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 : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PartyTime who wrote (54376)	11/3/2008 10:03:37 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	1 Recommendation Respond to of 224718

Why Electoral College is important:(keep it in mind) The electoral college is much maligned. No one seems to like it (including my friend Joe) and yet I'm always defending it. Way back in 2003-ish it was a hot button topic on the Carleton alumni listserv, and I was pretty much the only one sticking up for it there, too. Here's the thing: the electoral college is safe. It protects a minority (in this case, voters in states with a small population) from the tyranny of a majority (voters in populous states, like me). Giving the minority a disproportionate say in national affairs might feel antithetical to our democracy, but in truth it is part of our foundation (our bicameral Congress gives a disproportionate representation to rural states, as well, but we never hear of people trying to change Senate proportioning). The electoral college not only protects rural states, but it functionally protects all states. For example, without an electoral college a candidate who runs on the "Only Tax the Western States" platform has a slim majority of voters on the East Coast and could in theory win on that platform. But, you say, he could win on that platform using the electoral college, too. Possibly. But unlikely. The net effect of the electoral college encourages candidates to compete for 51% of the vote in a state. This affects how the candidate outlays campaigning and resources, but most importantly affects their positions and platform as well. To win the Presidency, a candidate needs a series of small majorities. 51% here, 51% there. This drives both parties to the middle. And that gets me back to the electoral college being safe. It keeps the parties fighting toward the middle, and that's a very good way to protect the country from extremes at either end of the political spectrum. As a Gore '00 supporter, I realize that I'm advocating for a system that screwed over my candidate. But I seriously believe that the electoral college is a net positive for the country. I am seriously seriously distrustful of the changed laws in Maryland and other states to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote, no matter how their state votes. Wait till the state votes one way, but their electoral college votes go another way, and see how the voters there feel. That said, I think that the electoral college does need some reform. It was a really bad idea to set the electoral college at 538 voters, because things can end in a 269-269 tie. I think the proposal to give the winner of the popular vote 11 extra electoral college votes is sound. It removes any threat of a tie, since it changes the total to 549 electoral college votes, and it preserves the current structure without too much meddling. The less populous states are still protected, it still encourages building many small majorities, and it's enough so that in the 3 elections where the popular vote and the electoral college vote diverged it would put them back in sync (the 1876, 1888, and 2000 elections). Keep the electoral college. Just add 11 more votes. erikemery.com