1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

ATTN EdSutton (others): Let us brawl over the E.C.

Discussion in 'Political Debate & Discussion' started by Ivon Denosovich, Sep 28, 2007.

  1. Ivon Denosovich

    Ivon Denosovich New Member

    Sep 6, 2007
    Likes Received:
    In a good spirited manner! I enjoyed sparring (and often losing) to EdSutton in the DC thread (see "NYTimes columnist charges GOP w/ racism for no rep in DC.") so much so that I'd like to branch out and discuss scrapping the electoral college. Here follows my line of reasoning:

    1) It isn't fair!

    2) It isn't fair!?

    3) It isn't fair!?!

    Yes, I'm going for emotional appeal. :) Further problems include:

    1) "Maine and Nebraska choose Presidential Electors using what is termed the "Maine Method," which makes it possible for the voters to choose Electors of different political parties and "split" the electoral vote of these two states." (Wikipedia)

    2) Faithless elector(s), "member of the United States Electoral College who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the person whom they have pledged to elect." (Also Wiki)

    3) The argument about protecting some states from other states meets this head roller, "It is also theoretically possible to win the election by winning all of eleven states and disregarding the rest of the country. If one ticket were to take California (55 votes), Texas (34), New York (31), Florida (27) Illinois (21), Pennsylvania (21), Ohio (20), Michigan (17), Georgia (15), New Jersey (15), and North Carolina (15), that ticket would have 271 votes, which would be enough to win." (Wiki once more)

    4) Finally, I see the conventional wisom defending the E.C. as counterintuitive. Proponents typically base much of their arguments on the assumption that E.C. members have more wisdom and serve as a type of social vanguard against undeseriable yet popular leaders. To me, it seems more plausible to believe that a smaller, narrowly defined group of people would be much easier for a corrupt leader to manipulate than the populace at large, especially if enough cash saw the light of day. Bottom line: if people in general can make poor voting choices then the potential fallacy could be committed by all people (inluding E. C. members), and so far as checks & balances go, I say, the more people the merrier. After all, and unlike the conceptual entity that is the E.C., it isn't remotely thinkable that a would-be tyrant could buy 50 million votes... So, vanguard? I think not.
    #1 Ivon Denosovich, Sep 28, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 28, 2007