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 : Why do we still have the Electoral College? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: c.horn who wrote (7)	11/4/2004 12:29:14 AM
From: sandintoes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 60

The founding fathers were not quite certain they could trust the illiterate farmer to pick a President, so this was put in as a fail safe measure, along with giving the smaller states their recognition.. All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office. The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says:

To: c.horn who wrote (7)	11/4/2004 4:04:55 PM
From: Jon Khymn	Respond to of 60

I'm sure E.C. still have many good points. But since then the political environment has changed a lot. Now Black can vote, yellow and red can vote (thank God, now I can vote too!), and even women get to vote these days. <gg> When did women start to vote? I believe it is not that long ago... So we've come a long way and we've amended many laws along the way. I feel it is time to amend one more... And States, I think it was more like loose federation back then and each state governed themselves more like a little country...(please correct me if I'm wrong, always slept through history classes.) But now, we think of a nation first not the state, no? I've moved around a lot but never thought as becoming a Californian from Floridian or Virginian. I am an American, that's it. If president was elected by general popular vote, I think more people will come out and vote. As here in California, we already knew what's gonna happen, I had to drag my self to vote. (Don't you just hate when your vote is wiped out by E.C?) I want my vote to at least reach the destination. My vote got killed in the middle...