Electoral college?

[annewandering]

Federal Government, Anne. FEDERAL Government. Nothing at all to do with media coverage or the lack thereof.

In the Federal form of government of the USA, the President of the United States is NOT elected by the people. He is elected by the STATES as designed by the framers of the Constitution.

You really want to debate with me the exact term for what government we have? And why? And who elects the president? Sometimes people on here act like I am an idiot but I am not. If you really want to go at it we can. Do a little research, which I know you are capable of, and find out what the real history is.

[Guest]

You really want to debate with me the exact term for what government we have? And why? And who elects the president? Sometimes people on here act like I am an idiot but I am not. If you really want to go at it we can. Do a little research, which I know you are capable of, and find out what the real history is.

The history of the media? What does that have to do with the Constitution?

[annewandering]

The history of the political system not the media.

[jerome1232]

To quote an article written by a close friend.

"For those who do not know, the Founding Fathers opposed a democracy and hoped that descendants would never turn what they created into such. The word democracy is not in any of our original governing documents. Benjamin Franklin referred to democracy as two wolves and a lamb voting on what they would have for lunch; the well armed lamb contesting the vote. Realizing that the majority is not always right and, as such, could trample the rights of the minority becoming very tyrannical, they created a republic instead, thus we pledge allegiance to “the republic for which it stands.” A lynch mob is a democracy; everyone voting to hang the accused except the one proposed to be hung."

eh, the article mentions presidential candidates by name, albeit briefly, I'm hesitant to link the full article. Here's another one on the same subject, it's about what the founders of our government felt about democracy. It doesn't mention any candidates by name.

Communists and Founding Fathers Opposite on Democracy. Can You Guess Which one Loved? | Liberty Under Fire

[annewandering]

The Electoral College - Origin and History

U. S. Electoral College: Frequently Asked Questions

HowStuffWorks "History of the Electoral College"

Why was the Electoral College Created?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/opinion/electoral-college-101.html

http://elections.delaware.gov/information/mockelection/pdfs/eleccoll.pdf

The Electoral College Explained | Grey's Blog

Some sites on the subject. Some more in depth than others.

[talisyn]

The great thing about the electoral college is we can go be very serious and talk about the Issues, monitor candidates, and go vote with the firm knowledge that we have absolutely no responsibility in who becomes president.

"Little Timmy, you voted, what a big boy! Here's an 'I voted' sticker and a pat on the head. You're so grown-up!'

[Saldrin]

we do not have a democracy we have a constitutional republic, that employs democratic elements. you can employ pickles on your hamburger and its still a hamburger not a pickle sandwich.

Also mandatory voting is not freedom, people should be free to not vote if they wish to not participate. It is part of being a free people.

[prisonchaplain]

The great thing about the electoral college is we can go be very serious and talk about the Issues, monitor candidates, and go vote with the firm knowledge that we have absolutely no responsibility in who becomes president.

"Little Timmy, you voted, what a big boy! Here's an 'I voted' sticker and a pat on the head. You're so grown-up!'

Not sure I get this. The Electoral College results tend to follow the popular vote. It's an extreme case when it doesn't. Even then, the reason is usually that the winner has wide-spread support throughout the country, where as the popular winner might have heavy support in densely populated urban areas.

It's not as though we just vote for fun and as an advisory role, whereas the Electoral College literally votes their own biases. If that ever happened, I reckon there would be a Constitutional crisis.

[jerome1232]

It's not as though we just vote for fun and as an advisory role, whereas the Electoral College literally votes their own biases. If that ever happened, I reckon there would be a Constitutional crisis.

It has happened. States have voted their electoral votes without holding elections before, electoral pledges have been broken (ie an elector voted for a guy other than the one they pledged to vote for). States have placed the electoral votes in opposition of that states popular vote.

[prisonchaplain]

Jerome...I believe you, though I'd love to see the sources (majored in history). It would be interesting to see what the fall out was.

[jerome1232]

Most of them were justified and early on, states didn't have the money to hold an election etc..., I believe the faithless electors were nullified (effectively taking away one elector from the state) and punished for violating state laws.

I am going from memory, I don't have a source, I can try and find some later. The last one I might be wrong on, I think it may have actually been the state required a vast majority for winner take all so they split their votes evenly between candidates now that I think about it.

I'll check into it later today to make sure everything I said is 100%.

[talisyn]

This quote, from wikipedia >< , sums up my view Electoral College (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Except in closely fought swing states, voter turnout is largely insignificant due to entrenched political party domination in most states. The Electoral College decreases the advantage a political party or campaign might gain for encouraging voters to turn out, except in those swing states. If the presidential election were decided by a national popular vote, in contrast, campaigns and parties would have a strong incentive to work to increase turnout everywhere. Individuals would similarly have a stronger incentive to persuade their friends and neighbors to turn out to vote. The differences in turnout between swing states and non-swing states under the current electoral college system suggest that replacing the Electoral College with direct election by popular vote would likely increase turnout and participation significantly.'

[jerome1232]

In contrast;

The Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas. This means that candidates must make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.

I actually think the electoral college represents us better geographically while still giving some weight to population.

So other than the early days when most states didn't hold popular elections and the state legislator chose it's electors there are a few examples of not holding popular votes

In 1848, Massachusetts statute awarded the state's electoral votes to the winner of the at-large popular vote, but only if that candidate won an absolute majority. When the vote produced no winner between the Democratic, Free Soil, and Whig parties, the state legislature selected the electors, giving all 12 electoral votes to the Whigs.[57]

In 1864, Nevada, having joined the Union only a few days prior to Election Day, had no choice but to appoint.[57]

In 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections.[57]

Finally, in 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold an election.[57]

The list of faithless electors is rather large and can be found at this link: Faithless elector - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[prisonchaplain]

Based upon the faithless electors Wikipedia article I am going with my hunch that the Electoral College is a stable bulwark against elections skewed to urban centers. Our country is made up of individuals, families, communities, and yes states. The balance that our somewhat complicated system offers outweighs the ever-so-slight potential that rogue electors would intentionally tip an election away from the will of the vote.