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

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...

"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.

"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.

"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 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

"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

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.

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.

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