The Electoral system

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:
"Tom Gibson" wrote...
"Wolfgang" wrote ...

[SNIPPED LIBERALLY - no pun intended]

Good God, you people will swallow anything. The abolition of the
Electoral College doesn't "favor" anyone but individual voters.

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...

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 Electoral College, by design, protects the less populous states from
the more populous states. I know that you understand how this works,
why do you continue to act like you don't get it? Do you not understand
that the Rhode Islands and Connecticuts of the early Union would not
have joined said Union if the Virginias and New Yorks were going to rule
by popular vote? The big states do have more say, just not so much more
as they have population. The fairness of such a system will be debated
ad infinitum but the system is unlikely to be changed.

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.

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?

What did you learn in the third grade that makes you believe that we
live in a true democracy?

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.

Manipulated? Puh-leeze. I can understand the desire for a pure
dmeocracy, but I (unlike you) see the beauty of the present system. A
true democracy would be a disaster, primarily due to the stupidity of
the general populace that you so often bemoan.

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.

I'll try to type this s-l-o-w-l-y for you, OK? Let's start at the
bottom and work our way up. Municipalities and counties are not
homogenous but they're generally much closer to it than states or the
union. Here in my tiny hamlet, the populace is as close to homogenous
as you're likely to find anywhere. County poitics can be quite
different. Most counties in PA have vast rural areas, often sparsely
populated, and a large town or two. In my county, nearly 1/3 of the
population lives in the county seat. Do the town folks pass laws that
shaft the country folks? Sure they do, but not very often--the country
folks ain't that far away and they're often related to some foks in
town. Basically, the geography and populations involved are too small
for gross abuses to be tolerated for very long. If it gets way out of
hand, the state usually steps in.

The states are quite a lot like the Union. Governors may be elected by
statewide popular vote, but the state house & senate are quite like the
federal variety. It's not impossible for the tyranny of the masses to
exist on a state level, but it's less likely that you seem to think.
Here in PA the rural areas are presently under the tyranny of an
ex-Philadelphia mayor who didn't win the popular vote in many places
outside of Philly. It's the first time in many many years that an
ex-Philly mayor has won the governorship. I am unaware of any states
that use an Electoral College to elect a governor, but it wouldn't be
beyond the scope of imagination. I wish PA would do exactly that!

The differences between my PA yankee cracker village and Watts or Texas'
Gulf Coast or even South Philly are tremendous. The difference between
the cracker villages all across PA is minor by comparison.

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.

Ah-ha! The purpose of the Electoral College is to protect the less
populous states from the more populous states--not to protect minority
voters from anything. Like you said, it's easy to distinguish between
the two.

As it turns out, G-Dub won the popular vote and would still be the prez
under your fantasy system. Had he won the election and lost the popular
vote, it'd be easy to argue that the 'red states' had plainly benefited
from the present system.

Tom G
--
email:remove tt

"Wolfgang" 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

While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is
not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic,
with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy.
I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.


--
Bob Weinberger
La, Grande, OR

place a dot between bobs and stuff and remove invalid to send email

"Wolfgang" 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

While all of the above is true with regard to a Democracy, our system is
not a Democracy and never has been. Our system of government is a republic,
with all the "subversions" of democracy that that entails. It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true Democracy.
I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that. Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.


--
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 ...
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.

"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.

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?


Actually, I'd feel a whole lot better about things if we actually had a
polling system that verifiably worked. Let's get that right, and then deal
with the Electoral College.

Scott