To the OP, would I rather the average American (See: JEG/Just Karter) decide who the next president is, or a bunch of “officials” in a room.
That’s a tough question :roflpicard:
:lol:
:roflpicard:
Yeah, lets throw out what the founding fathers of this country, who were clearly idiots, came up with because a bunch of you democrats want your big city votes to count more.
So why should a vote in North East, PA, count but a vote 10 ft away in Ripley, NY not?
And its not a partisan thing. Other than 2000, where it didnt really matter because Bush was elected 5-4, it wouldn’t have changed the results of any election since the 1800’s. It’s about principle.
What’s funny, is the same people saying we should rip up this part of the constitution were the same ones crying that Bush was trying to rip up some other part of it.
The founding fathers also didn’t have technology today that made more options possible.
If you went up to one of them and showed them a television they’d have dropped dead. What about a carbon nanotube making sound from what looks like a piece of saran wrap? Or, whiz by one of them going 150 MPH on a sport bike and see them flip out. Dont forget to catch it on video using your DSLR HD Video Camcorder.
Gotta live with the times…
that time is NOW! :eekdance:
^ The electoral college had nothing to do with a lack of technology. :picard:
Read this to start:
http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html
Yeah, it was made because the Federalists in the 1700’s wanted the chance to elect someone else if they didn’t like the guy america voted for.
I imagine Karl Rove descended from them.
And like I said, the Constitution never said anything on how to pick electors. If the states all agreed to give their votes to the winner of the popular vote, we wouldn’t need to do anything to it.
Of course it had to do with the lack of technology. Word of mouth was big back then. Hell, it was almost all that they had.
“They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power.”
It would be a lot harder for a tyrant to manipulate the entire country with television, media, phones, etc.
Back then there would be no control over what an individual could do to persuade people to vote for them. They could win the presidency by word of mouth alone…
There was no massive media coverage showing everyone the debates or individual views. They had to create a checks and balances type system to allow only a select few the ability to make the decision.
It was the lack of communication they feared which created the electoral college. With a few people to make the choices, and the masses of the people mostly unaware of the candidates back then, it made sense.
^ :lol: Yeah, you’d never see the media strongly behind one candidate over the other here in the United States of Obamica. :roll2:
It’s not the point I was making. Back then they had no control over a “tyrant” swindling his way into votes. At the end, they’d say “Who the fuck?” and tada… a president.
Today, it would be a lot harder for … oh, lets say Bill Gates… to swindle his way into presidency. It would be all over the news, people would be discussing, and everyone would know about it.
Sadly, we all know that the Media is also able to be manipulated. Stop going completely off-topic.
I made this post to discuss the unecessity of actually having the electoral college. With the technology today, it would be possible to have more than two choices as well as make a popular vote actually mean something.
Jay, do you still think the VP should be the guy that comes in 2nd in the Presidential race like the founding fathers did?
Obama/McCain 08? The NRA would have a bounty out on Obama’s head.
Directed towards me?
AMEN
