Why Do We Still Have States?? Why Still Electoral College?

[ItsMyParty]

Actually I frighten myself with this post---yet, perhaps it's time to think outside the box. I would defend our established governmental structure with my life. I find it a thing of poetry. But I am now wondering if our very rules of government are snuffing out the basic democratic vision of our founders.

This is not 1776, nor 1810, nor 1860, nor 1955.

Why should we still be divided into 50 different states?? Why should not the majority of Americans elect the president?? Why should we still have 'silly' regions (as in presidential or VP choices based on what region a person is from?).

Today, families span out all over the country. People who were raised in Vermont, end up living in Arizona. People from Wisconsin end up following the corporation to Alabama. Grandma lives six states over from her grandchildren; and grandpa lives on the "other coast". If it wasn't for the "friendly skies", families would never come together for funerals, weddings and holidays. Our culture, news, experiences are the same.

Yet we function on a mode of 230 years ago..on both the federal and state level. Our states are choked by rural areas outvoting in their state govenments the big cities. And our federal government is choked by rural states having enough electoral votes to cast out the popular votes coming from our big cities.

I always believed in this system until recently. Now there is something just plain wrong. We cannot function on the world stage, point blank, from the political views held by farm communities. One would think they woke up after the republicans destroyd the family farm---but apparently not. I've lived among those people years ago and I know that they (god bless their simple souls) do not have a clue about world realities). The world isn't as simple as their Sunday church services nor their July Strawberry Festivals in the local park. I know we will never change our constitution to reflect this. But we desperately need the majority of the people to elect all national leaders if we are going to survive. It could be that our basic constitutional structure, actually ends up killing off the average American. I think "democracy" needs an update in order to survive the corporate media blitz of trying to manipulate those who are NOT in the majority.

[meow2u3]

1. The country is too big not to abolish states

Plus, if we leave all the laws in the hands of the Federal government, the way it is now, we'd have nowhere to find refuge from the stongarm tactics of the Bushies.

[ItsMyParty]

2. Fed--but think a moment

If it was of a nation-wide mode instead of a state mode, the "dem" areas would prevail. They are the majority. They are simply killed off in nation-wide electoral elections. If the "city heavy" electorate could rule, this country would be very different. Each of us must be in a state where the heavy, city populations are outvoted in the state government by the rural. It goes on everywhere. If, in other words, the actual populuation ruled, the republicans would be toast.

[blueraven95]

5. I agree...but...

I think simple logistics require states, but I can't figure out why we still have the electoral college. We have hit the point where, technology speaking, we can count every vote, so I think we should be able to vote directly for our president.

[LDS Jock]

3. I'm all for dumping the EC

It never made sense to me, even way back in Junior High when taught to us. Why can't we just vote as a country, one person, one vote? The population of California today is about equal to the population of the US during the Civil War. If its such a great system to have the Electoral College, why don't the state indivudually have to have an EC to insure balance? If this was for our protection due to lack of information and communication in the old days, then what is the excuse for it now? The excuse I hear most often is to ensure balance across the country. How does (possibly, as in 2000) imposing the will of the minority ensure balance? Population is not balanced across the country, why not let the votes follow the people? Is that not the most balanced?

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

10. I think the concept behind the EC is ok, but you dont need an actual EC.

The idea was to creat a balance between states, so smaller states would have some voice, so the concept is sound.

You probably dont need an actual, physical "electoral college" to do this. It could be done mathematically.

[ItsMyParty]

14. ldsjock--did you ever raise an excellent question

I've never thought about what you just said. If this is so "excellent' then why don't we have it WITHIN states. In other words, govenors and state legislators are put on an electoral basis where the heavy population areas get much more weighted "points" than rural areas, thus ensuring that the cities are truly represented in state governments. That's what I mean by this system in modern day America being totally out of beat with reality. And this is how nut cases like the religious right are dominating too much of our politics compared to their real strength.

[Yupster]

30. Because the Constitutional nation was not

formed by people, but rather by states. Therefore the rights of the states were well protected. That's why it was set up that way, but there's no reason it should still be that way today.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

4. hmmm

Dude, don't talk crazy. I just learned that song so's I can sing all states in alphabetical order. Don't wanna mess that up...

Real answer:
"All politics are local"

You wanna give up governors, Local legislators, and the like?? Who would pass gay marriage laws for equal rights, and challenge goofy 10 commandment laws from the republican south?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Sandpiper]

9. But who says it ain't broke?

n/t

[Kazak]

11. But it is broke...

a la election 2000.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

13. no not broke (just bendy) :)

Bush lost the popular vote in florida--

minus voter purges
minus recount that was stopped
etc etc

Maybe ya heard about it???

don't mean to be snippy

[Sandpiper]

19. No, broke

Florida or no, Bush had 500,000 fewer votes nationwide than Gore. One person, One vote = Bush loses.

[Wonco_the_Sane]

25. BENDY says I

cuz it bends both ways.

it protects small states like RI CN Vermont and other glorious liberal havens.

There is such a thing as a congress you know. (I know you know) Ya know.
Mass. with 2 senators and ? congressfolks vs Texas with, yup 2 senators.

see bends both ways. Bendy

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

6. Are you sure about this?

Yet we function on a mode of 230 years ago..on both the federal and state level. Our states are choked by rural areas outvoting in their state govenments the big cities

Are you sure about this? I think, based on the one man one vote principle, legislative seats have to be distributed based on population...you cant have "rotten boroughs" , so to speak, which send more people to a statehouse than an equivilant geographical area but with more people.

[Sandpiper]

7. I was actually thinking about this the other day

And came to the realization that the idea of individual States within a larger nation is becoming increasingly antiquated.

Once upon a time, there was no rapid transportation, and no forms of instantaneous communication. Consequently, the nation at large needed to be divided into smaller subunits who were given a certain amount of autonomy for the nation to be able to maintain order.

As technology progresses, the historical need for states is becoming less and less necessary. We are literally wired from one end of the country to the other. A person in Alaska can talk to a person in Miami by phone or internet. And air travel makes it possible to go across the country and back again within a single day.

States simply remain as a relic of our European heritage.

[Baltimoreboy]

12. How would you solve local issues?

[ItsMyParty]

17. Baltimore--right now states are a mess

The population area rot while the money goes to what one might call "upstate". The representatives in a state are still heavily from the rural areas and they vote time and again to starve the major cities within their states. Roads, schools, aid, etc. go in ungodly amounts to samll areas while the large population areas starve. And on the national scale that is what is happening. Perhaps instead of states we need "population inpact areas". Perhaps things like "schools" should not be state, local or regional but a level of excellence demanded by the federal government. Should your child be given a lousy education in a certain state (even if you think you are in the yuppie area of that state) as compared to the children in other states?? Should a child's future depend on what great state or hell hole he was born into?? I think we can do better. But, we tend to think local and narrow. As long as we do, we will stand in place and eventually rot.

[Baltimoreboy]

27. Not true

Representatives are based on population. If there aren't enough people in the cities, it's because the cities aren't good places to be.

Maryland is far from how you describe.

The reason to have localities is to ensure local voters have some impact on their own government.

[FloridaPat]

8. Another thing the EC does is enables the repubs and Dems

to keep out third party candidates. This is the only reason I don't vote third party - those in power would never allow the EC to vote one in.

Another interesting fact - we the voters are not in the Constitution. They only way to elect a president is through the EC. The individual voter is not recognized. Not only would we have to get rid of the EC, but we would have to come up with individuals' rights to vote!

[Wonco_the_Sane]

16. this i agree with very much...sorta

repugs and sadley dems work together to keep any other party out. Not sure if I agree the EC causes this. More just the legislative process itself. Many law (hoops to jump through) were written to make life hard on 3rd parties, and they would be there with or without the EC

[Yupster]

31. The Constitution did not

assume that there would even be a popular vote for president.

The electors elect the president.

The electors are chosen by the state legislatures in whatever manner they wish.

Today they wish to have a popular vote, but there's no requirement for that.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ItsMyParty]

18. Thinker---interesting.. I was born and raised on a farm and

lived among the "simple folk" for years. Yes, I know them and know that, even today, they don't identify, really, with what faces us as a nation. That's why within the heartland they are not concerned at all about terrorism. Yet, if terrorism hits our major cities, they are as much history as the rest of this county. The economic impact would wipe them out as much as a nuke in NYC or LA, etc. The simple folk still are not waking up. That's a fact. They are busy judging the world on the basis of Pat Robertson.

[LynneSin]

24. Federalist Papers?

You talking about a docuement that is the cornerstorne of the Federalist Society - an organization that is helping place neo-conservative judges on the bench

That is obvious proof that we need to eliminate the electorial college. That system was created because the public did not have access to news and information to help them decide who should be president. I think we've fixed that problem some 230 years later

PS - I was born and raised in farm country and believe me, Simple was a word I heard many folks describe themselves from that area. Simple did not mean 'smarts' but a way of life - a life of living with the simplier things in life instead of all the modern snazzy stuff that many of us take for granted. If you said 'simple life' to my parents or grandparents they would (would have) say 'Yep, that's us'

How you can fine this an insult is beyond me unless you are trying to create something out of nothing

[Poiuyt]

20. The most important election in the country is the only one that is

not done fairly.

What I would like to see is Bush win the poular vote and Kerry win the Electoral College. Maybe then we would see a change in the system.

(I don't really want to see Bush win the popular vote)

[ItsMyParty]

22. pduck--ohh, how I imagined the same thing!!

Can you imagine these swine if this happens?? Can you imagine the Supreme Court when the republicans challenge the entire electoral system of the US of A...and don't think they wouldn't because that is exactly what they intended to do in 2000. They looked at polls and thought that that was what the outcome was going to be. AND there is no way they were going to let it go as legitimate based on what we saw from these animals. They were ready to fight our constitution and they had the judges in place.

[Poiuyt]

28. Great minds think alike!

And welcome to DU

(Are you a Leslie Gore fan?)

[greekspeak]

21. This is a very complicated issue, isn't it?

Sometimes, I wonder if the federal government isn't too powerful. Sometimes I wonder if the states are too powerful. I like a strong central government, but I think abolishing states would be foolhardy. I do think the federal government has the responsibility to ensure civil rights for all. I think the federal government could do a lot of things more efficiently than states. I think the status quo is better for now, though, than eviscerating states' rights too hastily.

[Liberal Classic]

23. Doing away with states and the president

Will be elected by New York and California.

I guess this would suit some people.

[ItsMyParty]

26. Liberal Classic--I live in neither of those states BUT

why should I deny the majority vote?? Right now we are ruled by a bunch of "right wing fundamentalists" scattered within a few states. It isn't simply a shade of democracy---it's the destruction of it as they try to impose their own religious fundamentalism on all of us. If we all want that, then bring it on. If the population (that's like PEOPLE), don't want that, then this system of allowing such perverts to reign is just not democratic. And this brings me to a great big point: So WHAT if you live in NY or CA or Wyoming or South Dakota or wherever. Is a Californian a horrible perverted, piece of filth and a New Yorker someone from another planet??? Let's get over this regional garbage. When it comes to dying for the US of A, Georgie ain't paticular, is he?? And that's where our sons and daughters are going to end up if we don't give up this stupid regionalism. And that's why the repulicans love this bigoted, hated regionalism. If we could just grow up, we could do wonders as a nation.

[Liberal Classic]

36. Stupid regionalism?

There's a very important purpose behind the idea of a union of states: that one size does not fit all. The states are not simply political provinces under the unbrella of the federal government. The states, or colonies, came together to form a union in which local affairs would be decided at a local level. What you call stupid regionalism I call "One size does not fit all."

why should I deny the majority vote?

Because the nation is a democratic republic, not a simple democracy. Notice that in the constitution there are different standards for making some decisions or another. Simple majorities for one thing, super majorities for others.

The purpose of the electoral college as well as the bicameral legislature is for the explicit purpose of giving smaller states a voice. Without it, small states and rural areas would have no voice at all. The only time the electoral college becomes an issue is when the count is close, it has only happened a few times before.

I honestly think people don't like it simply because they didn't like the outcome. It's not an issue unless the race is a close one.

If we could just grow up, we could do wonders as a nation.

Just so long as you're not a refusenik. Then you better look out, comrade.

[Yupster]

29. I've argued the same thing for years

Why have states in 2004?

The federal government is into pretty much everything anyway.

Save the cost of 50 legislatures, and 50 beaurocracies. State power was killed by the Civil War and the Seventeenth Amendment anyway. Why go through the cost and the charade. Just eliminate states. It's time.

[Bake]

32. Does your US Senator take your phone calls?

I doubt it. Most of us have never even MET our US Senator(s). Who's gonna pave the roads? You may -- MAY -- eliminate the state legislatures, etc., but you'll have to replace it with a federal bureaucracy that is equally costly and cumbersome.

Oh, wait a minute. If you don't have states, you don't have Senators. So you don't have a US Senate. What are you going to replace it with -- a unicameral legislature? So now you're tossing out most of the Constitution, to be replaced by -- WHAT? Are you sure you want to risk that? I sure as hell don't.

The federal government is pretty damn unresponsive as it is. A lot of us KNOW our local/state government officials. And if Arizona or Utah or some "red state" wants to ban gay marriage or do something else stupid, hey, at least it's not MY state doing it. And if it IS my state doing it, at least I've got more of a shot at INFLUENCING it.

I'll take the system the way it is, thank you very much.

Bake

[Yupster]

33. I would be satisfied with a one house congress

It wasn't divided into two houses because of any necessity or even theory. It was just a compromise.

[Bake]

34. And House districts are subject to gerrymandering.

The Senate is not. I'll take two houses of Congress, thank you. You still haven't answered my other questions. Who's going to fix the potholes? By your logic, we don't need mayors and city councils either. Let's just have the Fed do everything.

No thanks.

Bake

[Yupster]

38. I guess I don't understand the question

I'd like to get rid of states.

I don't see why that would get rid of city or county governments. My town can still have a sheriff whether we have a state or not, can't it?

[HuskerDem]

35. We have states so the competing corporations in each state can sue

each other. This does not stop tmem from screwing all of us, evereywhere................

[Classical_Liberal]

37. They created the electoral college along with the 3/5 compromise

to protect slave states. It can't be done away with becuase states with smaill populations would vote against the amendment. There is a way to overcome it's evil though and that is to breakup big states like California and Texas, and others. That would create more Senators and Electors, and more Democratic States, since many parts of Texas and California prefer dems or are heading there. Frankly, I would like to invite the Candadians to join up with the US. That would help too.

[Liberal Classic]

39. Now that's what I call gerrymandering!!

You're thinking big! :)

But seriously, I've always believed we should have adhered to the 1 representative for 30,000 people. 435 people is far too few when we have 300,000,000 people. That is approximately one representative for every seven hundred thousand people. If we had 1 per thirty thousand people that would total only ten thousand representatives. That's easy to fit in any modern sports arena or music hall. I believe this would by definition be more representative than today.

I also believe in repealing the 17th amendment, just because I'm picky.