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

"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 ;(

"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 ;(

"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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.