshit, because you somehow were totally unable to understand the meaning of my post.

It's goal was to keep the power of the people in check.

People have been given FAR more power then they were when the Constitution was created, and the electoral college was stripped of its function as the voters ALWAYS vote for who wins.

You're a fucking retard by the way.

Take polisci 101 and you're local community college, and THEN reply to these threads.

>>755023
>implying vanguard elites are better

>>755161

oooh tough guy who thinks he's smart can use cuss words. it's not at all intimidating.

if you remove the electoral college, states with small populations won't count for much at all. they will always be dwarfed by larger populations, and subject to the will of other states by virtue of numbers alone.

we're not a democracy

>>755223
>if you remove the electoral college, states with small populations won't count for much at all. they will always be dwarfed by larger populations, and subject to the will of other states by virtue of numbers alone.
>numerical value directly correlated with population, smaller states ARE ignored by campiagns

Do you even understand what you're saying?

House: States with large populations dominate, they are awarded seats based on population.

Senate: All states, large and small, are equal in representation.

Electoral college: States with large populations dominate, they are awarded points based on population.

What you're saying would make sense if it was a system like the senate, but because it's similar to the house, what you're saying makes absolutely NO sense.

Thanks for the laugh though,
>and subject to the will of other states by virtue of numbers alone.

Electoral college points:

California- 55
Montana- 3

I think the will of California pretty much dominants the will of Montana.

Not only all of that, but what you're saying isn't even why they created the electoral college. Again, it was to curb the power that people have in government, as they're votes only counted if the educated elite said they did, but that isn't that case. If what you're saying was the purpose, why the FUCK would point values be assigned with population?

>>755223
>states with small populations won't count for much at all. they will always be dwarfed by larger populations, and subject to the will of other states by virtue of numbers alone.

You know, kind of like what the electoral college does.

Derp derp.

>>755223
>oooh tough guy who thinks he's smart can use cuss words. it's not at all intimidating.

Also,
>>oooh tough guy who thinks he's smart

confirmed for 12 year old

I'll break it down for y'all:

In the electoral college, each state gets
one seat for each rep it has in Congress,
including Senators.

Since the Senate is two per state, regardless
of population, it gives smaller states disproportional
representation. This dates from when the Constitution
was being drawn up, and the individual states meant
a lot more than they do now.

Without that disproportional representation in both the
Senate and the Electoral College, the smaller states
wouldn't have signed the Constitution.

To amend the Constitution requires 3/4 of the state
legislatures to ratify. The smaller states will never
do so if it means giving away power to the larger
states.

We're fucked.

>>755284

Alexander Hamilton was the chief architect of the electoral college because he distrusted popular democracy. "A small number of persons, -----selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass----- would act under circumstances favorable to deliberation"

The president isn't the whole government, you asshole.

what would have us do, eliminate congress and the judicial branch as well and just elect a dictator by popular vote? this isn't saddams' iraq

>>754685
>If you like living a democracy in name only state, then yeah, it's fine.

Then you must hate that Congress exists too, since the representation is...huh...exactly the same.

>>755399
Who the fuck said any of that? It should be a direct vote for president that's it. WTF?!