The Electoral College

[betchatoo]

There have been a couple of posts lately where people have stated themselves as proponents of the electoral college. I have asked why and so far not gotten an answer. I have done some additional reading about it and find myself thinking that the college was based strictly on the needs of the time and would not have been instituted if fast communication and information were not so unavailable at the time. For those who think the Founding Fathers words are unassailable please understand that the electoral college has been changed by the 12th amendment (1804) and several times by the ways individual states used them

As to the reasons the Founding Fathers began the electoral college, I copied this from "A brief history of the electoral college" at http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

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.


So my question is this:
For those of you who still believe in the Electoral College, why?
What is wrong with having one man, one vote instituted on a National basis?

[JustMissed]

If you would study states rights vs. federal rights and put that frame around the electoral college issue-you would conclude that the EC is more appropriate for our government that a popular election.

You may recall from our Florida voting mess last go round, at one point our state house of representatives were to elect the Florida electorates and in effect, elect the President. I only point that out to show that for all practical purposes the representative of the citizens of each state pick the president-not the citizens themselves.

The federal government only exist because the individual states have delegated certain of their rights to the federal government.

Our president is not president of the united "people", but is President of the United "States". May seem trivial to some but it is a huge difference.

JM

[OTM Al]

And in fact, states have the right to allot their EC votes in accordance with the popular vote within the state itself. I believe there are 4 states that split up their EC votes by popular vote percentages, though I don't remember which ones of the top of my head, I seem to remember that they are small in terms of votes they hold. The one bad part of the EC system is clearly that in most states, all popular votes past the one that puts one candidate over the top don't really count. This does give a bit of bad feeling to some voters, especially in states that almost always go one way or another. It also causes the candidates to pretty much ignore some states in favor of the so called "swing states". I think most people feel more a member of the country as a whole these days, rather than a citizen of a particular state first. This shift in feeling is highlited by a language shift that occured after the Civil War when people went from saying "The United States are...." to "The United States is...". Pretty much says it all.

Personally, I would be more in favor of a one person, one vote type system, or at the least, states partioning their EC votes, but this would take many bi-partisan works in a very partisan government, so I don't see it ever happening

[boxcar]

Anthing devised by man is never perfect. One can always find flaws in anything man dreams up or invents. Having said this, however, the argument presented by the physicist Alan Natapoff in favor of the Electoral College is compelling. It's a long read, but well worth it, especially for those more math-inclined than others.

Boxcar

http://www.discover.com/web-exclusiv...ainst-tyranny/

[Secretariat]

The electoral college subverts the concept of a true democracy which is one person one vote.

We see this today where people in California and Texas are disenfranchised. Their votes mean little as neither are "battleground" states. Candidates don't visit them, and do not work towards policy affecting those states, preferring votes in battleground states. It actually now is in a state's interest to keep a close popular vote to insure candidates pay attention, and hence that leads to pandering.

Additionally, imagine if Iraq was set up to equate a certain number of votes similar to our as states to the Sunni areas, Kurd areas and Shiite areas so that the larger population of the Shiite area was overshadowed by the Sunnis or Kurds even though they are a minority. You'd hear bloody murder by the Shiites and the US and rightly so. Can you imagine Sunni's getting more power with less of the vote? This is what the electoral College does so that a vote in Wyoming is worth more than a vote in California or Texas.

It creates "batleground states" disenfrancishieses voters, creates inconsistencies from state to state on allocation, and in most cases doesn't even bind the electoral voters for following the state's wishes.

It is something that the founders put in the Constiution, like slavery, whose time has past. And I say that regardless of who wins. I beleive in election reform, as the Green Party has suggested which creates a majority president, and allows more participation by third party candidates.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/election/electionfink.htm

[boxcar]

Secretariat writes:

The electoral college subverts the concept of a true democracy which is one person one vote.

First off, this nation was not founded as a "true democracy" -- or pure democracy, if you will. We are a democratic republic -- not a pure democracy. Ours is a unique system of indirect election as opposed to direct. And every person within this system only gets one vote, so your objection rather silly.


We see this today where people in California and Texas are disenfranchised. Their votes mean little as neither are "battleground" states. Candidates don't visit them, and do not work towards policy affecting those states, preferring votes in battleground states. It actually now is in a state's interest to keep a close popular vote to insure candidates pay attention, and hence that leads to pandering.

And the reverse would be true if we didn't have an electoral college system in place! The candidates would essentially focus all their attention on the states with the largest population centers to the detriment of less populated states. Presidential candidates wouldn't have to waste their time in trying to cultivate a broad appeal across all the states' lines, but would only have to zero in an issue or two that would play strongly to the populace (especially in the inner cities) in heavily populated states, e.g. CA, NY, NJ, IL, etc., etc.

And pray tell, just what policies are the candidates now working towards in the "battleground" states?

Also, no state is disenfrachised under the current system. Californians will vote for Kerry and Texans for Bush. So what else is new?

and in most cases doesn't even bind the electoral voters for following the state's wishes.

This is a patently false statement! The custom has been for a long time now that the winner of the popular vote in a state takes all. Colorado currently wants to change that and ignore the popular vote, if it so chooses, which is very undemocratic!

Boxcar

[kenwoodallpromos]

I think the ads are based on media martket, not state lines. Not many national ads anymore.
No Ca media markets are Republican majority.
So going by popular vote would not change campaigns much.
Demos would do best with instant registration and voting at the same time, with I.D.

[chickenhead]

I believe it is Maine and Nebraska that do not currently have a winner take all electoral process. I think it would be great if more states worked this way.

As it is, in a state like California right now, there is really no point in voting at all in the national election. Despite how close the popular vote is likely to be....my vote does not have any impact at all, since the state is already decided.

Maybe the devil you know is better than the devil you don't know.....but I'm not a big fan.

[betchatoo]

Thanks to all who responded for logical, well thought out arguments without resorting to partisanship or name calling. Boxcar I read your article and found it fascinating even if I didn't necessarily agree with its' conclusion. I also read the one from Secretariat.

My biggest disagreement with the system is the one Chickenhead brought up. With the current system there are too many people who feel disenfranchised during a national election. In Illinois where I live there will be millions of Republicans who will not be counted because this state is going Democratic this year. How many of these people won't vote, people who would have in a very close national election?

Kenwoodallpromos suggests that a national election wouldn't change campaigns much. I would have to differ. This will probably make me the envy of those of you in closely contested states, but I have not seen one presidential ad this year. If this election were held on a national vote, you can bet both sides would be here trying to sway a few more votes, because they would matter. Right now both sides feel Illinois is a dead issue in this campaign. I don't like the way that feels

[chickenhead]

the article boxcar posted was interesting.....but I read the whole thing waiting to see the actual analysis using the data that exists....i.e. rather than telling me what the "cross-over" point of usefullness is for a 135 person country evenly districted......tell me what the actual cross over point is using the country as it exists right now....and perhaps a histogram of how that has changed over time.

That would be some interesting info to chew on....too bad he left it out.

[PaceAdvantage]

Originally posted by Secretariat
We see this today where people in California and Texas are disenfranchised. Their votes mean little as neither are "battleground" states. Candidates don't visit them, and do not work towards policy affecting those states, preferring votes in battleground states. It actually now is in a state's interest to keep a close popular vote to insure candidates pay attention, and hence that leads to pandering.

Boxcar responds:

And the reverse would be true if we didn't have an electoral college system in place! The candidates would essentially focus all their attention on the states with the largest population centers to the detriment of less populated states. Presidential candidates wouldn't have to waste their time in trying to cultivate a broad appeal across all the states' lines, but would only have to zero in an issue or two that would play strongly to the populace (especially in the inner cities) in heavily populated states, e.g. CA, NY, NJ, IL, etc., etc.

I think Boxcar made a really great point here. How do those who wish to abolish the electoral college respond to such a statement?

[chickenhead]

All Boxcar is saying is that the candidates would focus on getting the most people to vote for them.

I think we all agree more or less that that would be the effect....rather than targeting specific geographic areas that happen to be inhabited by people.......they would be targeting people who happen to inhabit specific geographic areas....

I think we disagree on whether that is necessarily a bad thing...

[Secretariat]

Originally posted by PaceAdvantage
I think Boxcar made a really great point here. How do those who wish to abolish the electoral college respond to such a statement?

Simple. A true democracy is based on the votes of "people", NOT on states. Boxcar did not respond to my Iraqi example regarding Sunnis and Shiites.

We are attempting to promote democracy all over the earth, but as Boxcar lists, we are a republic, and not really a pure democracy. Why should a person in Laramie have more weight of vote than someone in Chicago? Their vote should be equal. When you say well, politicians would give greater preference to larger population markets -- well, of course, that's where the majority of people are, and in a democracy the majority should rule, not the minority. Here we have a minority rule. A president who did not even win the popular vote as determined by the Federal Election Commission count.

The process of elections listed in the Constitution has already been changed often from the 13th amendment, to the right of African Americans and Native Americans and Women to receive equal right to vote. The electoral college is outdated, and Boxcar is wrong. Electors have voted against their state determinations. It's rare yes, but nothing in the federal constitution requires them to vote what the state voted.

[Pace Cap'n]

[i]So my question is this:
For those of you who still believe in the Electoral College, why?
What is wrong with having one man, one vote instituted on a National basis? [/B]

Consider this scenario:

Subject: Do the Math


Hillary Clinton decided to run for the U.S. Senate in New York because she
loves the people of that state and wanted to represent them in Washington
D.C. In one of her first public statements after winning the election (with
nearly 60% of the vote), she promised to work for the abolition of the
Electoral College.

Now let's look at a political possibility:

In an election year in the 'not too distant future', when Hillary is
nominated as the Democrats' Presidential Candidate, she begins her campaign
by reminding the voters of New York that she kept her promise and personally
takes responsibility for the newly ratified constitution amendment abolishing
the Electoral College. She then does the vast majority of her campaigning in
New York; rarely venturing out to any other states.

The November General Election is held, and Senator Clinton LOSES 49 STATES by
an average of 60,000 votes per state...
BUT she WINS JUST ONE STATE... New York, with 73% of the 6,300,000 votes
cast there.
The Republican candidate receives 24% and all others
3%.

The result? She has received the majority of popular votes by a margin of
less than 200,000 votes nationwide... after LOSING ALL BUT ONE STATE.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is the new President of The United States of America.

Want to get rid of the Electoral College?

[chickenhead]

I think that just illustrates it all the better....."Hillary" absolutely dominates in one very populous state.....and runs very close to 50/50 in all the other states (including the ones with hardly anyone in them)....and you think she shouldn't win in that scenario, despite getting the majority of all votes cast?

I did the math, and yes, the EC blows.