Electoral Colledge

[Rogue]

This is the official type of government we have.
The pourpose of the EC was to prevent a pure democracy. (Mob rule, might makes right...).
The intent of the EC is that the States elect the President. Not a popular vote of the people. We are "The United States of America"

Living here in "fly-over country" I would hate to think that Southern Cal. Washington State and New York would decide who the president is to be.
IIRC Gore won the popular vote by 500,000, if we removed LA and New York from the tally Bush wins by 1 million. I digress.

[telkanuru]

I'm in the "I live in Massachusetts, and I want to cast a vote that actually matters" category. Cheers!

[MHS Fencer]

Originally Posted by Rogue

Living here in "fly-over country" I would hate to think that Southern Cal. Washington State and New York would decide who the president is to be.
IIRC Gore won the popular vote by 500,000, if we removed LA and New York from the tally Bush wins by 1 million. I digress.

The United States has a population of about 293,000,000 (CIA World Factbook). New York City has a population of roughly 8.1 million and LA of about 9.8 million (US Census Bureau - based on county populations and excluding the greater metropolitan area). so, that's 17.9 million people in those 2 cities. Now, roughly 1/3 of the people voted out of the total population (FEC), which means that New York City and LA together probably had about 6 million people turn out to vote. In order to get a 1.5 million split this means that the cities would have gone about 62% to Gore and 38% to Bush (I'm discounting third parties as insignificant here).

To compare, New York State as a whole (19+ million) went 60.2% to 35.2% for Gore, that includes people upstate and in suburban areas - A larger enough split to show where that 1.5 million comes from, and New York is on the whole a diverse state, not just NYC. Bush managed some more impressive margins, like 69.2% to 28.3% in his favor in Wyoming (although only 213,726 people voted in that state - meaning each person counted for about .000014 electoral vote - in New York each person coutned for .0000045 electoral vote - in other words their vote counted about 1/3 as much.

I want my vote to count the same as somebody who lives on a farm in Iowa and casts his vote, the same as a rancher in Wyoming, or a lawyer in LA. Or, for that matter, the same as a farmer in NY or a lawyer in Iowa or Wyoming. The electoral college was created in order not just to protect "state's rights" and to protect individuals from themselves, but to make sure that it was easier to count and to prevent vote fraud, which were much easier to pull off before our modern systems. (That said, i support electronic voting machines with a paper record that is kept in a ballot box for the sake of verification in case of a disputed result).

Maybe I'm a radical, but it strikes me that we deal with threats on the national level (when 9.11 happened people said that it was not an attack on new york but on this country as a whole, this country as a whole is fighting the 'War on Terror' and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq). It's this country as a whole responding to threats and making foreign policy, and I'm sick and tired of having my vote count 1/3 as much as somebody from Wyoming, although my individual vote wouldn't count there either as it's pretty much a predetermined red state right now - (no polling firms have even polled on Kerry v. Bush there). All of us should have an equal ultimate impact that isn't .000014 or .0000045 depending on our geographic location, but which is 1, depending on the fact that we are a voting age citizen of the United States of America.

Indeed, the EC prevents the tyrrany of the majority and rewards us with something entirely more fearful - tyrrany of the minority, where the special interests of the few (those in swing states and those with money) outweigh the greater interests of the whole. It's not as if there are no checks or balances to maintain state's power elsewhere (whether they should exist in their current form is another debate) as the senate is the ultimate authority on not only war and peace and taxes, but on judicial nominations (ahh, the judiciary - that ambiguous yet powerful yet impotent third branch), and that ensures representation for all states, regardless of population, in all aspects of federal government. Why, when the state's have the power to fight things that are contrary to their interests, when the rights of the minority are ensured, why should we have in office a man who fewer people voted for than his challanger? The president is not the only authority, nor is he the ultimate authority at all, but there is no need for him to be a representative of not only a minority, as many candidates have been elected with a minority of votes, but as a representative of a smaller minority.

The presidency isn't all-important, but it's important enough that we should all have the ability to weigh in and have an equal chance to have our say, whether as a citizen of Ohio or California, of Florida or Mississippi, of Massachusetts or Texas.

[jeff]

Excellent analysis - well said!

[adidas33k]

Great post

[Rogue]

In a popular presidential election, should a candidate be allowed to become president if they recieved less than 50% of the popular vote?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by Rogue

In a popular presidential election, should a candidate be allowed to become president if they recieved less than 50% of the popular vote?

Definately. With a strong third party candidate, everyone might get less than 50%.

[Army Fencer]

Wow... this crap from Jimmy Olson sucks. How can we have our own discussions?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Definately. With a strong third party candidate, everyone might get less than 50%.

This happens all the time in various European countries which have popular elections for the presidency. The standard solution is a run-off election. However, instant runoff voting (IRV) is a method that has all the pros of the ordinary runoff, and fewer cons. Do a google search, if you are not familiar with the theory of voting methods. Do a search for Arrow´s theorem is particular - it is food for thought.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

Wow... this crap from Jimmy Olson sucks. How can we have our own discussions?

Just as annoying as the goofy cartoon character it's based on. "Gee, Superman, I'm in trouble again!". Boy reporter, hah!

[jBirch]

Like oil on water, the good stuff always rises above the spam...BUMP!

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

I disagree - the electoral college should go, and should have gone years ago. The fact that it was built into the original Constitution is irrelevant: they also voted that blacks (who werent allowed to vote) counted as 3/5 of white people for purposes of calculating electoral representation. We've gotten better as a country since then.

It's a vestige of founding fathers' suspicion and distrust of giving the regular citizen too much power. It violates core principles of democracy like "one person, one vote'.

It gives further bias to small states beyond that of the 2 per state in the Senate, because each state gets 3 electors automatically, regardless of population.

It diverts all attention to swing states, disenfranchizing voters in states, large or small, that are expected to be solidly for one party or the other. Why should a candidate campaign or focus on issues specitic to NY, which is expected to go Democratic (and vice versa for a state expected to go Republican). So, we hear a lot about risks of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountains that affect 2M people in Nevada, a swing state, instead of protecting 19M people in NY from terrorism in the state's harbors, a non-swing state. We hear a lot about Cuban issues because Florida is a swing state, but not about similar issues for other ethnicities. So, it distorts the actual subjects that get discussed and decided on, and makes sure that certain constituencies get disproportionate power to influence candidates.

It also discourages people from voting: if your state is solidly expected to go for one side or the other, why even bother going to the polls? Policy that discourages voter participation is bad policy.

The electoral college system violates the principles of 'majority rule' and 'every vote is equal'. It needs to go.

Please tell me you're joking. The States elect the President. The sovereign States (you knew that was coming), no matter how big they are. The Founders were RIGHT to distrust majority rule.

An example you might appreciate: A MAJORITY of people thought that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11. A MAJORITY of people initially agreed with the decision to invade Iraq. Shall I go on?

Even with the EC the populace has learned that it can vote itself individual benefits at the expense of the whole. Granted the EC doesn't have control of the pursestrings directly, but the candidate who promises to give the people the most goodies is viewed by the MAJORITY in a favorable light.

(sidenote: begin rant: When we got away from having the Senate appointed by the States we did some serious damage. The idea was for the Senate to be SOMEWHAT insulated from the People. Direct election essentially made the Senators into glorified Representatives. end rant)

Since when are we a democracy? I was under the assumption that we were a representative REPUBLIC. The sheer size of the country prevents true democracy.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Please tell me you're joking. The States elect the President. The sovereign States (you knew that was coming), no matter how big they are. The Founders were RIGHT to distrust majority rule.

Not joking. You have a better idea? Do you claim that the non-representative method we have now improves upon the alternatives? Why?

Originally Posted by gojujay

An example you might appreciate: A MAJORITY of people thought that Iraq was directly involved with 9/11. A MAJORITY of people initially agreed with the decision to invade Iraq. Shall I go on?

And the electors what have done different? Nope. Anyway, since you mention it, a MAJORITY of people believe those things because they were lied to by the President, who also lied to the Senate that voted for the Iraq war.

Originally Posted by gojujay

Even with the EC the populace has learned that it can vote itself individual benefits at the expense of the whole. Granted the EC doesn't have control of the pursestrings directly, but the candidate who promises to give the people the most goodies is viewed by the MAJORITY in a favorable light.

No, no: you confuse two completely separate things: the idea of democratic representation leading to 'tyranny of the majority' and protecting minority interests with the idea of different state's majorities doing the same thing. I appreciate your concern, but the electoral college really doesn't prevent that. In fact, it makes it easier since campaigners can focus on the states where they either expect to win or have a swing to convince.

Originally Posted by gojujay

(sidenote: begin rant: When we got away from having the Senate appointed by the States we did some serious damage. The idea was for the Senate to be SOMEWHAT insulated from the People. Direct election essentially made the Senators into glorified Representatives. end rant)

Since when are we a democracy? I was under the assumption that we were a representative REPUBLIC. The sheer size of the country prevents true democracy.

Well, we're not going to have town halls to decide each issue in a massive country, but the principal of 'one person, one vote' still makes sense: it is how we should select the people who represent us. Direct elections (while keeping representative government) would be the better, fairer way of doing so.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

Not joking. You have a better idea? Do you claim that the non-representative method we have now improves upon the alternatives? Why?

Because the winner of an election is, by definition, representitive of only part of the population (the part that voted for them). An appointee is not elected and so free to represent EVERYONE equally. It's the reason for a non-elected senate and the rationale for the monarchy in Canada. The key to making it work is in who does the appointing.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Because the winner of an election is, by definition, representitive of only part of the population (the part that voted for them). An appointee is not elected and so free to represent EVERYONE equally. It's the reason for a non-elected senate and the rationale for the monarchy in Canada. The key to making it work is in who does the appointing.

I think we're talking at cross-purpose: the electoral system used to elect the President (and nobody else) is not evenly representative of the voters will; I think it should be. That's a totally different discussion from whether some offices should be appointed or not.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

I think we're talking at cross-purpose: the electoral system used to elect the President (and nobody else) is not evenly representative of the voters will; I think it should be. That's a totally different discussion from whether some offices should be appointed or not.

Not if the argument is whether the office of the president should or should not be appointed.

[jeff]

By whom? Generally appointive offices are appointed by the executive branch (eg: judges, cabinet officers), while the executive branch is voted for by 'We The People'. I may be misunderstanding you, but I can't believe you think the President should be appointed by other then the people or (if you like the electoral college route) by a proxy for the people that expresses their wishes. Could you explain what you mean?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

Buy whom? Generally appointive offices are appointed by the executive branch (eg: judges, cabinet officers), while the executive branch is voted for by 'We The People'. I may be misunderstanding you, but I can't believe you think the President should be appointed by other then the people or (if you like the electoral college route) by a proxy for the people that expresses their wishes. Could you explain what you mean?

By whom it should be is a different debate, but in the US electoral system, the President is elected by the electors for each state (whose representative power is spelled out in the constitution). The electors are determined based on State legislature, with some appointing them and others electing them, and still others appointing them but directing them to vote based on the results of a general elections. Part of the reason why the Presidental Candidates ignore certain States is that their electors are appointed by means other then general election and so are influenced differently then those who freely elect their electors.

The President is not voted for. The electors are voted for, or the electors take their direction from the guidance of popular opinion based on a free vote of the citizens for the purpose of determining who the State will vote for. Remember, States are not provinces. They are supposed to be sovereign and are expected to act in the union as sovereign nations.

We the people vote for and elect senators and representatives,. States vote for and elect the President and Vice-President. Why you vote for Senators and vote for Representatives seperately, is odd to me. I can't distinguish the purpose of the Senate except to sit during the election of the Representatives.

I do indeed think that the Executive should be appointed by means other then election, but then again, I am Canadian and I am Monarchist. I believe that Executive power should be representitive of the WHOLE of the people, not just those that voted for the winner.

Take it easy.

[jeff]

jBirch, you describe how electors are selected, yet their votes are (except for special cases) determined by the popular votes in their states - essentially they're blank ciphers. We The People cast votes for candidates, the votes map directly into electors, and the candidate with the most electors wins that state. The reason candidates can ignore states has nothing to do with how the electors themselves are selected, they have to do with the fact that some states are expected to have a large lead for one candidate or the other (and expected outcome), and that it's more useful to expend efforts in states that are more closely contested and the outcome can be influenced. Secondarily, because some states have more electors than other, based on population.

The other comments puzzle me more: States are by no means sovereign. They don't make their own currency, raise armies, negotiate treaties with other nations (or in general, with each other), or declare war.

The Senate certainly does have a job (I don't know what you mean by 'sit during the election of the Representatives'). Just off the top of my head: they can initiate legislation and investigations (as can the House of Representatives), they have longer terms (6 years instead of 2 in the House which supposedly fosters a longer horizon of perspective) different numbers and composition (2 per state instead of based on proportional population - the Constitution's mechanism to prevent small states being swamped by the large ones), and they uniquely have the 'advise and concent' powers for executive branch confirmations like to the Supreme Court (a power not given to the House). So, they have similarities compared to the House, but they're not just a duplicate.

And, not to pick a fight or anything: how is a Monarch representative of *all* of the people? I would consider him or her to representative of *none* of them.