The Electoral system

"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

"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

"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

"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

"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 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

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