The Electoral system
 

George Adams wrote:
From: Charlie Choc

As an example, MT has 3 electoral votes for around 900,000 people,
NY has 31 for around 19 million people. Even if they were
proportioned within the states, Each MT voter would still have
around twice as much "say" in the outcome and a candidate could still
win the popular vote and lose in the
electoral college. FWIW

Y'know, if I was a Democrat who hated the "neocons" and wanted them
out of office, I would be looking for ways to bring my party back
into prominence and in position to win some elections, instead of
blathering on endlessly about making changes to the constitution.

George, George, George. That would involve some internal reflection and
possibly the conclusion that some of the more "progressive" ideas are
not mainstream enough to sway voters and even might drive voters away.
Since that can't possibly be the case, it *must* be you are, indeed, a
rube. ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

The Electoral system
 

On 09 Nov 2004 13:10:26 GMT, ojunk (George Adams)
wrote:

Y'know, if I was a Democrat who hated the "neocons" and wanted them out of
office, I would be looking for ways to bring my party back into prominence and
in position to win some elections, instead of blathering on endlessly about
making changes to the constitution.

HTH

Yer Pal,
Rube

Well Rube, where did I suggest any of the above? Also, I'd be curious
if you could show me a post where I used the term "neocon", or said I
was a Democrat.
--
Charlie...

The Electoral system
 

"Wolfgang" wrote ...
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.

Wrong. The Electoral College protects the rural from the tyranny of
the urban. Of course, some urbanites might reasonably argue that they
are presently under the tyranny of the rural... Being a rural
citizen, I'm all for it. Without the electoral College, I'm screwed.
Hell, without the Electoral College, CA & NY will take turns buggering
the other 48 states until we're all walking funny.

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.

Hence the myth of American Democracy is unveiled. It's *not* a
democracy, it's a Representative Republic. Your argument is based on
the false pretense of a truly democratic US of A. As has been pointed
out elsewhere in this thread, the majority of states benefit from this
arrangement, so it is unlikely to be changed in our lifetime.

The Electoral system
 

"Wolfgang" wrote ...
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.

Wrong. The Electoral College protects the rural from the tyranny of
the urban. Of course, some urbanites might reasonably argue that they
are presently under the tyranny of the rural... Being a rural
citizen, I'm all for it. Without the electoral College, I'm screwed.
Hell, without the Electoral College, CA & NY will take turns buggering
the other 48 states until we're all walking funny.

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.

Hence the myth of American Democracy is unveiled. It's *not* a
democracy, it's a Representative Republic. Your argument is based on
the false pretense of a truly democratic US of A. As has been pointed
out elsewhere in this thread, the majority of states benefit from this
arrangement, so it is unlikely to be changed in our lifetime.

The Electoral system
 

"Tom Gibson" wrote in message
om...
"Wolfgang" wrote ...
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.

Wrong. The Electoral College protects the rural from the tyranny of
the urban. Of course, some urbanites might reasonably argue that
they
are presently under the tyranny of the rural... Being a rural
citizen, I'm all for it. Without the electoral College, I'm
screwed.
Hell, without the Electoral College, CA & NY will take turns
buggering
the other 48 states until we're all walking funny.


The popular vote in New York and California (not to mention New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois) went to Kerry. The
electoral vote in New York and California (etc.) went to Kerry. The
election went to Bush. Please explain who the electoral college saved
from what and how.

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.

Hence the myth of American Democracy is unveiled. It's *not* a
democracy, it's a Representative Republic.

This hoary old piece of dog **** simply WILL NOT die. Did ANYONE in
this group get beyond the second grade?

Your argument is based on
the false pretense of a truly democratic US of A.

Not even close. My argument is based on a desire to see a particular
form of democracy, a form that will better reflect the desires of the
majority of the voting public as opposed to one that can be
manipulated to thwart those desires.

Both after the 2000 elections and again after this one, I suggested
that if people really believe the electoral college serves to protect
minorities from the tyrannical majority they should lobby for similar
institutions at state and local levels. Thus far, no one has seen fit
to examine this suggestion. Why is that? Is it really possible (let
alone likely) that populations within individual states are so evenly
distributed....both geographically and politically....that the tyranny
of the masses is impossible on this level while it is such a looming
threat nationally?

As has been pointed
out elsewhere in this thread, the majority of states benefit from
this
arrangement, so it is unlikely to be changed in our lifetime.

Pick a state.....any state.....and tell me how it benefited from this
arrangement. And then, if it's not too much trouble, please explain
what the matter of benefiting a particular state has to do with the
question under consideration. I thought the purpose of the electoral
college was to protect the rights of minority voters. Voters, as far
as I have been able to determine, are generally easy to distinguish
from states both by a considerable difference in size and by the fact
the latter consist of land that is more or less capable of sustaining
life while the former are typically inert meat.

Wolfgang

The Electoral system
 

The following was taken from http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was
rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too
divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others
felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining,
corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others
felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the
legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This
idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the
State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus
undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote.
Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution
doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without
sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people
would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At
worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to
govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones. Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the
Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president
through a College of Electors.



Sarge

The Electoral system
 

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
However, it sort of invites the question of what purpose......other than
a junket at the
taxpayers expense......the electoral college would then serve. It seems to
me that if whoever is responsible for tallying the election results can
count to 52 and can be trusted to do so with a reasonable degree of
accuracy
and honesty, then he or she could also likely handle picking up the phone
and calling that number in to whoever needs to be called.

Wolfgang

Minor point, but there is no junket (at least at a national level) at
taxpayers expense.
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for
President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an
inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their
ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the
person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of
all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as
Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall
sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the
United States, directed to the President of the Senate; ..."

Amendment XI to the US Constitution.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

The Electoral system
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:

Minor point, but there is no junket (at least at a national level) at
taxpayers expense.

Does the Electoral College offer scholarships? :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

The Electoral system
 

Bob Weinberger wrote:

Minor point, but there is no junket (at least at a national level) at
taxpayers expense.

Does the Electoral College offer scholarships? :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

The Electoral system
 

From: Charlie Choc

Well Rube, where did I suggest any of the above? Also, I'd be curious
if you could show me a post where I used the term "neocon", or said I
was a Democrat.

The remark was directed at this entire thread, not you specifically.

So I guess you voted for Bush, and want to keep the electoral college? {;-)


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

The Electoral system
 

From: rw

Does the Electoral College offer scholarships? :-)

No. We got too many electricians now, and they're too damned expensive.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

The Electoral system
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

[alot!]

While quickly downing my lunch (Weigh****chers(R) SmartOnes(R)
Fiesta Chicken, chosen not really 'cause I want to lose weight
but because they are cheap and I really don't need anything
bigger), I read this post and thought up all sorts of cogent
and witty and accurate replies. However, I am trying to improve
my ability to recognize brick walls and avoid them, and I
think I just found one...but I can't help but tap on it a
little.

I find it interesting that while "the left" holds itself up
as the side better or more interested in protecting the
rights of minorities (in whatever form they may be), on this
issue it seems to be doing the exact opposite. Why?

(And yes, Wolfgang, there are all sorts of things apart from
the elections where the disproportionate influence of voters
in small states benefits them. The easiest to measure is perhaps
the ROI per federal tax dollar sent.)

Like some Asians who are bemused by the term "oriental" because they
don't believe they are east of any particularly noteworthy benchmark,
I have to wonder how someone with my.....shall we say, peculiar
political and social predilections gets lumped together with some
nebulous "left". There are a lot of minorities that I would as soon
gut as **** on. I'll defer to others to speak for themselves.

I'm still interested in learning which minorities got protected from
whom.....and how....by the electoral college in the recent
presidential election. In particular, I'd be interested in learning
who got protected from the evil New Yorkers. If I read the returns
correctly, Kerry got ALL of New York state's electoral votes. I have
a hard time believing that he got 100% of all the individual votes
cast. Sans electoral college, Bush would surely have gotten some of
the New York vote. How, exactly, did the electoral college protect
and defend the poor downtrodden Republican minority electorate in
rural America from the big bad New Yorkers?

Wolfgang

The Electoral system
 

"Wolfgang" wrote:
"Tom Gibson" wrote...
"Wolfgang" wrote ...

[SNIPPED LIBERALLY - no pun intended]

Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the
Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters.

Wrong. The Electoral College protects the rural from the tyranny
of the urban. Of course, some urbanites might reasonably argue
that they are presently under the tyranny of the rural...

The popular vote in New York and California (not to mention New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Illinois) went to Kerry. The
electoral vote in New York and California (etc.) went to Kerry. The
election went to Bush. Please explain who the electoral college
saved from what and how.

The Electoral College, by design, protects the less populous states from
the more populous states. I know that you understand how this works,
why do you continue to act like you don't get it? Do you not understand
that the Rhode Islands and Connecticuts of the early Union would not
have joined said Union if the Virginias and New Yorks were going to rule
by popular vote? The big states do have more say, just not so much more
as they have population. The fairness of such a system will be debated
ad infinitum but the system is unlikely to be changed.

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.

Hence the myth of American Democracy is unveiled. It's *not* a
democracy, it's a Representative Republic.

This hoary old piece of dog **** simply WILL NOT die. Did ANYONE in
this group get beyond the second grade?

What did you learn in the third grade that makes you believe that we
live in a true democracy?

Your argument is based on the false pretense of a truly democratic
US of A.

Not even close. My argument is based on a desire to see a particular
form of democracy, a form that will better reflect the desires of the
majority of the voting public as opposed to one that can be
manipulated to thwart those desires.

Manipulated? Puh-leeze. I can understand the desire for a pure
dmeocracy, but I (unlike you) see the beauty of the present system. A
true democracy would be a disaster, primarily due to the stupidity of
the general populace that you so often bemoan.

Both after the 2000 elections and again after this one, I suggested
that if people really believe the electoral college serves to protect
minorities from the tyrannical majority they should lobby for similar
institutions at state and local levels.

I'll try to type this s-l-o-w-l-y for you, OK? Let's start at the
bottom and work our way up. Municipalities and counties are not
homogenous but they're generally much closer to it than states or the
union. Here in my tiny hamlet, the populace is as close to homogenous
as you're likely to find anywhere. County poitics can be quite
different. Most counties in PA have vast rural areas, often sparsely
populated, and a large town or two. In my county, nearly 1/3 of the
population lives in the county seat. Do the town folks pass laws that
shaft the country folks? Sure they do, but not very often--the country
folks ain't that far away and they're often related to some foks in
town. Basically, the geography and populations involved are too small
for gross abuses to be tolerated for very long. If it gets way out of
hand, the state usually steps in.

The states are quite a lot like the Union. Governors may be elected by
statewide popular vote, but the state house & senate are quite like the
federal variety. It's not impossible for the tyranny of the masses to
exist on a state level, but it's less likely that you seem to think.
Here in PA the rural areas are presently under the tyranny of an
ex-Philadelphia mayor who didn't win the popular vote in many places
outside of Philly. It's the first time in many many years that an
ex-Philly mayor has won the governorship. I am unaware of any states
that use an Electoral College to elect a governor, but it wouldn't be
beyond the scope of imagination. I wish PA would do exactly that!

The differences between my PA yankee cracker village and Watts or Texas'
Gulf Coast or even South Philly are tremendous. The difference between
the cracker villages all across PA is minor by comparison.

As has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the majority of
states benefit from this arrangement, so it is unlikely to be
changed in our lifetime.

Pick a state.....any state.....and tell me how it benefited from this
arrangement. And then, if it's not too much trouble, please explain
what the matter of benefiting a particular state has to do with the
question under consideration. I thought the purpose of the electoral
college was to protect the rights of minority voters.

Ah-ha! The purpose of the Electoral College is to protect the less
populous states from the more populous states--not to protect minority
voters from anything. Like you said, it's easy to distinguish between
the two.

As it turns out, G-Dub won the popular vote and would still be the prez
under your fantasy system. Had he won the election and lost the popular
vote, it'd be easy to argue that the 'red states' had plainly benefited
from the present system.

Tom G
--
email:remove tt

The Electoral system
 

On 09 Nov 2004 21:18:30 GMT, ojunk (George Adams) wrote:

From: Charlie Choc

Well Rube, where did I suggest any of the above? Also, I'd be curious
if you could show me a post where I used the term "neocon", or said I
was a Democrat.

The remark was directed at this entire thread, not you specifically.

So I guess you voted for Bush, and want to keep the electoral college? {;-)

My electoral vote went to Bush - so yes I did - and the only contested races
on my ballot were for president and US senate. All other candidates, including
US rep, were republicans. You probably voted for more democrats than I did.
g

If the real purpose of the electoral college was as "Sarge" posted - to keep
everyone from only voting for favorite sons since they had no good way of
learning about other candidates - then I think it has outlived its usefulness.
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

The Electoral system
 

In article ,
lid says...
On 09 Nov 2004 21:18:30 GMT, ojunk (George Adams) wrote:

If the real purpose of the electoral college was as "Sarge" posted - to keep
everyone from only voting for favorite sons since they had no good way of
learning about other candidates - then I think it has outlived its usefulness.

Why does it matter what the intention was? Shouldn't the argument to
change be based on what it currently does?
- Ken

The Electoral system
 

The Electoral system
 

In article , rw56
says...
wrote:

Why does it matter what the intention was? Shouldn't the argument to
change be based on what it currently does?

I agree with you, Ken. In my opinion, it's totally ****ed up and
archaic, serves no useful purpose whatsoever, and is divisive,
undemocratic, and tends to throw the election to the courts, which we
saw in 2000.

I think anytime the vote result is less than the margin of error you'll
be settling things in court. Pick any system and it'll happen
eventually.

I, personally, think that weighting smaller population states a little
heavier is fair. If not, you could win the top ~10 cities and win the
election. My only issue is with winner-take-all. It sucks to be stuck
in a liberal/conservative state and never have your vote matter. There
has to be a better way to split the electoral votes...plus it wouldn't
need a constitutional amendment.
- Ken

The Electoral system
 

In article , rw56
says...
wrote:

Why does it matter what the intention was? Shouldn't the argument to
change be based on what it currently does?

I agree with you, Ken. In my opinion, it's totally ****ed up and
archaic, serves no useful purpose whatsoever, and is divisive,
undemocratic, and tends to throw the election to the courts, which we
saw in 2000.

I think anytime the vote result is less than the margin of error you'll
be settling things in court. Pick any system and it'll happen
eventually.

I, personally, think that weighting smaller population states a little
heavier is fair. If not, you could win the top ~10 cities and win the
election. My only issue is with winner-take-all. It sucks to be stuck
in a liberal/conservative state and never have your vote matter. There
has to be a better way to split the electoral votes...plus it wouldn't
need a constitutional amendment.
- Ken

The Electoral system
 

On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:22:04 -0800, wrote:

In article ,
says...
On 09 Nov 2004 21:18:30 GMT, ojunk (George Adams) wrote:

If the real purpose of the electoral college was as "Sarge" posted - to keep
everyone from only voting for favorite sons since they had no good way of
learning about other candidates - then I think it has outlived its usefulness.

Why does it matter what the intention was? Shouldn't the argument to
change be based on what it currently does?

That's a question for the originalists and modernists to hash out. g
--
Charlie...
http://bellsouthpwp.net/c/c/cchoc/

The Electoral system
 

wrote in message
...
In article ,
lid says...
On 09 Nov 2004 21:18:30 GMT, ojunk (George Adams)
wrote:

If the real purpose of the electoral college was as "Sarge" posted - to
keep
everyone from only voting for favorite sons since they had no good way of
learning about other candidates - then I think it has outlived its
usefulness.

Why does it matter what the intention was? Shouldn't the argument to
change be based on what it currently does?

Good point. At the moment, it doesn't appear to be doing anything.

Wolfgang
who would be delighted to get paid for doing nothing useful once every four
years.......and nothing the rest of the time.

The Electoral system
 

wrote in message
...
In article ,
lid says...
On 09 Nov 2004 21:18:30 GMT, ojunk (George Adams)
wrote:

If the real purpose of the electoral college was as "Sarge" posted - to
keep
everyone from only voting for favorite sons since they had no good way of
learning about other candidates - then I think it has outlived its
usefulness.

Why does it matter what the intention was? Shouldn't the argument to
change be based on what it currently does?

Good point. At the moment, it doesn't appear to be doing anything.

Wolfgang
who would be delighted to get paid for doing nothing useful once every four
years.......and nothing the rest of the time.

The Electoral system
 

From: Charlie Choc

My electoral vote went to Bush - so yes I did - and the only contested races
on my ballot were for president and US senate. All other candidates,
including
US rep, were republicans. You probably voted for more democrats than I did.
g

Actually, I did. We don't get a lot of viable Republican contenders for local
offices hereabouts.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

The Electoral system
 

On Sun, 07 Nov 2004 13:00:06 -0700, rw
wrote:

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.


That's cause they tend to be very short in Wyoming.

The Electoral system
 

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 21:39:58 GMT, Tom G wrote:


As it turns out, G-Dub won the popular vote and would still be the prez
under your fantasy system. Had he won the election and lost the popular
vote, it'd be easy to argue that the 'red states' had plainly benefited
from the present system.


Actually, the point with which rw started this thread was the
opposite: that with a swing of 140K votes in Ohio, Kerry would
have won the presidency with a shortfall of ~3M votes. And
the majority of the Wyomings would have been on the losing
end.

The Electoral system
 

On Tue, 09 Nov 2004 15:42:30 -0700, rw
wrote:


I agree with you, Ken. In my opinion, it's totally ****ed up and
archaic, serves no useful purpose whatsoever, and is divisive,
undemocratic, and tends to throw the election to the courts, which we
saw in 2000.

It serves two purposes. First, it makes things more interesting.
Just sitting back and watching a counter to tell us who wins just
isn't much fun or engaging. Sitting there trying to figure out which
way states are going and the combination that will result in a
tie, etc, makes this systemworth its weight in gold, in years where
the elections are close, as opposed to Regan/Mondale or
Nixon/McGovern. The other purpose it serves is that those of
us in the solid reds and blues aren't swamped with endless
commercials for the presidency. That's worth it's weight in
titanium.