The Electoral system

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

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:x_Bjd.3491$DB.1319@trnddc04...

"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.

Hm.....

Well, China is a republic.....as a matter of fact, it's a "Peoples'
Republic" and, if I remember my Greek roots, that makes China more
democratic than the U.S. I'm not at all sure you're right about
that......um......though I will concede that China is inexorably (if
rather slowly) inching ever further toward democracy while the U.S. is
rushing headlong in the opposite direction.

It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true
Democracy.

Abolishing the Electoral College would be a step in the right
direction. If the American electorate can be sold on the patently
absurd proposition that Bush is good for them, they'll buy anything.
Why not try something that IS good for them?

I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that.

Well, there are revolutions and then there are revolutions. What if I
were to tell you, for instance, that it might be possible for a
significant fraction of the population of a major western
industrialized nation, a fraction that seems to genuinely believe that
a really big invisible guy with questionable morals wants them to kill
everybody who isn't like them, to become a major political force
within that nation....AND that the titular leader of that nation
actually courted the support of such a group and told them that he
agrees with them! Given that rationality has been around for a long
time and that it has played a large role in the development of the
political and philosophical underpinnings all major western
industrialized nations, such a scenario would be sort of
revolutionary......wouldn't you say?

Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.

A lot of people would get hurt. However, it ain't gonna
happen......so, I guess it's moot.

By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a
situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in
that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the
rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an
interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the
Electoral College will have any effect on it.

Wolfgang

"Bob Weinberger" wrote in message
news:x_Bjd.3491$DB.1319@trnddc04...

"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.

Hm.....

Well, China is a republic.....as a matter of fact, it's a "Peoples'
Republic" and, if I remember my Greek roots, that makes China more
democratic than the U.S. I'm not at all sure you're right about
that......um......though I will concede that China is inexorably (if
rather slowly) inching ever further toward democracy while the U.S. is
rushing headlong in the opposite direction.

It would take a
major re-write of our constitition to change our system to a true
Democracy.

Abolishing the Electoral College would be a step in the right
direction. If the American electorate can be sold on the patently
absurd proposition that Bush is good for them, they'll buy anything.
Why not try something that IS good for them?

I suspect nothing short of a revolution would accomplish that.

Well, there are revolutions and then there are revolutions. What if I
were to tell you, for instance, that it might be possible for a
significant fraction of the population of a major western
industrialized nation, a fraction that seems to genuinely believe that
a really big invisible guy with questionable morals wants them to kill
everybody who isn't like them, to become a major political force
within that nation....AND that the titular leader of that nation
actually courted the support of such a group and told them that he
agrees with them! Given that rationality has been around for a long
time and that it has played a large role in the development of the
political and philosophical underpinnings all major western
industrialized nations, such a scenario would be sort of
revolutionary......wouldn't you say?

Not that
such a revolution is necessarily a bad thing.

A lot of people would get hurt. However, it ain't gonna
happen......so, I guess it's moot.

By the way, in one of your replies to Stevie, you mentioned a
situation in which ballot initiatives in your state have gone awry in
that the urban majority who passed them were unaffected while the
rural minority who lost sufferred as a consequence. This is an
interesting problem, but neither the presence nor the abolition of the
Electoral College will have any effect on it.

Wolfgang

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral
process, it
subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it
does.

Given y'all's opinion of the American voting public, I'd think
you'd all LOVE it for this. ;-)

I'm an optimist. I believe that the American voting public can be
taught to think. I think the first step in the process is to give
them occasional opportunities. I realize, of course, that this has
(if only accidentally) been tried a few times.......with dismal
results......but, as I said, I'm an optimist.

Wolfgang

"Mike McGuire" wrote in message
link.net...
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.

Note that I left the last line of your previous message
unchanged......and without comment.

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.

Facinating.

This is all pretty basic stuff,

Um......so, I guess I should already have known it, huh?

and it's the context in
which a change would be considered.

Well, there's a great deal more to the context. For one thing (and,
content to leave the rest as an exercise for the reader, I'll mention
only the one), notwithstanding the sentiments of my friends in North
Carolina, the individual states in the U.S. do not in the least
resemble autonomous sovereign states some two hundreds years later
nor, in the opinion of the tyrannical majority, I believe, should
they.

So I'll stand by my expectation, it
ain't going to happen.

See above.

Wolfgang

Wolfgang wrote:

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...

Wolfgang wrote:


it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral

process, it

subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it

does.

Given y'all's opinion of the American voting public, I'd think
you'd all LOVE it for this. ;-)


I'm an optimist. I believe that the American voting public can be
taught to think. I think the first step in the process is to give
them occasional opportunities. I realize, of course, that this has
(if only accidentally) been tried a few times.......with dismal
results......but, as I said, I'm an optimist.

Wolfgang


Wolfgang,
You ARE the optimist aren't you? I think right now, (especially in this
State - Idaho), voters look at the party affiliation and vote that way
most often. I particularly like the way they stick the judges and
magistrates at the end of the ballot and ask if they should be kept (yes
or no). A person would have to educate himself by doing a bit of digging
just to find out who these people are.

Throw in "block voting" as performed by religeous group (ie Mormons,
Evangelists, Catholics) and it is going to take alot of optimism IMHO.

Philski

Wolfgang wrote:

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
...

Wolfgang wrote:


it does anything other than facilitate the democratic electoral

process, it

subverts the very core of Democracy. And that is EXACTLY what it

does.

Given y'all's opinion of the American voting public, I'd think
you'd all LOVE it for this. ;-)


I'm an optimist. I believe that the American voting public can be
taught to think. I think the first step in the process is to give
them occasional opportunities. I realize, of course, that this has
(if only accidentally) been tried a few times.......with dismal
results......but, as I said, I'm an optimist.

Wolfgang


Wolfgang,
You ARE the optimist aren't you? I think right now, (especially in this
State - Idaho), voters look at the party affiliation and vote that way
most often. I particularly like the way they stick the judges and
magistrates at the end of the ballot and ask if they should be kept (yes
or no). A person would have to educate himself by doing a bit of digging
just to find out who these people are.

Throw in "block voting" as performed by religeous group (ie Mormons,
Evangelists, Catholics) and it is going to take alot of optimism IMHO.

Philski

"philski" wrote in message
...
...it is going to take alot of optimism...

I can afford it. I live in a blue state. Um.......hm.......


Wolfgang
and i guess that's why they call it......

wrote in message .. .
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

i always found the all or nothing concept odd.....a republican voter
in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential
election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in
Maine they split electorals by congressional district.....i think
tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting
climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining
# of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular
vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the
popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral
votes....

"tim_s" wrote in message i always found the all or
nothing concept odd.....a republican voter
in MA knows it is essentially useless to vote repub in a Preidential
election; MA always goes Dem, so a Repub vote is wasted.....here in
Maine they split electorals by congressional district.....i think
tweaking the electoral college so that it represents the voting
climate of the state may make sense; keep the formula for determining
# of electoral votes the same, but split them based on the popular
vote within that state, i.e. if a candidate receives 52% of the
popular vote in a state, they get 52% of that states electoral
votes....

Or we could all just re-align ourselves. All the reds move to red states,
all the blues to the blue states, and let us unaffiliated types decide the
elections for the good of the nation.

Mark -- just a thought :~^ ) --