<p>ahhhhhhh! we never learned about the war powers resolution (or i forgot to study about it <em>chuckles lol</em>)</p>
<p>thank God for this test- probably my only chance at a 5. except maybe lit, but we won’t talk about that until saturday :)</p>
<p>Think about it!</p>
<p>As I so enlighteningly noted in my FR, let’s say we have a hypothetical small state with 1 person living there. That one person gets to influence three electors, guaranteed. In our small states, it’s not that blatant, but the advantage is CLEARLY to the small states.</p>
<p>yea…but the same goes for the 55 votes in Calfornia. </p>
<p>Why would California want to give up a system that ensures such a huge dominance over the smaller states?</p>
<p>If anything, the smaller states would want more equal representation…like 3 votes PER state…or whatever, which would give them the advantage in that case.</p>
<p>I’m sure it can go either way as long as you explain it. To say that it’s “CLEARLY” small states is slightly flawed.</p>
<p>It’s weird though…because my review book specifically states that ONLY large states benefit with the electoral college.</p>
<p>my gov textbook says advantage is to small states. i didnt even THINK of this for the ap exam :(</p>
<p>^
Then I guess my review book is wrong?? Seriously…it says, and I quote, “Highly populated states totally dominate the system, and less populated states are generally ignored by candidates and campaigns.”</p>
<p>Ah…Im just waay too stubborn. </p>
<p>So…x3rose, what did you write for that answer?</p>
<p>tradition (couldn’t think of anything else) and mob mentality/uneducated voting and not making the best choice or something</p>
<p>well, say no one presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. The decision is then given to the house of reps. well, wyoming has a total of one rep – california has 53. That one rep will then have as much power or say as the 53 reps from cal.</p>
<p>“tradition (couldn’t think of anything else) and mob mentality/uneducated voting and not making the best choice or something”</p>
<p>eh, whatever. I totally blanked on the war powers resolution provisions. Only remembered the 60 day rule. </p>
<p>“well, say no one presidential candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes. The decision is then given to the house of reps. well, wyoming has a total of one rep – california has 53. That one rep will then have as much power or say as the 53 reps from cal.”</p>
<p>That’s a really good point. I didnt think of that. annn was right I guess…it really depends on how you argued it.
So, do you think my argument would still get me the points??</p>
<p>Edit: Im looking at wiki (I know, i know), and even there this specific topic is controversial. So…I guess we all win!</p>
<p>I claimed that without electoral system, states with small population will be even weaker that it already is within the federal government since no president would give a damn about them since those states have almost no voting power.</p>
<p>You can see how small states benefit from the system through this example:</p>
<p>Alaska has a population of about 600,000 and 3 electoral votes. One electoral vote for every 200,000 people.
California has a population of 34,000,000 and 55 electoral votes. That’s one electoral vote for every 600,000 people.</p>
<p>If the electoral college was removed, they would actually matter LESS. It’s true that large states benefit in that more attention is paid to them, but that isn’t the only consequence of the electoral college systen.</p>
<p>I said that both small and large states benefit in different ways from the current system, so neither really has a reason to change it. So IMO you’re not wrong if you said either large or small benefit, but you are wrong if you said the other doesn’t benefit at all. But they might not get that picky.</p>
<p>My other reason was that it is a safeguard against total rule by the popular will, which the founders distrusted.</p>
<p>Yes. If we had no electoral college, large states would matter even more. Because they have proportionally WAY more people than small ones. We definitely had this discussion in class in great depth and detail. So large states benefit from the current system only in that they benefit from having more people at all. The removal of the system would lead to even more attention paid to them, and their votes would not count less than someone from Wyoming’s.</p>
<p>HAHA I also mentioned Wyoming! But crossed it in fear that I might be incorrect : (</p>
<p>for the electoral college one why it;s not abolsiehd: amendment has never been passed and although brought up from time to time has never passed; minorities have bigger say when their electoral power is limited to a state (e.g. blacks in the south have more political clout because they make up a larger percentage of the populaton in those states than they do nationwide), thus their power would be diluted if the vote became nationwide and they’re opposed to changing the system. that seems right, no?</p>
<p>bump. 10char</p>
<p>“for the electoral college one why it;s not abolsiehd: amendment has never been passed and although brought up from time to time has never passed; minorities have bigger say when their electoral power is limited to a state (e.g. blacks in the south have more political clout because they make up a larger percentage of the populaton in those states than they do nationwide), thus their power would be diluted if the vote became nationwide and they’re opposed to changing the system. that seems right, no?”</p>
<p>I think for the first one, about how no amendments have been passed, they may be looking for a reason as to why they have not been passed, because you’re kind of repeating the question there. However, they may give you a point…Im no grader</p>
<p>I couldnt tell you if the 2nd one is right or wrong…never learned it.</p>
<p>I wrote in addition to tradition one I thought of on the spot.
It mantains teh balance of federalism with the winner take all system by giving the individual states a direct say in the leader of the federal government’s executive branch.</p>
<p>Bumping up so I don’t have to search again for this interesting thread.</p>