The Electoral system

Bob Weinberger wrote:

Heck, RW, if that's the criteria for a "broken system", don't just stop with
doing away with the electoral college, get rid of the Senate as well. After
all both Wyoming and California get the same number of senators. Each voter
in WY has 717 times the representation in the Senate of a voter in CA., so
the system must be truly "broken". Gee, the designers of our constitution
must not have had any idea of what they were doing..

They knew what they were doing. They were pragmatically crafting a
compromise. Times change.

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.

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

"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

"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

"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

"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

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.

"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

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.

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.

"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