Just a reminder.

Let's see; Cal ends affirmative action, and the referendum is witheld pending court review for years. A moratorium in placed upon hunting Cougars. What exactly do more cal voters need show up for? The majority of the State is deomocratic, they by far are the most unrepresented party and yet still an easy majority with the low turnout. I do not see how increased numbers of voters would change Cal.

munk
 
I'm very pleased with myself for starting this thread. Some great stuff has appeared as a result. RonS from his soapbox spoke with clarity and eloquence and made me wish I could write like that. And, others spoke with keen thought and surprising wisdom. Again, really good stuff.

But, we do need to remind ourselves from time to time of both duty and blessings.
 
Originally posted by firkin

In the recent presidential election, the fact that the president of the United States is elected by the states, not by "one person, one vote" was completly ignored by most. But that's the reason that the electorial college exists.

The relevance of this to the the current discussion is that if the state's rights outlined in the constitution are negated, those of the individual will surely follow. The fact that members of congress have actually proposed disbanding the electorial college show that all must be on their guard.

This concept seems to be a unique feature of our government, and in discussions with Europeans about the election, nearly incomprehensable to them, even though I compared it to the European Union.
Click to expand...

Firkin - I always thought that the abolishment of the electorial college and the institution of 'one man, one vote' would be a good thing - not that I've spent heaps of time thinking about it.

COuld you explain what the advantages of the electoral college actually are?

thanks,
--B.
 
I know nothing of politics but it always seemed a bit strange to me that a person who received fewer popular votes in an election could be elected to office.
 
The Electoral College was originally instituted so voters could vote for local “electors” whom they trusted. Those electors could then study the issues and the presidential candidates in a depth that every voter cannot, and cast the ballot for their region. This is a great concept, following the same logic as the representative government. In a one-man-one-vote democracy every voter has to be conversant with every complex issue. In a republic, a representative can devote all his energy to study of the issues of interest to his district.

Unfortunately, the Electoral College is not used in the manner originally intended. People don’t even know who their local electors are, much less vote for them. They vote for the presidential candidates directly, based on the flimsiest of PR pap fed to them by the media. Then by some twisted process electors are chosen based on the people’s votes, and the electors then elect the president.

It was a good system as it was conceived, but it has been warped so that its present usage is questionable.
 
I wasn't stressing Democrats or Republicans. I meant everything, including city ordinances. There are Conservative Democrats and Liberal Republicans, so it can no longer be assumed that all Republicans are Conservative etc. My real gripe is, even if it would change absolutely nothing, that instead of seeing things like a 47% voter turnout, I want to see at least over 90%.
 
There are many reasons for the electoral college. i don't know them all. I do know every state has two senators for the same reason; to represent cultural and geographic interests not neccesarily with heavy populations. For a populations representation, we have Congress. Without this balance, the two seaboards would rule armerica. Ask yourself if you want the liberal California enviroment crowd dictating what happens to land use in Texas or or Montana. The electoral college is a method of recognizing and limiting mere 'the most guys rule', one of the most tyranical parts of any true democracy. WE are a REPUBLIC, not a pure democracy.

munk
 
I thought the balancing out was accomplished via the Senate, i.e. each state, no matter what it's size/population gets two senators - I thought this was the protection against 'coastal hegemony'.

In any case, it seems to take the 'power' away from the people and put it into the hands of the states, since one's vote (whether one voted or not) ends up being cast by the state (via the elec. coll. representative).

--B.
 
Originally posted by Bill Martino
I know nothing of politics but it always seemed a bit strange to me that a person who received fewer popular votes in an election could be elected to office.
Click to expand...

If popular vote ruled, California, New York, Florida and a few other states would decide the Presidency for the rest of us. :)

I like the electoral college method no matter how flawed it might be.

Semp --
 
Beo, Munk and others have pretty much covered the electorial college. The president is elected to represent to the rest of the world a Union of States.

How the states use this responsibility is another matter and the current sad state of affairs is the states fault. There is no reason why ALL of a state's elctorial college votes mut be for one candiadate or another. IMO, Since each elctorial vote represents a congressional district, the states could merely assign their elctorial college votes to reflect those cast in each district.As I recall only two states do that. I think both parties like the current electorial college practices, because it gives them something that they can "tweak" if it's to their benefit.
 
Some states do not have laws requiring the electors to vote any one way. This last go round brought up the possibility of further chaos.

The Founders were afraid of mob rule, the same way I fear women (and men) watching "Good Morning America" and then deciding what gun control measures they wanted enacted.

munk
 
Originally posted by munk
Some states do not have laws requiring the electors to vote any one way. This last go round brought up the possibility of further chaos.

The Founders were afraid of mob rule, the same way I fear women (and men) watching "Good Morning America" and then deciding what gun control measures they wanted enacted.
Click to expand...

That's the inherent flaw in democracy, isn't it? Does one really trust 'the masses' to make reasonable & informed decisions?

But I still don't see that the presidential election requires the electoral college - 'mob rule' is circumvented via the representational system, i.e. the US doesn't hold referendums on every issue; I think that the popular vote should determine the president, or at least that states should cast their votes proportionally to the polls rather than 'winner takes all'.

just my two bits.

--B.
 
But I still don't see that the presidential election requires the electoral college - 'mob rule' is circumvented via the representational system, i.e. the US doesn't hold referendums on every issue; I think that the popular vote should determine the president, or at least that states should cast their votes proportionally to the polls rather than 'winner takes all'. >> Beoram

The 'representational system' would not take care of it, it would then be outnumbered literally and figurativly 2 to 1, only the Senate as an equal asset enjoyed by the States. And since the president appoints the Supreme Court Justices, in effect, the two coasts would rule america. End of story. Keep in mind with popular vote not checked and modified in this way- which is proven to work, by the way, would Roe vs Wade been left from the Court intact as if the will of the people, would JIm Crow laws have ended as soon in 'white america', segragation have ended, would gays be making the progress they are? (something I am uneasy with, I admit) In other words, at any given time in our history, if the 'will of the popular sentiment' is allowed to solely decide Congress and the Presidency by strict numerical advantage, many of the 'social reforms' would never have taken place.

By weighing numbers in this way, more power than ever would go to the control of media and education, more than enjoyed today. Control of a few choice markets would determine the presidency. Our present sytem requires ideas themselves to win over numerous diverse segments of the society, where they are found, in order to be succesfull.

It works as well as man's systems can work.

munk
 
I think that the popular vote should determine the president, or at least that states should cast their votes proportionally to the polls rather than 'winner takes all'.
Click to expand...

Beoram,

I am not sure I agree with this. On the one hand we have states like Texas, California, and New York, where there is such a preponderance of strength by one of the parties that the rest of the population can be effectively ignored in presidential politics. Clearly, we would want to get these people a voice in the presidential election process if we can.

But, there is a downside to distributing the level of representation. There are 50 states, ~550 electoral votes (whatever the No. Congressmen + 100 Senators), and about 200,000,000 eligible voters. If we remove the structure and allow each congressional district to cast the electoral vote corresponding to it, we would in effect have our Congressmen and Senators electing our President. Where would the balance of power go? Instead of three equal branches, Congress would own the Executive.

We could simply devide the vote proportionally. However, if we do so then even populous states with closely divided populations would find themselves virtually ignored during the campaign. If New Jersey is going to split its vote 50/50 or 49/51 why would I even bother going there. The focus would be on states with a high percentage of undecided districts.

We could toss out the college all together and take it to a straight popular vote. But, who would then speak for the electorate. 200 million individuals speaking at once make for a load sound, but not a whole lot of communication. Would the presidential candidates knock on each of our doors to review their policies and commit to our issues? It seems ok on paper, but in effect we would loose our voice entirely.

Each of the states has a difinitive boundary, and a well defined series of public offices geared towards addressing the issues which arrise within its boundary. When the states vote as a block, the state organization can be co-opted to speak for the majority of it's population. Our Governors represent our interests and they have sufficient resources to make themselves heard in Washington. We as individuals do not have that.

Perhaps someday we will change the system. Certainly we need to remove all doubt and establish a clear mandate for each elector to
vote the will of the people. But, beyond that we should be very careful with the steps that we take. This system is far too complicated to be properly described in a couple of 30 second sound bites.

n2s
 
Well N2, you've done a good job explaining some subtleties, and made me feel a little sheepish about my 30 second sound bites.


munk
 
I'm being thick, I know - but I still don't quite understand.

I agree with Munk about the 'will of the people' not always being the best thing, mainly because people, on the whole, tend to have knee-jerk reactions and don't spend the time considering issues in the way they should. Take gun control, this forum is exempted of course, but most of the arguments on gun control on both sides that I hear never seem very well thought-out.

But back to the electorla college issue:

N2S writes
But, there is a downside to distributing the level of representation. There are 50 states, ~550 electoral votes (whatever the No. Congressmen + 100 Senators), and about 200,000,000 eligible voters. If we remove the structure and allow each congressional district to cast the electoral vote corresponding to it, we would in effect have our Congressmen and Senators electing our President. Where would the balance of power go? Instead of three equal branches, Congress would own the Executive.
Click to expand...

I don't understand - how would 'congressional district' voting lead to control of the exec. by the legis.? People don't always vote party lines, so assuming the same set of people vote in congressional and presidential elections, they results will be different. I must be missing something.


N2S writes
We could toss out the college all together and take it to a straight popular vote. But, who would then speak for the electorate. 200 million individuals speaking at once make for a load sound, but not a whole lot of communication. Would the presidential candidates knock on each of our doors to review their policies and commit to our issues? It seems ok on paper, but in effect we would loose our voice entirely.
Click to expand...


I don't understand what you mean by 'speak for the electorate'? The 'distributed' representation for the legislature makes sense, but for the presidency? (personallly I think the presidential position gives too much power to one person, but that's another matter). Surely, the net result of tthe clamour of 200 (250 I think) million people [though going by polls probably closer to 100 mil.] is a decision for who they think should be president.

It's fairly easy to imagine a scenario in which the result of the popular vote is radical different from the result of the electoral - which would not seem a good outcome.


--B.
 
Hitlery wanted to abolish the electoral college, the idea being to marginalize all rural areas even further from the democrats' blighted urban strongholds.

If we did abolish it, the midwest and all them big square states would as powerless to avoid elitist clearances as say, Scotland and Wales are today.

-Dave
 
Originally posted by Dave K

If we did abolish it, the midwest and all them big square states would as powerless to avoid elitist clearances as say, Scotland and Wales are today.
Click to expand...

Scotland and Wales actually currently have more political power than England and receive a disproportionate amount of funding (for education, &c.) because, in addition to having representives in the UK parliament, they have their own parliaments; whereas England has no parliament of its own. Bad idea...and there is now a growing 'English nationalism'.


I understand that people are claiming the electoral college helps prevent marginalisation of people living in those weird square states, but what I don't understand is HOW. It would seem they are marginalised under the electoral college system as candidates are of course most interested in grabbing the 'big' states like Florida, California, New YOrk, Texas, &c. And the electorl college seems further marginalise people within the big states like California too. Let me put it another way, if one lives in Rhode Island or whatever state has the smallest population, one's vote in the presendential election is much more weighty (in determining who receives that state's votes) than a person's vote in sya California.

--B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top