FTinPRC
- 2017-06-26
The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President
That 'buffer' was between land/slave owning white elites and everyone else.
The buffer has never been changed because it now protects capital owning elites (a very few who are non-white and/or female).
Don't forget that the 'electors' who are 'elected' are actually party hacks chosen by other party hacks and in many instances are 'unbound': free to vote for anyone they choose.
In sum: NOT ONE COMMON CITIZEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE USA HAS EVER ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THE PRESIDENT.
Please tell your children that when they ask who you voted for.
expat hubby
- 2017-06-25
Good post!
Your country's electoral system is obviously in need of change.
Curious
- 2017-06-25
I finally found a short and clear explanation for the creation of the electoral college at the beginning of the country: 2 reasons, the first one is no longer necessary and the second one should be reconsidered. There were at least 100 attempts to modify the electoral College in the last century but none went very far for the simple reason that the party in power was never interested in changing the rules that brought it to power.
The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.
The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency.
The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. 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.
expat hubby
- 2017-06-25
A 20-vote Labour gain from the Tories. Last result turned out to be a cliffhanger!
The first past the post system ain't perfect, but in Blighty the 2 major parties retain it instead of changing the system to one of PR = proportional representation. That system ain't perfect either. The reason that FPP is preferred by the 2 major parties is that it will give them more seats and squeeze out the other parties.
Curious
- 2017-06-25
2 votes, that's not tight !!
Here is tight: In the US elections, Hillary got two million eight hundred and sixty-five thousand votes MORE than trump and she lost the presidency.
