free speech

[Pego]

I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges?

In some states, judges are appointed.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Are_state_jud ... or_elected

Thank you. I did not know this.

[preston]

and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.

A plurality is the most votes and most votes make you the winner. It's a fallacy to believe that in a world where people are not only more partisan but ALSO choose their own facts that anyone who wins DOESN'T have a problem before they take office.

The Electoral College is NOT needed.

[jazzcyclist]

and spend how much money to have another election? That's crazy. Whomever get's the most votes wins. Period. (Clinton '92)

Because a 'winner' who is backed by LESS than half the electorate (and no EC backing) has a problem before s/he even takes office.

As long as those were the stated rules of the game before the election, I don't see why a candidate without a majority of votes but with an EC majority would be any more legitimate than a candidate without a majority of votes in a system that has no EC.

[Blues]

I also have some questions. Federal judges are appointed. Why not the state judges? Why not eliminate suspicion that they would be partial to their campaign donors? Police chiefs are appointed, why not the sheriff? Sheriff's job is not a popularity contest, is it? Why do registrars of deeds or town clerk have to spend money on campaigns ?

I think I prefer the election system.. Although some elected individuals could be somewhat partial to their campaign donors, I think it might be beneficial that whether they're chosen for the position or not isn't at the mercy of any possible bias or prejudice of the particular politician who's been given the power to appoint them.. It's a checks and balances thing...

[lonewolf]

[As long as those were the stated rules of the game before the election, I don't see why a candidate without a majority of votes but with an EC majority would be any more legitimate than a candidate without a majority of votes in a system that has no EC.

My sentiments exactly..
I understand the rationale behind the design the Electoral College and could argue either side of EC vs popular with equal lack of conviction.
Actually, I tend to favor the system which elects my candidate.

[jazzcyclist]

[As long as those were the stated rules of the game before the election, I don't see why a candidate without a majority of votes but with an EC majority would be any more legitimate than a candidate without a majority of votes in a system that has no EC.

My sentiments exactly..
I understand the rationale behind the design the Electoral College and could argue either side of EC vs popular with equal lack of conviction.
Actually, I tend to favor the system which elects my candidate.

I heard someone on the radio today that if Hurricane Sandy causes large numbers of voters in a few states not to be able to vote, this would be the ideal situation where the electoral college system would come in handy.

[Cooter Brown]

The parties like the electoral college because it allows them to focus their money and attention on only a few states that are in play.