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.

Politics : Electoral College 2000 - Ahead of the Curve -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (6530)	12/22/2000 10:35:31 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6710

Exactly right. If we abolish the Electoral College, the next step will be for people who live in large urban areas to vote for everything that favors them and nothing that favors the rest of the country, and there will be no way to stop them. We have slid far down the slippery slope from states being responsible for health, safety and welfare to the federal government arrogating all that to itself. The worst of it, in my opinion as a resident of the D.C. metro area, is the enormous entrenched class of federal bureaucrats and the huge number of contractors - supplying goods and services to the federal government is one of the surest ways to riches imaginable. It is not at all uncommon for a federal employee to sit around all day reading newspapers because he has displeased his boss, who can't fire him, but won't give him any work, hoping he will get bored and quit. I have run into several people in this situation.

To: Don Lloyd who wrote (6530)	12/23/2000 12:42:52 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6710

I'd like to express a contrary opinion about the electoral college. You posted: . . . the Electoral College is part of a broader constitutional system to ensure that a gullible plurality of the electorate — especially a majority centered in a few urban areas (such as the megapolitan clusters of counties carried by Gore) — won't necessarily be able to take the country down the rights-constricting, government-expanding path of Canada. I don't think the electoral college provides any really important benefits. First of all, I question whether the U.S. is actually much less socialistic than Canada. The one and about the only big difference I know about is the absence of universal government funded health care as in Canada. Even here, consider that through Medicare, Medicaid, and health care for federal employees, the military, and veterans, the U.S. government probably funds around half of health care costs already - possibly more than 50%. Is the electoral college responsible for the U.S. having only 50% federally funded health care vs. 100% as in Canada? Has there ever been a universal health care bill passed by Congress and vetoed by a President? I don't think so. Apologists for the electoral college also like to claim that the system provides benefits for small states. I don't see how. Do Presidential candidates actually spend much time campaigning in small population states like Wyoming or Idaho or Vermont. Of course not. The small population states have few electoral votes and most of them are locks for one party or the other. So it would be a waste of time for either candidate to pay much attention to them. Presidential candidates do, in fact, focus on the big population states - precisely because they have big blocks of electoral votes which are in play. Doing away with the electoral college or at least the winner-take-all feature would actually lessen the Presidential focus on the big population states. Personally, I would favor abandoning the electoral college system. Of course, I recognize it would be very hard to accomplish this and is not likely to happen. At any point of time, either 1) it hasn't really made a difference and no one cares about it or 2) it has allowed one party to without a popular vote majority and thus it is favored by that party. Right now, a lot of Republicans love the electoral college because Bush lost the popular vote but won anyway. Of couse, a Democratic candidate could win office without winning the popular vote just as easily as a Republican can. And sooner or later, one will. Then the Democrats will be praising the electoral college system while the Republicans will be unhappy with it.