|
|
The Electoral system
"rw" wrote in message m... I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in Wyoming compared to a person in California. the validity of the above statement - Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush). While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example) apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having an election for President within their state, choose the electors themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes. They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they could even choose to do it by random drawing.) Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system need to be made state by state. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"rw" wrote in message m... I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in Wyoming compared to a person in California. the validity of the above statement - Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush). While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example) apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having an election for President within their state, choose the electors themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes. They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they could even choose to do it by random drawing.) Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system need to be made state by state. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"rw" wrote in message m... I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in Wyoming compared to a person in California. the validity of the above statement - Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush). While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example) apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having an election for President within their state, choose the electors themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes. They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they could even choose to do it by random drawing.) Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system need to be made state by state. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:Jszjd.1181$Fu1.176@trnddc03... "rw" wrote in message m... I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in Wyoming compared to a person in California. the validity of the above statement - Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush). While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example) apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having an election for President within their state, choose the electors themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes. They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they could even choose to do it by random drawing.) Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system need to be made state by state. An interesting argument, but it's a bit of a leap, I think, to the conclusion that simply counting up the individual ballots of all voters and declaring the candidate with the majority of votes the winner results in an "even more federalist" government. :) If, as you say, "...The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors...", then there is no legitimate reason that the individual states' "electors" can't be the voting population as a whole, is there? Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:Jszjd.1181$Fu1.176@trnddc03... "rw" wrote in message m... I wouldn't do away with the Senate. Senators are the representatives of the people of their states. The President is supposed to be the President of ALL the people. As it stands, the President, no matter who he is or of which party, is 4.5 times the President of a person in Wyoming compared to a person in California. the validity of the above statement - Consider the fact that the voters in Riverside County, CA had presidential voting patterns closer to those of Laramie County, WY (58% Bush & 59% Bush resp.) than they did to those of Modoc County, CA (73% Bush). While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population at large. The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors. It just so happens that most states have chosen to use a winner take all election. Some states (Nebraska & Maine for example) apportion the selection of their electors based on the vote within their state. If a similar method were chosen by all the states, the results would likely be "fairer". However, if a state legislature so ruled and were granted the permission to do so by their citizens, they could bypass having an election for President within their state, choose the electors themselves, and designate how they want the electors to cast their votes. They could even delegate the choice of electors to the Governor (Hell, they could even choose to do it by random drawing.) Unless we are willing to drastically change our form of government to one even more federalist than it already is, changes to the electoral system need to be made state by state. An interesting argument, but it's a bit of a leap, I think, to the conclusion that simply counting up the individual ballots of all voters and declaring the candidate with the majority of votes the winner results in an "even more federalist" government. :) If, as you say, "...The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors...", then there is no legitimate reason that the individual states' "electors" can't be the voting population as a whole, is there? Wolfgang |
The Electoral system
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... An interesting argument, but it's a bit of a leap, I think, to the conclusion that simply counting up the individual ballots of all voters and declaring the candidate with the majority of votes the winner results in an "even more federalist" government. :) If, as you say, "...The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors...", then there is no legitimate reason that the individual states' "electors" can't be the voting population as a whole, is there? Wolfgang Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... An interesting argument, but it's a bit of a leap, I think, to the conclusion that simply counting up the individual ballots of all voters and declaring the candidate with the majority of votes the winner results in an "even more federalist" government. :) If, as you say, "...The constitution does not spell out how the states are to pick their electors...", then there is no legitimate reason that the individual states' "electors" can't be the voting population as a whole, is there? Wolfgang Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:KfAjd.2995$mL1.2735@trnddc08... Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. -- Bob Weinberger More than anything, it's gonna be very difficult to get states with the smallest populations to go for the idea. Of course there is the whole amending the constitution thingy. However, I'm game, if everyone else is--all 59 million or so Amerikans. Mark |
The Electoral system
"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message news:KfAjd.2995$mL1.2735@trnddc08... Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. -- Bob Weinberger More than anything, it's gonna be very difficult to get states with the smallest populations to go for the idea. Of course there is the whole amending the constitution thingy. However, I'm game, if everyone else is--all 59 million or so Amerikans. Mark |
The Electoral system
rw wrote:
In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count. In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes, but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes. Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system? This canard seems to come up every presidential election. It is in the interest of the more populous states to get rid of the electoral college but against the interest of the less populous states. To get rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. To pass it requires 38 states to vote for it. If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine most populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That leaves 41 in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of whom only 13 need to see it that way. It ain't going happen. Mike |
The Electoral system
rw wrote:
In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count. In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes, but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes. Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system? This canard seems to come up every presidential election. It is in the interest of the more populous states to get rid of the electoral college but against the interest of the less populous states. To get rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. To pass it requires 38 states to vote for it. If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine most populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That leaves 41 in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of whom only 13 need to see it that way. It ain't going happen. Mike |
The Electoral system
"Mike McGuire" wrote If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine most populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That leaves 41 in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of whom only 13 need to see it that way. It ain't going happen. Mike hold on here. you haven't heard how pat robertson feels about the issue. everything could change. wayno ;( |
The Electoral system
"Mike McGuire" wrote If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine most populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That leaves 41 in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of whom only 13 need to see it that way. It ain't going happen. Mike hold on here. you haven't heard how pat robertson feels about the issue. everything could change. wayno ;( |
The Electoral system
"Mike McGuire" wrote in message link.net... rw wrote: In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count. In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes, but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes. Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system? This canard seems to come up every presidential election. It is in the interest of the more populous states to get rid of the electoral college but against the interest of the less populous states. To get rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. To pass it requires 38 states to vote for it. If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine most populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That leaves 41 in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of whom only 13 need to see it that way. Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang It ain't going happen. |
The Electoral system
"Mike McGuire" wrote in message link.net... rw wrote: In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count. In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes, but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes. Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system? This canard seems to come up every presidential election. It is in the interest of the more populous states to get rid of the electoral college but against the interest of the less populous states. To get rid of it requires a constitutional amendment. To pass it requires 38 states to vote for it. If a minimum of 13 oppose it, it doesn't pass. The nine most populous states hold a bit more than 50% of the population. That leaves 41 in whose interest it would not be to pass such an amendment of whom only 13 need to see it that way. Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang It ain't going happen. |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population at large. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. BTW, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court, which by a 5-4 majority (which the majority didn't even have the guts to sign), overruled the Supreme Court of Florida. So much for states rights. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
While the Presidency is a national office, under our constitution, it is an office for which the winner is chosen by the states, not by the population at large. That, in a nutshell, is the problem. BTW, the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court, which by a 5-4 majority (which the majority didn't even have the guts to sign), overruled the Supreme Court of Florida. So much for states rights. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. Can't mess with them formulae. No, siree. We'd best go back to black people being counted as 3/5 of a person (for electoral vote purposes only, and without the actual right to vote, of course). We'll have to take away the right to vote from women, as well. You damn Yankees can take your Federalism and shove it. In the original Constitution senators were selected by the state assemblies. No longer. Was that change illegal? Federal law requires states to issue conditional ballots to people who were denied the right to vote at the polls. More Federalism! How about states requiring literacy tests? How about states allowing only property owners to vote? Is that OK, or is it pernicious Federalism to ban those practices? However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. Um, is the Supreme Court part of the Federal government? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. Can't mess with them formulae. No, siree. We'd best go back to black people being counted as 3/5 of a person (for electoral vote purposes only, and without the actual right to vote, of course). We'll have to take away the right to vote from women, as well. You damn Yankees can take your Federalism and shove it. In the original Constitution senators were selected by the state assemblies. No longer. Was that change illegal? Federal law requires states to issue conditional ballots to people who were denied the right to vote at the polls. More Federalism! How about states requiring literacy tests? How about states allowing only property owners to vote? Is that OK, or is it pernicious Federalism to ban those practices? However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. Um, is the Supreme Court part of the Federal government? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. Can't mess with them formulae. No, siree. We'd best go back to black people being counted as 3/5 of a person (for electoral vote purposes only, and without the actual right to vote, of course). We'll have to take away the right to vote from women, as well. You damn Yankees can take your Federalism and shove it. In the original Constitution senators were selected by the state assemblies. No longer. Was that change illegal? Federal law requires states to issue conditional ballots to people who were denied the right to vote at the polls. More Federalism! How about states requiring literacy tests? How about states allowing only property owners to vote? Is that OK, or is it pernicious Federalism to ban those practices? However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. Um, is the Supreme Court part of the Federal government? -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic, with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy. I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic, with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy. I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"Wolfgang" wrote in message ... Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic, with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy. I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic, with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy. I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing. The revolution starts now. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic, with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy. I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing. The revolution starts now. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic, with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy. I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing. The revolution starts now. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
"rw" wrote in message m... Bob Weinberger wrote: Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. Can't mess with them formulae. No, siree. We'd best go back to black people being counted as 3/5 of a person (for electoral vote purposes only, and without the actual right to vote, of course). We'll have to take away the right to vote from women, as well. You damn Yankees can take your Federalism and shove it. Well if the formula for the number of electors for each state (as set in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution) is unfair, then the number of Senators and Congressmen aloted each state is equally unfair (" Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.") The right of women to vote was purely a state perogative until the required 3/4ths of the states ratified the 19th Amendment. In the original Constitution senators were selected by the state assemblies. No longer. Was that change illegal? No, it was legal because the required 3/4ths of the states ratified the 17th Amendment. Had they not done so it wouldn't be the law. Federal law requires states to issue conditional ballots to people who were denied the right to vote at the polls. More Federalism! While Federal law (HAVA) calls for the issuing of provisional ballots (which I assume you mean when you say conditional ballots) this whole issue is still being contested in the courts on several counts. How about states requiring literacy tests? How about states allowing only property owners to vote? Is that OK, or is it pernicious Federalism to ban those practices? 14th and 15th & (to some extent)24th Amendments ratified by 3/4ths of the states. However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. Um, is the Supreme Court part of the Federal government? Yes, and it too is bound by the Constitution. With the exception of provisional ballots (which are still in somewhat of a judicial limbo), every example you have put forth could not have occurred without the consent of at least 3/4ths of the states. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"rw" wrote in message m... Bob Weinberger wrote: Well since the *number* of electors alloted to each state is set by formula at the national level, the entire voting population of the state couldn't serve as electors. Can't mess with them formulae. No, siree. We'd best go back to black people being counted as 3/5 of a person (for electoral vote purposes only, and without the actual right to vote, of course). We'll have to take away the right to vote from women, as well. You damn Yankees can take your Federalism and shove it. Well if the formula for the number of electors for each state (as set in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution) is unfair, then the number of Senators and Congressmen aloted each state is equally unfair (" Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.") The right of women to vote was purely a state perogative until the required 3/4ths of the states ratified the 19th Amendment. In the original Constitution senators were selected by the state assemblies. No longer. Was that change illegal? No, it was legal because the required 3/4ths of the states ratified the 17th Amendment. Had they not done so it wouldn't be the law. Federal law requires states to issue conditional ballots to people who were denied the right to vote at the polls. More Federalism! While Federal law (HAVA) calls for the issuing of provisional ballots (which I assume you mean when you say conditional ballots) this whole issue is still being contested in the courts on several counts. How about states requiring literacy tests? How about states allowing only property owners to vote? Is that OK, or is it pernicious Federalism to ban those practices? 14th and 15th & (to some extent)24th Amendments ratified by 3/4ths of the states. However, essentially the same end result could ensue in each state if the state were to choose their electors proportionately to the voting results in their state. The point I am trying to make is that, under our form of government, the choice of how to select the electors is a state decision. Any move by the Federal government to dictate to the states how they do so is a major move towards greater federalism. Um, is the Supreme Court part of the Federal government? Yes, and it too is bound by the Constitution. With the exception of provisional ballots (which are still in somewhat of a judicial limbo), every example you have put forth could not have occurred without the consent of at least 3/4ths of the states. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
With the exception of provisional ballots (which are still in somewhat of a judicial limbo), every example you have put forth could not have occurred without the consent of at least 3/4ths of the states. That's exactly what I'm proposing would be a fair outcome w.r.t. our archaic and divisive and undemocratic electoral system. Do I think it will happen, at least in my lifetime? No way. I'm afraid we're stuck with it, until the revolution. That doesn't mean the present system doesn't suck. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
Bob Weinberger wrote:
With the exception of provisional ballots (which are still in somewhat of a judicial limbo), every example you have put forth could not have occurred without the consent of at least 3/4ths of the states. That's exactly what I'm proposing would be a fair outcome w.r.t. our archaic and divisive and undemocratic electoral system. Do I think it will happen, at least in my lifetime? No way. I'm afraid we're stuck with it, until the revolution. That doesn't mean the present system doesn't suck. -- Cut "to the chase" for my email address. |
The Electoral system
|
The Electoral system
|
The Electoral system
"rw" wrote in message m... That's exactly what I'm proposing would be a fair outcome w.r.t. our archaic and divisive and undemocratic electoral system. Do I think it will happen, at least in my lifetime? No way. I'm afraid we're stuck with it, until the revolution. That doesn't mean the present system doesn't suck. Well the present system may suck, but a pure majority system is likely to be just as divisive. I live in a state with an extremely strong rural/urban divide. 3 to 8 metropolitan counties can, and often do, dictate the fate of all 36 counties. We have a ballot iniative system that allows state laws and even state constitutional amendments to be enacted directly by a majority of the electorate, without going through the legislature or approval of the Governor. In the past few years I have seen several measures enacted which had little or no impact on the voters in the metropolitan areas where they carried (sometimes by not extremely heavy margins in those areas) - " Sounds like a good measure and doesn't affect me." - but which had heavy negative impacts on the voters in the sparcely populated rural areas which voted strongly against them. So, as bad as curbs on the will of majority may be, I am not entirely comfortable in doing away with them. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
"rw" wrote in message m... That's exactly what I'm proposing would be a fair outcome w.r.t. our archaic and divisive and undemocratic electoral system. Do I think it will happen, at least in my lifetime? No way. I'm afraid we're stuck with it, until the revolution. That doesn't mean the present system doesn't suck. Well the present system may suck, but a pure majority system is likely to be just as divisive. I live in a state with an extremely strong rural/urban divide. 3 to 8 metropolitan counties can, and often do, dictate the fate of all 36 counties. We have a ballot iniative system that allows state laws and even state constitutional amendments to be enacted directly by a majority of the electorate, without going through the legislature or approval of the Governor. In the past few years I have seen several measures enacted which had little or no impact on the voters in the metropolitan areas where they carried (sometimes by not extremely heavy margins in those areas) - " Sounds like a good measure and doesn't affect me." - but which had heavy negative impacts on the voters in the sparcely populated rural areas which voted strongly against them. So, as bad as curbs on the will of majority may be, I am not entirely comfortable in doing away with them. -- Bob Weinberger La, Grande, OR place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email |
The Electoral system
Wolfgang wrote:
"Mike McGuire" wrote in message Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang It ain't going happen. What I wrote was not a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of the electoral college, but rather a discussion of the probabilities of a change. The situation where change might seem most likely is when there is a difference between the electoral vote majority and the popular vote majority. That happened in 2000. Now the usual (but not the only way) a constitutional amendment is proposed is by a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress. Given the polarization that existed then, and continues, that would have been highly improbable. Any time that difference situation occurs in the forseeable future, I would expect a similar polarization to stand in the way, never mind the likelihood that there would be at least 13 states in opposition. The reason for the electoral college is the fundamental compromise that got the constitution ratified by the original 13 states, which were all but sovereign nations at the time. The less populous of them were not willing to be overwhelmed in a simple plebiscite arangement, so they got the electoral college and they got two senators per state regardless of population while the larger states got house representation based on population. This is all pretty basic stuff, and it's the context in which a change would be considered. So I'll stand by my expectation, it ain't going to happen. Mike |
The Electoral system
Wolfgang wrote:
"Mike McGuire" wrote in message Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters. With or without the electoral college, places where there are more people have more votes. With or without the electoral college, states with larger populations exert more influence becasue there are more people voting. The underlying principle behind democratic elections is that everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote, and whichever candidate gets the majority of the votes wins the election. Insofar as the Electoral College supports that fundamental tenet, it is entirely superfluous. We just don't need it. If it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral process, it subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it does. Wolfgang It ain't going happen. What I wrote was not a discussion of the rightness or wrongness of the electoral college, but rather a discussion of the probabilities of a change. The situation where change might seem most likely is when there is a difference between the electoral vote majority and the popular vote majority. That happened in 2000. Now the usual (but not the only way) a constitutional amendment is proposed is by a 2/3 vote of both houses of congress. Given the polarization that existed then, and continues, that would have been highly improbable. Any time that difference situation occurs in the forseeable future, I would expect a similar polarization to stand in the way, never mind the likelihood that there would be at least 13 states in opposition. The reason for the electoral college is the fundamental compromise that got the constitution ratified by the original 13 states, which were all but sovereign nations at the time. The less populous of them were not willing to be overwhelmed in a simple plebiscite arangement, so they got the electoral college and they got two senators per state regardless of population while the larger states got house representation based on population. This is all pretty basic stuff, and it's the context in which a change would be considered. So I'll stand by my expectation, it ain't going to happen. Mike |
The Electoral system
|
The Electoral system
|
The Electoral system
rw wrote in news:418e4dc3$0$31225
: In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count. In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes, but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes. Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system? Electoral-vote.com has a nifty review of the problem, and a variety of suggestions that have come up over the years to deal with it. One of the easiest seems to be to simply leave all the rules in place, and increase the size of the House to bring the College more in line with the popular vote. This has the advantage of not requiring messing w/ the Constitution, and it leaves the College in place as a check, which may not have been its original purpose, but it can certainly function that way. Scott |
The Electoral system
rw wrote in news:418e4dc3$0$31225
: In the 2000 election Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes, but lost the election to Bush by the Electoral vote count. In the 2004 election Bush won the popular vote by about 3,500,000 votes, but if Kerry had gotten about 140,000 more votes in Ohio he would now be the President-elect by virtue of a majority of Electoral votes. Isn't it time to reform this stupid, broken system? Electoral-vote.com has a nifty review of the problem, and a variety of suggestions that have come up over the years to deal with it. One of the easiest seems to be to simply leave all the rules in place, and increase the size of the House to bring the College more in line with the popular vote. This has the advantage of not requiring messing w/ the Constitution, and it leaves the College in place as a check, which may not have been its original purpose, but it can certainly function that way. Scott |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2006 FishingBanter