Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : General Electric (GE) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yogizuna who wrote (1564)	11/16/2000 11:54:00 AM
From: Gerald Walls	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3256

Even though I believe our system is outdated and the winner of the popular vote should always be the next president, I must respectfully disagree. The Electoral College still serves several legitimate purposes: 1) to Empower the States. The Constitution set up the Electoral College system so that each State, based upon the choice of the people of that State, voted for President rather than the population as a whole. 2) to check the influence of large population centers. The small States were very afraid of the influence of the large States. This fear threatened the ratification of the Constitution itself, leading to a Senate with equal representation and an Electoral College system that provides the smallest States three votes, disproportionate to their population (I doubt that North Dakota has 3/54s the population of California). 3) to localize fraud and recounts. When an election is very close or there's fraud only the States in which it matters, rather than the entire United States, requires remedy. In an election where no candidate has a majority and only 2-tenths of one percent separate the two leading candidates we would have to recount the entire United States instead of just Florida and possibly four other states. 4) to ensure that the President has wide-spread support instead of regional support. By discounting large percentage wins in certain states as no better than winning by one vote (excepting challenges, of course) candidates must work to win majorities in several States instead of just working to get the most lopsided victories possible in heavily populated States that support them. 5) to decentralize elections. Currently there are no Federal elections and the States run the elections that select the Electors. If the President were directly elected then each election would be need to have identical rules. This would require the Federalization of our election system. If this were to happen then the Founding Fathers (who were very leery of centralized power) could be turned into nice generators as they would spin at high RPMs in their graves. One example of why Federal rules would be required is that a State would become more important based on the number of voters and not the total population, leading to the possibility of States making 17, 16, or even 15-year-olds voters. After all, the Constitution only says States can't require a person be older than 18 to vote, not that they can't allow younger voters. (I've tried to use "States" instead of "states" since that's they way they are referred to in the Constitution, implying that they are important entities in their own right and not just political subdivisions.) Here are a couple of links from the Cato Institute discussing the Electoral College: How the Electoral College Works -- And Why It Works Well cato.org Hillary Clinton vs. James Madison cato.org