Electoral Colledge

[mrbiggs]

That would be equivalent to a popular vote.
The Senate is provided to make sure that smaller states are not made worthless by the voting process

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

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.

Wasn't there a time when the States did print their own money? Weren't military units named for the State from which they originated? As far as treaties go, when the States ratified the Constitution they AGREED to ALLOW the new Federal government to do that for them (also applies to declaring war, I think). In other words they voluntarily gave the federal government those LIMITED powers, when they agreed to join the Union. Just because the States gave these powers away doesn't make them any less sovereign.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

abolishing the electoral college would mean that states don't elect the president - the people do. Which I think is a good thing.

Ahh, jeff, on this I think, we have will have to agree to disagree.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

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.

Representative republic.

Originally Posted by jeff

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.

Again, the States v the population.

Originally Posted by jeff

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.

The State of California will probably go to Kerry. Many people think that I'm "throwing away' my vote because I'm not voting for Kerry OR Bush. (I'm one of those wacko Libertarians.) My vote counts just as much as any other CALIFORNIAN's vote.

Originally Posted by jeff

Yeah, but tough to scale up to USA size, dontcha think?

Very tough to scale up, which is why we have a representative republic not a democracy.

Originally Posted by jeff

Besides, the Greek system let only free males vote, which excluded most of the adult population.

Which is why I said eligible. The Greeks weren't perfect.

Originally Posted by jeff

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

Not gonna start on that one, eh?

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

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.

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.

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that this feeling is precisely what is wrong with democracy. The implication here is that your vote only matters if it is the one that wins. There is no point in voting for your candidate because your candidate has no hope of winning. You don't want to vote for the individual you "know" is going to win, so you simply don't vote. Multiply by the population and you have a large number of people, who don't believe in the system, essentially ceding control of their lives to the group that can merely *CONVINCE* the largest group of people that they will win. Not that they will govern well, or are the best for the job, merely that they will win (and hence there is a point to voting for them). Self-fullfilling prophecy.

In order for the principal of democracy to work, everyone has to voice their opinion at the ballot box. Especially those who feel that their vote is not going to count.

As a viable alternative to this system, in BC Canada they are experimenting with the idea that everyone votes for the Party they want (which they do anyway. Who votes for the candidate any more?) and then the seats in government are apportioned based on the vote. There are no regions and no candidates, merely parties who have members who then sit in Parliament. This may work in Canada because the head of Government is also head of the ruling party, so we don't have a problem with deciding absolutely a split vote. In the US maybe not so, because there "can be only one" President.

Food for thought.

[mrbiggs]

Wow good point, jBirch. Rep-point deserving.

A Massachusettes Deomocrat's vote doesn't matter either; he's just adding to an already huge mass of them. Just because the Republicans usually lose there doesn't mean that their vote counts less.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Wasn't there a time when the States did print their own money? etc...

Yes, quite a long time ago. It was really a mess too. Just imagine doing any commerce...

[jeff]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Ahh, jeff, on this I think, we have will have to agree to disagree.

Fair enough. But why? Why do you want the states to have such power. Doesn't the wonderful document start with We the People ?

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that this feeling is precisely what is wrong with democracy. The implication here is that your vote only matters if it is the one that wins.

That's not at all what I'm saying - in fact, part of what makes some votes 'not count' is the expectation that your preferred candidate will win by a large margin in your state, but your vote can't work for the overall election.

As far as alternatives: sure, I'm open to the possibilities. While I like your suggestion for Canada, you point out why it doesn't work here, where you could have a President from one party and majorities in the legislative branch from other parties.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

Wow good point, jBirch. Rep-point deserving.

A Massachusettes Deomocrat's vote doesn't matter either; he's just adding to an already huge mass of them. Just because the Republicans usually lose there doesn't mean that their vote counts less.

Hmmm... it sounds to me like the two sentences above contradict one another! The excess Dem votes don't matter (check - we agree), but the Republican votes do? (when, if we did direct votes without electoral college they could go towards the Republican candidate's score?).... That's not self-consistent!

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

That's not at all what I'm saying - in fact, part of what makes some votes 'not count' is the expectation that your preferred candidate will win by a large margin in your state, but your vote can't work for the overall election.

As far as alternatives: sure, I'm open to the possibilities. While I like your suggestion for Canada, you point out why it doesn't work here, where you could have a President from one party and majorities in the legislative branch from other parties.

Two points that you're making here, I think. First, that you apply the "vote doesn't matter" concept to votes for the preferred candidate as well as for the underdog. Second, that the problem with the BC solution is that the President could be from differrent parties then the Legislature. If either of these are incorrect, could you correct my perception of what you're saying?

To the first, I agree. It is the flip side of the same argument: only the single vote that causes the scales to tip to one side or the other matters. All the others are irrelevent. That's the flaw that I was talking about. The attitude that only the winning vote counts, and all the others are meaningless. That's what lets the rot start.

To the second, I'm not sure that that isn't a common occurance anyways. Isn't it often the case that the House, the Senate and the President are dominated by different parties? And on that point of your argument about the BC solution not working, the problem is, IMHO, in the fact that the president is one person. Why not a cabinet? Or a cabal? Or a college of individuals?

Yes, I know that the more people in on a decision, the more muddled it is likely to be, but if we're going democratic, why stop at half measures? The power of democracy is twofold: the people support it (it has legitimacy) and you tend to get answers that are, in the least, supported by a majority of the people and so more likely to be the right answer to a given problem. The weakness is time: it takes time to make a decision in this system. So, why have the President as the sole wielder of Executive power?

Hope this helps.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by jBirch

Two points that you're making here, I think. First, that you apply the "vote doesn't matter" concept to votes for the preferred candidate as well as for the underdog. Second, that the problem with the BC solution is that the President could be from differrent parties then the Legislature. If either of these are incorrect, could you correct my perception of what you're saying?

So far, so good!

Originally Posted by jBirch

To the first, I agree. It is the flip side of the same argument: only the single vote that causes the scales to tip to one side or the other matters. All the others are irrelevent. That's the flaw that I was talking about. The attitude that only the winning vote counts, and all the others are meaningless. That's what lets the rot start.

We're on the same track here, I think. In a closely contested election, people know their votes count; when a landslide is expected, then people can become apathetic. True even in general elections, but worsened by the compartmental nature of US's electoral college, where your vote only counts within your state. For 'rot' I would substitute 'apathy',

Originally Posted by jBirch

To the second, I'm not sure that that isn't a common occurance anyways. Isn't it often the case that the House, the Senate and the President are dominated by different parties? And on that point of your argument about the BC solution not working, the problem is, IMHO, in the fact that the president is one person. Why not a cabinet? Or a cabal? Or a college of individuals?

Usually we do have situations where the President's party can be different from the majority in the House and/or Senate. That provides some degree of balance of power; it's when the same party 'owns' all three you lose the moderating influence of contrary power. My comment about the BC solution is, unless I'm mistaken, the Parliamentary system yields a Prime Minister to a member of the party that has the majority, hence both Executive and Legislative branches are in the same party.

A little far afield of the original discussion, but that's okay.

Originally Posted by jBirch

Yes, I know that the more people in on a decision, the more muddled it is likely to be, but if we're going democratic, why stop at half measures? The power of democracy is twofold: the people support it (it has legitimacy) and you tend to get answers that are, in the least, supported by a majority of the people and so more likely to be the right answer to a given problem. The weakness is time: it takes time to make a decision in this system. So, why have the President as the sole wielder of Executive power?

I guess the answer to the last part is that we already have other branches to handle non-Executive power, and additionally a lot of other things go on in the Executive branch. I may be mistaking your intent, but it sounds like your proposing a deliberative body to replace the Executive - but then you just get Yet Another Congress. I don't see how this helps, but perhaps I misunderstand your purpose. (hey, maybe the White House becomes a dorm, or a timeshare, huh?)

I still hold that it would be a Good Thing to scrap the Electoral College system and replace it with one that gave a more even representation of 'the people's will' on a uniform, one vote per person basis. Seems to be a much simpler solution than replacing the entire structure of the federal government.

[Schiavona]

Originally Posted by mrbiggs

That would be equivalent to a popular vote.
The Senate is provided to make sure that smaller states are not made worthless by the voting process

Maybe yes, maybe no. At the very least it would give people more of a feeling that their vote counted.

I'm in a small state(only populationwise) and I get no comfort from my two senatorial Electors. Total 3 votes from my state, 57 for California. I swear that I wouldn't feel the lack if it were 1 vote from Alaska and 55 from California!

Awarding Electorial votes by results in each Congressional district might not add up to the same thing as the total popular vote statewide. Still they would be awarded by the popular winner in each Congressional district. It would all depend on the percentages in each district. My point is that people would feel more enfranchised. A rural, consertative district wouldn't feel that their votes are worthless the way they might now under the 'winner takes all system' run by most states.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by jeff

Usually we do have situations where the President's party can be different from the majority in the House and/or Senate. That provides some degree of balance of power; it's when the same party 'owns' all three you lose the moderating influence of contrary power. My comment about the BC solution is, unless I'm mistaken, the Parliamentary system yields a Prime Minister to a member of the party that has the majority, hence both Executive and Legislative branches are in the same party.

A little far afield of the original discussion, but that's okay.

In Canada, the Executive Branch is the Queen and the legislative branch is headed by the Prime Minister. Because the Queen is not elected, She doesn't feel the need to strike down every bit of legislation or introduce new ones. She merely executes Her Executive authority to confirm that legislation isn't outrageous and that the will of the majority people is actually good for all the people. It's one of the arguments for appointing for life your Executive Branch, rather then electing it. It bears on the EC question only so much as it is an alternative system that should work better in theory and that it (and the EC in theory) have appointive members. It is the appointive quality that is important. As far as I know, the only elements that are appointed in the US system are the Judicial branch, who should be ruling based on the letter of the law (and it's conflict with other laws) not whether that law was a good thing in the first place, and the EC. The lack of a non-elected check on Legislation is the weakness in the US republic, I think. The EC, as it was originally framed, seemed to be this non-elected check, I think. The States could have easily appointed a member to sit for life and act as elector, instead of electing them, but they chose differently (and kinda invalidated the EC at the same time).

Originally Posted by Jeff

I guess the answer to the last part is that we already have other branches to handle non-Executive power, and additionally a lot of other things go on in the Executive branch. I may be mistaking your intent, but it sounds like your proposing a deliberative body to replace the Executive - but then you just get Yet Another Congress. I don't see how this helps, but perhaps I misunderstand your purpose. (hey, maybe the White House becomes a dorm, or a timeshare, huh?)

That was kind of the argumentative road I was going down. If you go partial democracy (ie// you have one guy making decisions) then you have to have some stuff appointed to guide that power. The question is which members should be appointed?

Originally Posted by Jeff

I still hold that it would be a Good Thing to scrap the Electoral College system and replace it with one that gave a more even representation of 'the people's will' on a uniform, one vote per person basis. Seems to be a much simpler solution than replacing the entire structure of the federal government.

Perhaps, but then you get the "people's will", which is not really a good thing. There are differences in the people's contribution to the country and so there should be differences in the expression of their will. Otherwise, you get mob rule in a local area and the whole country goes down the toilet. You get California dictating the rules for Utah (though they kinda do that already) to California's advantage, and Utah/Rhode Island's disadvantage. So then California starts to starve because Utah doesn't produce enough food.

I guess, where you and I differ fundamentally, is that I don't believe in one person's ability to choose rightly for another on an average basis. If I do have to have people making choices for me, I want them to be as well qualified as is possible. Election does not produce qualified leaders, IMHO.

Hope this helps.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jBirch

The more I think about this, the more I come to the conclusion that this feeling is precisely what is wrong with democracy. The implication here is that your vote only matters if it is the one that wins. There is no point in voting for your candidate because your candidate has no hope of winning. You don't want to vote for the individual you "know" is going to win, so you simply don't vote. Multiply by the population and you have a large number of people, who don't believe in the system, essentially ceding control of their lives to the group that can merely *CONVINCE* the largest group of people that they will win. Not that they will govern well, or are the best for the job, merely that they will win (and hence there is a point to voting for them). Self-fullfilling prophecy.

In order for the principal of democracy to work, everyone has to voice their opinion at the ballot box. Especially those who feel that their vote is not going to count.

Very good point

Originally Posted by jBirch

As a viable alternative to this system, in BC Canada they are experimenting with the idea that everyone votes for the Party they want (which they do anyway. Who votes for the candidate any more?) and then the seats in government are apportioned based on the vote. There are no regions and no candidates, merely parties who have members who then sit in Parliament. This may work in Canada because the head of Government is also head of the ruling party, so we don't have a problem with deciding absolutely a split vote. In the US maybe not so, because there "can be only one" President.

Food for thought.

Gotta disagree with this one. As an example, I voted for Bush in the 2000 election but voted Libertarian on all other national offices. This time around I'm voting party ticket except for US Rep. because, while I know the candidate, I don't think he's qualified for the job.

With that system, instead of having a split in the government don't you then have splits in the party? Not everybody toes the party line. I used to be a Republicon. I left because I felt the party had moved away from me and their core principles; not necessarily by their words, but by their actions. I know Demoncrats who did the same thing.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

Fair enough. But why? Why do you want the states to have such power. Doesn't the wonderful document start with We the People ?

Yes it does. It was ratified by the individual sov... States.

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by jeff

Yes, quite a long time ago. It was really a mess too. Just imagine doing any commerce...

Which is why the States gave that power to the Federal govt. when they ratified the Constitution.

[gojujay]