A Republic or a Democracy?
by Anonymous at 9/23/2004 11:09:00 AM
The Founding fathers put the electoral college in place for a reason - it makes our process more stable by weighting the vote, and preventing a large but distributed minority from having "undue" influence, while giving smaller states (like Colorado) more of an equal voice with the more populated states.
But the Democrats have successfully put a ballot initiative into the mix here in Colorado. This initiative will make the Colorado electoral vote proportional to the popular vote, throwing out the winner takes all system. This will remove Colorado from consideration in any future election. Of course, Democrats don't seem to be calling for such democratic solutions in California, New York or other places where it would hurt them.
The United States is a Republic, the voting members of the republic are the States, not the people. That is why electoral vote allocation is a State issue and NOT a Federal one. There are those who want a Democracy, and they want it to change in THIS election. The questionable legality or retroactive legislation is sure to put this election back into the courts. A more full account of why this will probably happen can be found here.
Thanks to our liberal educational system that does not require reading of the Federalist, and the fact that teachers (my teachers at least) express the idea that the electoral college is obsolete, this measure is sure to pass. So yes, we will all be able to yell about stolen elections again, and all the U.N. inspectors and lawyers in the world will not be able to stop it, thanks to the Democrats.
If this isn't tampering with a Federal Election, I don't know what is. If we want to convert the nature of our government, it should be done by Constitutional Amendment that removes the electoral college from the process, and not carried on in a State to State battle purely for the political gain of one party or the other.
But the Democrats have successfully put a ballot initiative into the mix here in Colorado. This initiative will make the Colorado electoral vote proportional to the popular vote, throwing out the winner takes all system. This will remove Colorado from consideration in any future election. Of course, Democrats don't seem to be calling for such democratic solutions in California, New York or other places where it would hurt them.
The United States is a Republic, the voting members of the republic are the States, not the people. That is why electoral vote allocation is a State issue and NOT a Federal one. There are those who want a Democracy, and they want it to change in THIS election. The questionable legality or retroactive legislation is sure to put this election back into the courts. A more full account of why this will probably happen can be found here.
Thanks to our liberal educational system that does not require reading of the Federalist, and the fact that teachers (my teachers at least) express the idea that the electoral college is obsolete, this measure is sure to pass. So yes, we will all be able to yell about stolen elections again, and all the U.N. inspectors and lawyers in the world will not be able to stop it, thanks to the Democrats.
If this isn't tampering with a Federal Election, I don't know what is. If we want to convert the nature of our government, it should be done by Constitutional Amendment that removes the electoral college from the process, and not carried on in a State to State battle purely for the political gain of one party or the other.
The founding fathers put the electoral college in place because it was the right thing to do at the time. Today, considering the technology in place, its a total anachronism.And that stuff about "a large distributed majority having undue influence"??? That is the whole point, the majority should be the one to decide.
No need to thanks us, by the way, its our pleasure.
I'm pretty sure the Const. does not indicate how the states can distribute their electoral votes, nor does it even say that they should be decided by popular vote.
I recall that someone once said states were to be "laboratories" of democracy where new ideas could be tried out without affecting the entire country - stuff like women's suffrage, which also wasn't in the Const. at the time (nor prohibited by it). Why do we need a Const. Amend. to change the system when we haven't even tried it out yet?
You argument that electoral vote allocation is a state issue is perfectly in keeping with the initiative to make the CO electoral vote proportional. I don't get to vote on it, do I? Just CO state voters.
It seems to me this particular plan is fully within the Const. as it exists today. I haven't followed the initiative very closely, and there may be legal or procedural problems with it - I don't know. Otherwise, I'd say it seems kosher to me.
You may not like expanding democracy, and that's your choice. Luckily, you get to vote against it, unlike the people who are erroneously kept off voter rolls or intimidated away from polls.
Interesting history.Also, I looked into the Fed. Papers. I know why Hamilton (elitist!) liked the electoral system - he didn't trust regular people to vote intelligently. But, he did not specify that states should use a winner take all system, either. Just that electors should be chosen by the regular people, and trusted to vote well.
I'm sure there are complications to this simplifcation, and that you'll tell me about them.
» Post a Comment