User talk:Jampend

Views on Electoral College

Hi, Jampend, and welcome to Wikipedia. I was reading your user page where you seem to argue against the Electoral College system in the United States. I also read through the Web page you provided. The problem with eliminating the Electoral College, however, is that it wouldn't give the small states a voice. No one would worry about North Dakota, with only 600,000 people living there. Candidates would simply skip the place. So, in this effect, the Electoral College is especially beneficial to small states in close elections. Thus, the Electoral College was strongly supported by the small states since its inceptions. There are other problems that would occur in trying to abolish the Electoral system. For one, it would require a constitutional amendment and passed by 36 states in the union. This would never happen, mostly because of what I described above. It has become too much of a tradition to just stop. At least, these are my views (but I know I'm not alone in them). Cheers! ~ UBeR 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the thing is that I am in a debate and I my topic is that electoral college should be changed. But the thing is that I cant find a single good reason for electoral college to be changed. Any ideas at all?

Jampend 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the Web page on your user page makes a few good arguments. For example, in states like Wyoming, where there are less than 500,000 people but three Electors, each Elector holds more weight per population of the state compared to very populous states like California. Most of the times, the Electors vote the same way the rest of the population votes in their states, but sometimes they don't, and most of the time there is no penalty for not voting differently. Overall though, I think you find most people accept the elector system for what it is. ~ UBeR 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good point but i cant use that for the whole main argument although i do have a section on that in one of the minor arguments, the only problem is that like i said before, i cant find a argument that will actually make my point and make it so i win the debate, i think im in over my head...Jampend 17:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(btw do u play rs?)Jampend 17:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is rs? If I don't know what it is, my guess is no. :-) ~ UBeR 17:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well your name is in a runescape language lolJampend 17:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Electoral College is a pretty interesting and unique thing. It's not perfect, as it was a compromise between the larger and smaller states (e.g. Madison vs. Sherman). When we look at the Electoral College we have to realize that it has evolved into something the Framers did not expect. It was designed to work without political parties, to cover both nominating and electing, and ultimately to elect a nonpartisan president. What the Framers expected was overwhelming majority's votes for one person. Of course, we saw this lasted no longer than Washington stayed in office. Also, electors had no way of distinguishing which vote was for president and which for president. As a result, for example, in 1800, Democratic-Republicans Jefferson and Burr were running for president and vice president, respectively. Accordingly, each Democratic-Republican (the majority) casted one vote for Jefferson and one vote for Burr. The result was a tie between them both. Of course, the House voted Jefferson in as president, but only after convincing the lame-duck Federalist not to vote Burr into presidency. Luckily now, we have the Twelfth Amendment. Still, there were problems. For example, in 1824 Jackson had more popular votes and electoral votes, but not enough to gain presidency. When the vote went to the House, Adams was voted in, not Jefferson! Despite these problems, there are many more problems that would result without it. It works, but it's not perfect. ~ UBeR 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So do you think minimum wage is a good or bad thing? Or are you just non.....non....non something I think you get what I'm trying to say.Jampend 18:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]