12 total posts
I've never understood the idea of voting for delegates
rather than the candidates directly. Who really knows these people? I also wonder how many pick a name they like based on its nationality, gender sound, etc. Let's just put the candidates on the ballot and simplify it. Life is confusing enough.
I think most
...look at who is pledged to whom and choose from those, and only make a definite choice for a person if they know of them, or against a delegate if they also know he/she can't be trusted to back that person they are pledged to.
Some States have had people complain
already about how the delegates' names are on the ballot with NO identifier regarding who that delegate supports. Unless you actually do your homework ahead of time or personally know the delegate you have no clue. I wonder how many new voters who came into this particular election for the first time left without even voting because they didn't know this?
And we'll, no doubt, be revisiting the question
about whether or not our electoral college system is better than a direct popular vote.
The Electoral College was a good idea
a hundred years ago or so because there weren't huge cities and people lived so far from where they could vote......it's completely outdated for today's standards since there are also a few states already where you can vote online now.
how does that figure into primaries?
That's only for general election of the President and vice President.
Picking delegates versus picking candidates.
It's because some of the founding fathers
You can prove that, how?
The Founding Fathers didn't trust the GOVERNMENT itself, even though they set it up and they provided for the PEOPLE and the STATES to have the control. The "government's" job was strictly to PROTECT those people and those States.
The only reason the electoral college was put into place was because of DISTANCE....which is also why Congress has 'representatives' elected by the people....because PEOPLE all across the country can't/couldn't easily get to a voting place or even to DC to make their voices heard.
It isn't necessary anymore and should be abolished completely so the people once again have the control rather than put their trust into a very few voices that can actually have the self-appointed authority (appointed by their own party rules, btw) to disregard the actual people who voted for them and pledge those delegate votes anywhere they want to.
Cruz just announced that his running mate will be Carly.....did you know that the delegates on the convention floor can actually vote separately for the VP before they vote for the Presidential nominee? They are allowed to do so, and we could end up with Trump as the nominee and Carly as HIS vp instead of Cruz's. If THAT isn't a joke, please tell me what is.
It was to provide balance
So one part of the country would have less chance of imposing it's will on the other part. We see what happened when they tried that before and the South objected. The electoral college was to try and avoid such situation, but when you have a person like Lincoln, determined to start a war as when he ordered troops into Sumter fort AFTER secession, then any tyrant elected can do his own will.
Balance is why we have both a senate and congress
with each state represented equally in one but proportionally in the other. The electoral college simply lumps the two together meaning that even a state with a population of one person would have two representatives. If all states carried the same weight in the legislature, folks in Wyoming could would have equal influence to those in California. Well...maybe that wouldn't be so bad.
In any event, we already have small minorities that, when banded together by politicians, can prevent the greater majority from holding sway against ridiculous laws and regulations. Think of that while wondering why public restrooms occupy so much political and media space.