gergroy said:
bettergetdave said:
The electoral college serves a very important purpose most people don't comprehend and on its face I know it seems anti democratic. It is set up to insure that states get votes counted accurately as to the population as well as prevent a minority rule or more simply put a sitting president with only 35% of the country actually agreeing to vote for that person. I'm not positive but I believe this is how Hitler took control in Germany and the electoral college helps prevent something like this whether nefarious or not.
In addition the electoral college is only with the president that is just 1 of 3 checks and balances in government. The rest are voted on by pretty much straight up popular vote. So the Government is largely represented by directly elected officials. Lastly I agree corruption is bad and rights and interest are often second to many politicians with exception to their home states when they cater to them. That said show me a government of any kind, any place, where this is not the case.
|
Huh? How can the electoral college prevent a minority from nominating the president? It actually allows that to happen. Like George w. Bush won the presidency but lost the popular vote...
|
Because it serves as a winner take all system. I think there is only a 3-4 times in history that someone took the popular vote and didn't win the electoral college and it has been a difference of about 100K-500K votes. In the grand scheme of things it works pretty well. It is not at all like having a situation where someone wins 40% of the vote and the election. 60% of the country that could have voted for 2 other people combined definitely would be unhappy with the 3rd choice elected by only 40% of the country. Don't forget the system also protects smaller and larger states and cities making the candidates be more than just regional popular. You have to win a majority of the map and not just get all the votes in 5 largest states whose population greatly out weighs 15 other states.
