So now I don't get a vote?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Different, but more important? Because a farmer's vote carrying more weight (through a skewed Electorate system) than a city dweller's vote is putting more importance on his opinions than the city dweller. How can that be democratic?

Who ever said we live in a democracy?

The point of the electoral college is that without it, those in sparsely populated areas have no voice. If a candidate can get 51% of the popular vote by catering only to the largest population centers, they will.

I don't know that I have a completely clear opinion on the matter myself, but mostly I fall with Alex on this. The current system isn't particularly effective as it has mostly shifted where the disproportionate representation is rather than mitigated it. But I think the solution is to fix the system, not do away with it. I just don't have a particularly good idea as to how to fix it.

[Jazzman]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Who ever said we live in a democracy?

Seriously. You don't consider the U.S. a democracy. I really can't offer any response here because I have no idea how to discuss that issue. It's like denying that a horse has four feet. So, yeah...

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

...if all a presidential candidate cared about were raw votes when Los Angeles and Denver are fighting over water access and allocations then it is a slam dunk that you promise LA whatever they want to gain 3 million votes and lose 1 million in Colorado. The sensibleness of Colorado objections doesn't matter at all. Instead, ideally, the candidate is stuck trying to find a third way that will perhaps get him both LA and Colorado.

I'm not convinced that in today's world that would happen because I don't think it's that simple. If a candidate were to do that in today's society of instant news coverage and independent blogs, his promise to L.A. would go out over the airwaves and most likely piss off more than just the Coloradoans (Is that how you collectively refer to Colorado residents?) since everyone nowadays has an opinion on everything. There'd be concerned citizens everywhere who would look at that and say, "Well, he's just making false promises." Or, "If he'll write off Colorado that easily, then he probably doesn't care about us either" and vote for the other guy. The general public is more informed today than in the past, and I think that even with a popular vote a national candidate would still have to tread lightly for fear of losing the votes of the like-minded. Maybe I’m wrong and only those directly involved in the issue would let it change their minds, but after the national outcry over Katrina or other localized events like it, I just don’t believe that we live in a world anymore where people are that attached to just their own state, county, city or whatever. We’ve been taught for years now to “think globally,” and I think candidates would have to contend with that.

[Jazzman]

Of course, we could easily solve the problem with one season every four years of "Presidential Idol." Seacrest could host, Simon could rip on their domestic agendas, Randy could compliment their Brooks Brothers suits and Paula could drool on them. It'd be awesome, and Only On Fox!

[Kevy Baby]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

Seriously. You don't consider the U.S. a democracy? I really can't offer any response here because I have no idea how to discuss that issue. It's like denying that a horse has four feet. So, yeah...

Note: I added a question mark at the end of the first sentence as I believe that was a question, not a statement. If I have done this incorrectly, I apologize.

It's splitting hairs in my opinion (saying that we do not live in a democracy).

Technically, the basis of our political system is a representative democracy - we elect leaders to make decisions for us on the majority of the issues (some issues, such as Constitutional amendments do require a vote of the people, but the majority of the decisions are made by the elected officials). We elect these leaders based on the perception that they will make the decisions that we expect them to make. Unless a government representative is elected by a unanimous vote (as highly unlikely a scenario as one could ever find), that elected representative is by nature not voting on behalf of all his or her constituents (i.e. - that representative is not acting on behalf of the people who voted for his or her opponent). This is the basis for the argument that we do not live in a democracy.

A "true democracy" has all of the affected persons (you and I) voting on each and every issue that comes to hand - a logistically impossible scenario in all but the smallest of entities.

[Alex]

We're a republic that selects its representatives through democratic means (it is entirely possible to be non-democratic republic).

Jazzman, you could be right. And like I said it is a matter of prioritization, not absolutes. However, if our modern technological society truly has conquered the problems I see that support something like the electoral college then I would say it is too soon to know for sure and therefore too soon to toss it based solely on that hope.

However, I don't know that I agree with the assumptions in your premise. I don't know that people are more informed now than in the past, though I do agree that they have the ability to be more informed and likely are much more informed on topics of specific narrow interest. And even if better informed I don't know that it would have the impact you expect. History pretty much demonstrates that the capacity of unimpacted people to express outrage at the slighting of others is pretty limited.

Besides, if Person A in Minnesota is going to be outraged at the insult to Coloradoans because maybe you'll insult them too, then Person B in Miami is just as likely to approve because maybe it is safe to assume that this candidate will reliably put the interests of urban development above the interests of mangrove swamps.

Maybe we've been taught to think globally for years but I don't see much sign that many actually do so.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

A "true democracy" has all of the affected persons (you and I) voting on each and every issue that comes to hand - a logistically impossible scenario in all but the smallest of entities.

The fact remains that we are not a true democracy, so to claim that having a representative process for electing the President is somehow anathema to our system of government is ignoring the fact that there is almost no part of our government that acts on a directly democratic vote. It is not antithetical to what we use democracy for. It may very well be that a democratically elected President is a good idea, but, "It's undemocratic to do it otherwise" is an argument that doesn't hold much water.