Front Office Football Central - View Single Post - POL - A movement for direct election of the president

Solecismic · 06-04-2006, 08:35 AM

Originally, the concept was created to limit the ability of someone to gain election by focusing on one geographic area.

By adding the two electoral votes per state, it essentially eliminated the chance that a candidate could represent the mid-Atlantic alone (as California wasn't a factor) and never leave that area.

For its time, it was a good concept. Today, we have the same problem on a more local level. Most states have urban centers that dictate politics to the rest of the state. Take Washington and Michigan, for example. Without Seattle and Detroit, these states would be Republican strongholds. With them, the Democrats control each state.

Communications improvements have largely eliminated regional biases as well. Are you a red state or a blue state? It depends on how spread out your population has become.

So the question isn't whether the Electoral College is doing what it was designed to do. It isn't. Only a small number of states are in serious play. They get all the attention. And I'm not even sure attention is worth while. New Hampshire still gets very little back for each tax dollar it sends to the feds. I doubt anyone here even imagined that either Bush or Kerry cared one whit about New Hampshire issues.

One man, one vote sounds great in theory. But what do you do when your area is completely ignored? What do you do if you're in Washington, and you see ultra-liberal Seattle controlling the entire state - siphoning your tax dollars for projects you don't want or benefit from? Ignoring your issues completely?

Do we further break things down? Do we allow the rest of Washington to secede from Seattle? Do we allow New York to split? Because that would be the fairest thing to do, too.

There's a lot of disenfranchisement going on. But, by and large, the urban centers are sucking a lot of money and support from the rest of us, so they should be more than satisfied with the status quo. If they want even more, they should be prepared for the backlash.

06-04-2006, 08:35 AM	#48
Solecismic Solecismic Software Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Canton, OH	Originally, the concept was created to limit the ability of someone to gain election by focusing on one geographic area. By adding the two electoral votes per state, it essentially eliminated the chance that a candidate could represent the mid-Atlantic alone (as California wasn't a factor) and never leave that area. For its time, it was a good concept. Today, we have the same problem on a more local level. Most states have urban centers that dictate politics to the rest of the state. Take Washington and Michigan, for example. Without Seattle and Detroit, these states would be Republican strongholds. With them, the Democrats control each state. Communications improvements have largely eliminated regional biases as well. Are you a red state or a blue state? It depends on how spread out your population has become. So the question isn't whether the Electoral College is doing what it was designed to do. It isn't. Only a small number of states are in serious play. They get all the attention. And I'm not even sure attention is worth while. New Hampshire still gets very little back for each tax dollar it sends to the feds. I doubt anyone here even imagined that either Bush or Kerry cared one whit about New Hampshire issues. One man, one vote sounds great in theory. But what do you do when your area is completely ignored? What do you do if you're in Washington, and you see ultra-liberal Seattle controlling the entire state - siphoning your tax dollars for projects you don't want or benefit from? Ignoring your issues completely? Do we further break things down? Do we allow the rest of Washington to secede from Seattle? Do we allow New York to split? Because that would be the fairest thing to do, too. There's a lot of disenfranchisement going on. But, by and large, the urban centers are sucking a lot of money and support from the rest of us, so they should be more than satisfied with the status quo. If they want even more, they should be prepared for the backlash.