Electoral Colledge

[gojujay]

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?


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.

My problem is that large groups tend to sink to the lowest common denominator. They are filled with people who hear one thing with which they sympathize on an emotional level, and run with it. They fail to put in adequate thought and reasoning to their decision-making process.

Originally Posted by jeff

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.

So instead they focus on major population centers. If you thought "flyover country" was big before... I think it comes down to voters actually feeling a connection to the government and that they have a say. Especially in the only nationwide election. I don't have to worry about some New England lefty or a southern fried redneck (stereotypes I know, used only for the sake of argument) cancelling my vote. I just have to worry about a San Francisco lefty or a Central Valley redneck, both of whom are fellow Californians. It's a perception issue; actually knowing somebody in an elected position feels like you have a voice that might make a difference, even if your position is the one that loses.



[/QUOTE=jeff]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.[/quote]


Wasn't that how thet Greeks did it, though? A big meeting/discussion, then a vote of the eligible voters?

What, no comment about the Senate?

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jBirch

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.

I like your answer better than mine. Much more coherent.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

No, but they can make laws and enforce them, which is probably the MOST basic function of government.

No doubt, but it doesn't make them sovereign. The small town I live in passes and enforces laws, but it sure as anything isn't sovereign. Sovereignty, notwithstanding the A+ answer from our president, is much more. Let's not confuse two completely separate concepts.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

I agree that the electoral college is necessary to allow small states to get more attention. &etc

You confuse two important things here: first of all, this really isn't about big vs. small states, it's about swing states vs. states with an expected outcome (like: Texas expected to go for Bush, NY expected to go for Kerry). Today, voters in a small 'safe' state are even more likely to be ignored than in any other system. Secondly: abolishing the electoral college would mean that states don't elect the president - the people do. Which I think is a good thing.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

It helps with other things. The majority of the people of this country live in cities, but with the electoral colledge, their votes as a whole do not overwhelm the farmers' votes.

The counter argument is: why should a small number of people have disproportionate power over everyone else? That fundamentally not fair.

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

And most of all, it makes the votes easier to count. If we can't count the votes of a few small towns in Florida, how are we going to count over 100 million?

You have this backwards: a statistically insignificant difference in votes in Florida (essentially a tie plus or minus a tiny delta) was able to leverage the entire electoral vote of the state - as if all Florida voters had voted for Bush. This is inherently more inaccurate, since it creates a mandatory 'winner take all' regardless of actual margin. Also: since we already collect the popular vote, it's no harder (or easier) to add it up 50 times to get the sum for the entire country.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

I like your answer better than mine. Much more coherent.

Except he seems to get fundamental, relevant facts wrong...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

My problem is that large groups tend to sink to the lowest common denominator. They are filled with people who hear one thing with which they sympathize on an emotional level, and run with it. They fail to put in adequate thought and reasoning to their decision-making process.

So, you wanna give up on democracy? Churchill had a good line on that. Besides, the electoral system doesn't solve this. It means you can play the emotional chords to a targetted population all the more effectively, even though the consequence ultimately will be for the entire nation.

Originally Posted by gojujay

So instead they focus on major population centers. If you thought "flyover country" was big before... I think it comes down to voters actually feeling a connection to the government and that they have a say.

With this point I emphatically agree. I just think the electoral system makes it worse, since my vote won't count simply because running up the score in one state doesn't count for anything in the overall election.

Originally Posted by gojujay

Especially in the only nationwide election. I don't have to worry about some New England lefty or a southern fried redneck (stereotypes I know, used only for the sake of argument) cancelling my vote. I just have to worry about a San Francisco lefty or a Central Valley redneck, both of whom are fellow Californians. It's a perception issue; actually knowing somebody in an elected position feels like you have a voice that might make a difference, even if your position is the one that loses.

Fun stereotypes aside, what I think your saying is that local elections are more personal and it's easier to become involved. No doubt about it, but I don't see what this has to do with electoral college being used for the Presidency. And, as I said before, this is about swing states: your vote is worth less as a Californian than the either of the stereotypes you mentioned both numerically (How do you feel about that - knowing that your vote doesn't count as much?) and because California is considered to have a predictable outcome.

Originally Posted by gojujay

Wasn't that how thet Greeks did it, though? A big meeting/discussion, then a vote of the eligible voters?

Yeah, but tough to scale up to USA size, dontcha think? Besides, the Greek system let only free males vote, which excluded most of the adult population.

Originally Posted by gojujay

What, no comment about the Senate?

I dunno - what do you want to say about 'em?

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by jeff

You have this backwards: a statistically insignificant difference in votes in Florida (essentially a tie plus or minus a tiny delta) was able to leverage the entire electoral vote of the state - as if all Florida voters had voted for Bush. This is inherently more inaccurate, since it creates a mandatory 'winner take all' regardless of actual margin. Also: since we already collect the popular vote, it's no harder (or easier) to add it up 50 times to get the sum for the entire country.

My point was that if we can't count up a single states' votes, imagine the chaos if we had a national recount. It would be impossible.

You seem to think that with the electoral colledge, the minority has power over the majority. This is not true; the minority does not have abosolute power, but it had at least a voice, where otherwise it would not. NO ONE would campaign in the midwest if it wasn't for the electoral colledge. They would campaign in the big states: New York, California, and Texas. The would especially concentrate on the big cities, such as New York. It IS unfortunate that the candidates concentrate on the "swing states", but they at least are a diverse set of states, representing different points of view, rather than just the large states.

It's too bad that people like Republicans in Massachusettes don't get much of a vote, but hey, they ARE the minority. One could also argue that Nader fans don't get much of a vote either. In any form of government, someone has to lose.

[jeff]

Good points. I don't know what the right system to replace the current one would be, but there have been a number of suggestions. I just used the quick and dirty means of research, typing "alternatives to electoral college" into Google, and got a bunch of hits. I think we should start with the idea of 'the current system is not good enough' and then work from there to possible improvements that don't disenfranchise people.

Nitpicking: You don't think people would campaign in the Mid West when there are places like Chicago with lots of votes?

[mrbiggs]

I mean like Kansas. Flat. Grass. (falls asleep)

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

Except he seems to get fundamental, relevant facts wrong...

Hey now. Let's not start bashing. I was incorrect about the extrapolation from the TRADITION (and law in some states) of electors following popular opinion and how that would effect campaigning in those states. Why spend lots of money trying to convince the people, when you only have to convince the electors? There is nothing in the constitution that prevents an elector (an appointed official generally appointed by the state party in power) from voting as they please. In fact, as recent as the 2000 Presidental election (election being by the electors), a DC elector abstained from casting their vote even though the district's people voted. Everything else was accurate.

And the practice of an elected Senate is, in my view, simply an extension of the house of representatives, essentially smoothing out the representation of the masses. There is no fundamental difference in the Upper House from the lower. The longer terms, minor perks, and different proportional representation are merely quantitive differences, not really substantive, and can be filled by special members of the lower house (like the cabinet in Canadian Politics). Again I ask, what is the purpose of seperating the duties of the upper and lower house?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

No doubt, but it doesn't make them sovereign. The small town I live in passes and enforces laws, but it sure as anything isn't sovereign. Sovereignty, notwithstanding the A+ answer from our president, is much more. Let's not confuse two completely separate concepts.

The point is not that States *are* sovereign, but at the forming of the union, the States were supposed to be *considered* sovereign. The union of the taxes, justice, and defense into a greater whole was to increase the ability of all the States to operate more effectively on the international stage. Their leader, therefor, should be elected by the States themselves, not the people in those states.

Originally Posted by Jeff

You confuse two important things here: first of all, this really isn't about big vs. small states, it's about swing states vs. states with an expected outcome (like: Texas expected to go for Bush, NY expected to go for Kerry). Today, voters in a small 'safe' state are even more likely to be ignored than in any other system. Secondly: abolishing the electoral college would mean that states don't elect the president - the people do. Which I think is a good thing.

I disagree with your good thing and think that if a State is predictable and loyal in its voting, to no net return, then its a stupid state and should vote for someone who will pay it attention. If Utah voted Democrat, don't you think the Republicans would take note and do something about it?

Originally Posted by Jeff

The counter argument is: why should a small number of people have disproportionate power over everyone else? That fundamentally not fair.

So if the masses are wrong, but the few are right, best to follow the masses off the cliff because that's fair? United Lemmings of America!

Originally Posted by Jeff

You have this backwards: a statistically insignificant difference in votes in Florida (essentially a tie plus or minus a tiny delta) was able to leverage the entire electoral vote of the state - as if all Florida voters had voted for Bush. This is inherently more inaccurate, since it creates a mandatory 'winner take all' regardless of actual margin. Also: since we already collect the popular vote, it's no harder (or easier) to add it up 50 times to get the sum for the entire country.

So, why didn't the electors of the State reflect the popular election? Florida has no penalty for electors voting against the majority so the electors could have fullfilled their constitutional duty instead of the bastardy of tradition and done the right thing.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

Good points. I don't know what the right system to replace the current one would be, but there have been a number of suggestions. I just used the quick and dirty means of research, typing "alternatives to electoral college" into Google, and got a bunch of hits.

the simplest change would be for states to end winner takes all for electoral college votes - I can't remember the ones that split EC votes by popular vote, but there are a few. Also isn't New mexico (?) doing a referendum this year to split its EC votes - apparenly its going to be retroactive so the supreme court may get to have another input

If EC votes were split you would at least move closer to direct election - and even the votes of massachusetts republicans might count.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by keith

the simplest change would be for states to end winner takes all for electoral college votes - I can't remember the ones that split EC votes by popular vote, but there are a few. Also isn't New mexico (?) doing a referendum this year to split its EC votes - apparenly its going to be retroactive so the supreme court may get to have another input

If EC votes were split you would at least move closer to direct election - and even the votes of massachusetts republicans might count.

Maine and Nebraska: senator votes are winner takes all, represenatives votes are based on congressional district.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Hey now. Let's not start bashing...

There was no intent to bash, and no need for you to be insulted. You know much more about USA government than I do about Canadian, and I respect that. Nonetheless you made some mistakes of fact which were relevant to your argument. As far as individual electors becoming free agents, as you know that's far from the common experience. Campaigns are directed to the voters in the state, whose choices are reflected in the actions of the electors, with rare exception.

Originally Posted by jBirch

And the practice of an elected Senate is, in my view, simply an extension of the house of representatives, essentially smoothing out the representation of the masses. ... Again I ask, what is the purpose of seperating the duties of the upper and lower house?

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I still differ. There are the differences I enumerated, plus the fact that the House of Representatives has budget authority not granted to the Senate. One house with longer terms and with equal representation by state and the other with shorter terms and equal representation by population. Senators focus more on state-wide issues while Congressmen and women focus on district issues (a very small geographic area in populous states); both of course focus on national issues as well. They have overlapping and non-overlapping roles. The fact that they have slightly different constituencies and roles, IIRC was all to design, to provide different balance and checks on power. It may not be perfect, but it's far from redundant to have the two houses.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The point is not that States *are* sovereign, but at the forming of the union, the States were supposed to be *considered* sovereign. The union of the taxes, justice, and defense into a greater whole was to increase the ability of all the States to operate more effectively on the international stage. Their leader, therefor, should be elected by the States themselves, not the people in those states.

This ignores the history of the US from the Gettysburg address onwards, in which the role of the state became subordinate to the role of the citizens within it. There was a specific point at which the meaning of 'United States' could be said to change; I'll try to find my reference to it. Ignoring this disregards the actual reality of this country.

Originally Posted by jBirch

I disagree with your good thing and think that if a State is predictable and loyal in its voting, to no net return, then its a stupid state and should vote for someone who will pay it attention. If Utah voted Democrat, don't you think the Republicans would take note and do something about it?

Easier said than done. Demographics are what they are. It's not about being stupid, it's about having a consensus within a geographical boundary. Are you suggesting that citizens in states should be coy and pretend to change their minds about whatever it is they believe in order to attract party attention?

I'll stick with my idea of 'a good thing'. Democracy is a good idea that hasn't run out of steam yet. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried - Churchill.

Originally Posted by jBirch

So if the masses are wrong, but the few are right, best to follow the masses off the cliff because that's fair? United Lemmings of America!

Who gets to say who is right and who is wrong? You? Is this the Anakin Skywalker theory of politics? A strongman should make the decisions for those pathetic rubes? A dictator? A hereditary king? It's been tried and not shown to produce good results.

Originally Posted by jBirch

So, why didn't the electors of the State reflect the popular election? Florida has no penalty for electors voting against the majority so the electors could have fullfilled their constitutional duty instead of the bastardy of tradition and done the right thing.

Because the actual result of the FL popular election was in contention. It was balanced on a knifes edge, and sampling error alone could push it one way or the other, let alone the biases that some say (and I have reason to give these ideas some credence).

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

There was no intent to bash, and no need for you to be insulted. You know much more about USA government than I do about Canadian, and I respect that. Nonetheless you made some mistakes of fact which were relevant to your argument. As far as individual electors becoming free agents, as you know that's far from the common experience. Campaigns are directed to the voters in the state, whose choices are reflected in the actions of the electors, with rare exception.

Fair enough. I apologize for getting my panties bunched. As an explantion (rather then an excuse), please understand that I recently switched from one cup of coffee a day to two.

Originally Posted by Jeff

Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I still differ. There are the differences I enumerated, plus the fact that the House of Representatives has budget authority not granted to the Senate. One house with longer terms and with equal representation by state and the other with shorter terms and equal representation by population. Senators focus more on state-wide issues while Congressmen and women focus on district issues (a very small geographic area in populous states); both of course focus on national issues as well. They have overlapping and non-overlapping roles. The fact that they have slightly different constituencies and roles, IIRC was all to design, to provide different balance and checks on power. It may not be perfect, but it's far from redundant to have the two houses.

In Canada, we have the same debate going on about whether our Senate should be elected or not (Senators are appointed by the Queen based on the recommendations of the Prime Minister of the time, for life). What the pro's argue is that the Senate is the check on the power of the People (in the majority) and prevent the government of the day from running roughshod. As an example, we, in particular, have a rough time with outlawing gay marriage because, while it may pass through the house of commons, it would probably not pass through the senate. If it passed both upper and lower houses, I think it would be the first bill in a long time to be rejected by HRM, even though it passed through Parliament.

The President and the Senate and Congress are unique because they are all subject to getting elected and so have to pander to the majority view. It is almost impossible for the President to go against the will of the people on an issue. In the US, if most (not all) of the public were behind banning gay marriage, all three houses would feel pressured to let the "will of the people" stand and would probably pass the bill. Further, there is no requirement to be President except that you are a citizen of beyond a certain age and able to convince a large segment of the population that you are best for the job.

Personally, I believe that you need to have at least one component of the whole legislative process that is *NOT* elected, so that the majority can't trounce the minority, unless it is in the best interests to do so. The process of appointment should be rigourous and thorough, able to weed out an individual that is less then ideal for the post. Any individual who seems interested in the post for the power, and not for the people, should be rejected. But that's only my opinion, rather then an argument backed up by irrefutable fact.

I also believe that what is wrong with all of the major democracies in the world, is their partisan design. Selecting people for representation is a good idea. Selecting from a handful of pre-packaged ideologies with scant regard for the people implementing them, is bad.

Take it easy, you panty bunching maniac.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

*snip some good stuff *
...
I'll stick with my idea of 'a good thing'. Democracy is a good idea that hasn't run out of steam yet. Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried - Churchill.

Who gets to say who is right and who is wrong? You? Is this the Anakin Skywalker theory of politics? A strongman should make the decisions for those pathetic rubes? A dictator? A hereditary king? It's been tried and not shown to produce good results.
...
*snip*

Well, here's the thing, if the strongman, Skywalker, is right and able to make the best decisions, then, yeah, that is a better system, wouldn't you say? If the criteria we are to use when evaluating systems of government is whether or not the system promotes consistently good decisions, then I would suggest that a pure republic is not the best way to do so. A republic tends to get consistently not bad decisions, but generally, not good decisions:

“A monarchy is a merchantman which sails well, but will sometimes strike on a rock, and go to the bottom; a republic is a raft which will never sink, but then your feet are always in the water.” — Fisher Ames.

My opinion on the matter would be a constitutional democratic monarchy, where a hereditary body is trained from birth to check the decisions of elected officials and both are held to the standards of Law. I would modify the monarchy slightly in that, instead of there being a genetic primacy (first born is next to rule, etc...) that there is rather, a selection of the sucessor on ascension to rule with the caveat that it can not be one's own offspring.

Take it easy.