I don't really understand the logic behind the Electoral College in the US? Why not have a popular vote. It seems to me that in a basic sense, the country was created on the foundation of "one man, one vote". Well, the electoral college really takes away from that... A vote in DC, first of all, means nothing. Then, in a very very extreme state, your vote matters much less than in a swing state. I don't understand the basic reason a popular vote wouldn't work.

Do they have an Electoral College elsewhere? Or only the US?

I hate the electoral college. It has changed so many elections against what the people actually want.

That said, it was originally implemented (as I understand) because it was too hard to collect each individual ballot back when we didn't have the technology that we have now.

Makes sense then, but wouldn't it seen natural to update the system when we have technology capable of counting this many votes?

Then again, considering how often voting machines screw up, our technology might not be any more accurate than it was hundreds of years ago... But with a national "popular vote", we could get a national voting system rather than having a different one for every state like we do now.

Screw up? How about voting machines are often rigged to only count certain votes. Speculation, sure, but I believe it to be true.

Well we've got it better here than in most places around the world (including Venezuela, which I've witnessed firsthand).

So no logical reason behind the Electoral College in modern times?

Well, to prevent voting fraud, but who's to say that the Electoral College isn't bribed? It's a chance you have to take. It would be a whole heck of a lot more representative.

...of course, then you have our current Pressident that refuses to do what we want.

In the UK we have a first past the post system, which is the same as your thing but with a different name. The alternative is proportional representation, which means that your vote actually counts for something in itself: a certain number of votes=one seat. They use it everywhere in Europe. You get pretty weak governments most of the time, so they have to form coalition governments with other parties, but its fairer.

We also have the house of lords, which is filled with skanky old men who're in there because their dad was. I don't like the house of lords becuase it's undemocratic, but I do like it because its part of English heritage, which we don't have a lot left of anymore

The purpose of the electoral college in the beginning was to be sure that small states with less population were not stomped on and ignored by larger states, and it succeded in the beginning, but at this point it is totally useless.

Because the Electoral College doesn't make small states more important... votes in the College are still based off population, right? So smaller states (population-wise) get less votes... so it works out the same each way, right?

One argument I've heard is that it's easier and more fair when candidates only look for votes nationwide rather than concentrating on their home state or whatever (it's easier to campaign in, say, Arkansas, if you know that you need Arkansas' votes rather than going all over the country because all votes count the same). That said, isn't the current system making candidates campaign in the same few states and ignore the rest of the country??

Not so, here is an article excerpt explaining why:
Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states

But the real reason that it was created was because we are the United States of America. Although it is not true today because the Federal government has invaded every aspect of state government, the states were ment to be seperate countries that were unified by one government. They wanted the states, not the people to be able to pick the President.

Another reason is given by Hamilton in Federalist 68: I
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

In short they are saying that the people at the time were not informed about current events and that they could be easily manipulated so they created a group of educated citizens who would meet once, and would know enoujgh to choose a qualified person to be President.

Makes perfect sense... in 1800! Now the system and logic behind it seems quite outdated.

This is true, I was simply stating the reason its creation originally, and stating the fact that it does prevent small states from bieng run over as far as power in Presidential elections goes.

I don't see the point in the house of lords being democratic... That would just split accountability. I say we either have it, or we don't...

And if we have it, lets at least have peers who are heradatory, and thus represent a minority that truly cares about the country (because they own most of it...).

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION...lege_procon.php

if you have a little time, read this. very interesting - now i'm not so sure about this...

Eh...interesting read, but it still doesn't change my mind.

Why is a two-party system SOOO healthy? Sure, it makes you question political views and encourages different ideas, but overall I think it hurts the system more than benefits it.

Urgh, I'll have to read that tomorrow. It's already waaaaay past my bedtime (Five hours of sleep again, oh lovely.)

At least the US two party system has some ideology left... In the UK its all sensless populism.

True...

True dat. But the infighting here is pretty bad...

The argument was interesting on that site... the fact that it encourages more moderate beliefs in a 2 party system rather than more extreme beliefs that will fraction up into smaller parties... then again the author was very pro-EC and did ignore some very good arguments against it.

I actually find it quite surprising how the US system managed to hang onto so much ideology... I would have expected it to go down the path of straight populism long ago.

It was headed down that path at one time, but I think the ship has righted itself...

Yeah, well - I think your two party system is better than mindless populism. At least people have a choice about key moral, economic and social issues. Here all you really decide is who you trust to put them into action, because everyone is saying the same thing essentially.

There's no passion in UK politics. We need a revolution to starve people and make them realise how important things can be. Vive le/la revolution!

Hear hear!

the problem here is that b/c we have only two big parties, a lot of people vote for one side or the other for the wrong reasons - republicans get millions of votes b/c they are pro-life (anti-abortions) and they are against gay marriage... though a lot of people are against the iraq war and the republicans' mismanagement of the economy, they get voted in office because of mystical "family values" and gay marriage...

wtf is more important? the country's economy or gay marriage? are you serious? why vote on the basis of such an insignificant thing???

I should damn well say so. Who're you going to vote for this tuime round?

because maybe, if you take the time to empathise with religious people, it is that important, because as far as they're concerned, they're going to hell if thay dont.

The Democrats...they're bad, but the Repubicans are worse. I wouldent vote for them though if Clinton ran, the whole world would go to shit with her as President. I think in that case I might vote independant....

It depends what area you are in... Me, I will vote for whoever I trust to represent me - but in the Uk you can do that, because the parties are all much the same, and MPs tend to consider the views of their constituants beforee their manifestos...

Ferg: Did you know Andrew Smith was part of the Labour rebellion over Tridant? The bastard sent this eally crappy letter round in which he justified his decision with mindless assertions. He said he had a 'moral' problem with nuclear qweapons basically - but never said what this actually ment - it sounded just like George bush saying he has a 'moral' problem with gay marriage...

I have no opinion on Trident. Probably because I don't know enough about it. The thing is, I'm not sure what to think about nukes. The trip to Hiroshima really made nukes a grey area

That little rant was just a nice opportunity to have a go at Andrew Smith. Who I hate for Other Reasons.

But I do think its a good idea to maintain a nuclear deterrant. I just wish we wern't so hippocriticle about it and let everyone lese have one too...

That's bloody true. What are your Other Reasons?

If you look at his voting record which you can access here:

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/andrew_smith/oxford_east

You will see that the bastard supports the following things I hate:

1. The smoking ban.
2. ID Cards
3. The fox hunting ban
4. labours vile 'anti-terrorism' laws.