The Electoral system

In article , rw56
says...
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.

As would all other systems.

The current systems gives small population states a little more weight,
big deal.

Personally, I think the electoral system is okay, I'd just change the
winner-takes-all element of it. At least it would make it worth
Republicans trying to win over Californians and Democrats trying to
win over Texans.
- Ken

In article , rw56
says...
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.

As would all other systems.

The current systems gives small population states a little more weight,
big deal.

Personally, I think the electoral system is okay, I'd just change the
winner-takes-all element of it. At least it would make it worth
Republicans trying to win over Californians and Democrats trying to
win over Texans.
- Ken

"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

"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

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

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

wrote...
The revolution starts now.

With bitches like you fighting, are you ready to concede yet?

:-)
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt and earth(nospam)link dot net to reply via email)

wrote...
The revolution starts now.

With bitches like you fighting, are you ready to concede yet?

:-)
--
Warren
(use troutbum_mt and earth(nospam)link dot net to reply via email)

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

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