"Our President is chosen by ourselves, directly in practice, for we vote for A as elector only on the condition he will vote for B …" -- Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816.
Oct 27
“Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle”
~Thomas Jefferson
RSS feed
Tue, 10/13/2009 - 3:17pm
You guys are missing the point of the electoral college. The point is that we are not a democracy, we are a representative republic. There was a reason for that: given the different values espoused by the different parts of the country, the different forms of industry, and the differences in the people, it was important to ensure that a highly populated area in one area (i.e., CA, NY) would not be able to completely trounce smaller states with different values (i.e., VA, NC, pick one). The number of electors is based on population, so it was a fair compromise to ensure democracy, while yet protecting us from the harms of democracy.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Tue, 09/29/2009 - 11:19am
No, the electoral college does not represent what the people want. Like in 2000 when Bush JR was elected he did not have the popular vote of the people but he won because of the electoral college. The electoral college can not represent what the people want because one person has the vote of many people and he may not vote for what the people want.
Sat, 09/19/2009 - 2:20pm
The president is chosen by a juror of his peers. Juror meaning that like minded people of his interests have chosen him to lead the country in the direction that it should go. The president is not chosen by us because us implies everyone. He is chosen by the majority who believe in the same issues as he. When we elect a president we put him in the position to speak for us when we can not speak for ourselves. He or she is there to implement the policies and laws that the majority desires to feel safe and comfortable once again. The President is put into place to vote for the polices and laws that the people who voted for him wants. So A is elected to provide for B.
Fri, 06/26/2009 - 8:23pm
The Constitutional requirements for an Electoral College are fair. It's the individual states (or at least 48 of them) that distort the will of the people by requiring ALL of the electors to vote for the plurality candidate as determined by the November general elections. This skewing is seen most clearly in California. More than half of California's Congressional districts voted for the Republican candidate, John McCain in 2008. But their electors were not allowed to represent that choice in the Electoral College in December, because California law requires ALL of the electors to vote for the statewide plurality candidate, Barack Obama. So even if 49% of California voters want one candidate, 100% of California's electoral votes go to the other candidate. Thus, the voters' wishes in the majority of California districts were completely reversed. Since California usually votes Democrat under its "winner-takes-all" laws, and California often decides the national election, the Democratic Presidential candidates have never wanted to complain about the system.
Nebraska and Maine have laws that require the Congressional District Method of electoral voting. This is the plan that assigns one elector to each Congressional district, and that elector must vote the way his district votes. The two "senatorial" electors vote either according to the plurality of districts, or according to the plurality of the popular vote. Unfortunately, those two states only cast a combined 9 votes.
Because the Constitution specifies the number of electors for each state is equal to the number of its Representatives (population) plus the number of its Senators (2, equal voice), one can only assume that the Constitutional Congress envisioned that the majority of electors would be representing the people's choice, but instead the states have set up a "ruling party" plan whereby the party in control of the state legislature muscles its plurality into a "landslide" of 100% of its electors. So don't "write your Congressman;" write to your state representative.
Loretta Yeo
Virginia Beach
Wed, 03/04/2009 - 9:00pm
No, its right! Jefferson is always right!
Mon, 03/02/2009 - 1:49pm
That's wrong!
Sun, 03/01/2009 - 5:42pm
It might, however it might not. There's a good chance that (in the early days of our Republic) many electors did not pick what candidate their constituents wanted, since communication was poor in such a tumultuous chapter of our nation's eclectic history. They may have not even known what their constituents wanted; or they may have wanted someone to win who their constituents hated. Either way, there was very few ways of regulating that they vote for what the people want. Nowadays, it is much more regulated, and there is a system which uses the popular votes to distinguish what the electors vote for. (All of the state's representatives have to vote for who won their state's majority of popular votes). In the early years, electors from the same state could vote for different candidates.
I'm not trying to say that Jefferson is wrong; he is right beyond all belief. I'm just voicing my opinion that he was stating an event which was likely to occur.
~Elias Tarleworthe
Sat, 11/29/2008 - 9:50pm
The answer to your question yes. There have been times when the electoral college voted opposite of the popular vote. The most recent example of this is the 2000 election where Al Gore received 50,996,116 votes but lost to George W. Bush who received 50,456,169.
Mon, 11/10/2008 - 11:55am
I don't think that the Electoral College is fair to the people because the people are voting for nothing. (just wasting thier time). The Electoral College picks the president, not the people, but also most of the time the Electoral College picks the same prsident as the people do. Only three times in the United Stated that the Electoral College picked a different president than the people did. I do not think the Electoral College is fair to the United States citizens.
Your firend,
Jame More
Wed, 11/05/2008 - 7:17pm
There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits the electoral college from voting contrary to the will of the people. However, it is left up to the states to lay down regulations on the electors. When one considers that one votes for a body of electors chosen by the party committees and no doubt thoroughly vetted, one realizes that it is highly unlikely that an elector would vote contrary to the will of the people.
There have been several instances in which one candidate won the popular vote but the other won more electoral votes; Lincoln, for example, won the election despite losing the popular vote, which, I venture to assert, was a good thing. There has never been an election in which the electors defied the will of the people.
~ Publia
Sun, 11/02/2008 - 10:23pm
Is there an opportunity for an electorial delegate to oppose the will of the people and vote for the candidate of his/her personal choice? Have there been elections where the popular vote went toward one candidate, but the electorial college voted differently?
Thu, 10/30/2008 - 12:49pm
The Electoral College acts as an equalizer. Otherwise, the value of the people’s votes of the greater populations in, for example the Northeast or California, would outweigh the value of the people’s votes cast in those lesser populated states. The wisdom of our Founding Fathers recognized this probable inequity, and created the Electoral College to ensure the value of each individual vote and that the Electoral College must be guided by the vote of the people in their state/region. Therefore, constitutionally, the will of the people is represented. Brilliant! An American in Florida
Thu, 10/30/2008 - 11:30am
Yes, the Electorial College represents the will of the people because the people (majority) chose the representatives to make policy for us. We can't start second guessing something because our candidate didn't get chosen. This question has only recently come to light because some party's candidate did not get chosen and that party is sour grapes about it.
We must learn to be responsible citizens and stand by our choices, no matter what the outcome.
Thu, 10/30/2008 - 10:12am
How so? We vote don't we? Combined we all elect the president. It may not be the one we vote for, but still.
Thu, 10/30/2008 - 9:16am
Direct popular election of government leaders has historically been one of the elements of the tool of tyrants and led to the violent downfall of government.
The USSR had a direct system by which their head of government was elected -- unfortunately there was only one name on the ballot to vote for. Even then people were compelled to cast their ballots even though there was no choice. Areas that failed to reach a certain level of participation were punished.
Our founders recognized the problems with direct, popular election and preserved us from that evil.
LeRoy Paul; A man born out of time!
Wed, 10/29/2008 - 10:38am
But it's not a one to one ratio, so no, the President is not "directly" chosen by us.
(Probably a good thing. maybe.)
Post new comment