With a very large sledgehammer.
Mr. du Toit posts a timely short essay on "Why an electoral college?"
Why is it timely? Because as the election in 2004 gets closer, you will hear this question asked over and over again and I want you to have the answers. That, and because I said so. Neener.
Key line:
We are not a democracy, we are a representative republic.
Why do we have an electoral college? I also look to the 2000 election but for different reasons. Take a look at how red the map is, especially when you look at the one that shows how the counties in each state voted.
Posted by: Greg on December 3, 2003 07:33 AMIt really amazes me how many people get all bent out of shape over why the United States isn't a 'democracy', but is instead a republic.
I think the label 'republic' makes them think of Republicans and they have an involuntary gag reflex.
A representative republic is to ensure that 'mobocracy' doesn't rule over the minority amongst the people (over-simplified, but there you have it).
Posted by: Mad Mikey on December 3, 2003 09:41 AMAn argument against it is also an argument for abolishing the Senate, which is equally undemocratic. Tempting at times, but, No.
Posted by: Noel on December 3, 2003 08:14 PMGreg, the Senate was never meant to be DIRECTLY democratic. The Senate was democratic, though. The People elected state legislators, who picked Senators. The theory was to prevent sudden shifts in popular sentiment from having strange effects on the compostion of the Senate. The Senate was also supposed to be more concerned with the good of the country, since they had no direct constituency.
Please note, Greg, that an income tax was not approved until after the Senators became elected. Also not how quickly the Government ballooned after the direct election of the Senate.
Posted by: Eric Sivula on December 3, 2003 10:40 PM