Electoral College

[jcgirl]

Is anyone else tired of hearing about this age old institution?

It's time to stand up for the Electoral College, because, as always, it's under attack.

The mass media consistently slight the Electoral College. Every four years, the reporters repeat stock phrases about the Electoral College, "constitutional relic," "anachronism".

As a representative institution in a democracy, the Electoral College is not nearly as peculiar as the U.S. Senate. But reporters don't say, "Now the bill goes on to the Senate, a Constitutional relic where each state gets two votes regardless of its population ...."

The Electoral College represents the model of representative government. The electors meet for one day -- not even in Washington -- cast their two votes (one for president, one for vice president), then they disband. Some states don't even pay for their lunch on election day. If only the rest of the government could be so efficient and effective!

And the Electoral College is an expression of the Federal system. Ultimately, the states elect the President of the United States. The highest popularly elected official in the United States is the state governor, not the president. Any change toward a popular voting system undermines the states, and the very basis for the Federal system.

All this crap about a "debunk" institution......is just that....crap! And it all started with Andrew jackson in the election of 1824....(um I think thats the date.)As the story goes, Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but he lacked a majority in the Electoral College. In the House vote that followed, John Quincy Adams won. Jackson for four entire years after that complained about how he had been cheated out of the presidencey. (oh please)
Jackson did win the popular vote in the states that had a popular vote. But at the time, in 6 of the 24 states, the legislature picked the electors.
Then there was the voting process. Jackson wasn't on the ballot anywhere in New England. Adams didn't appear in Kentucky or North Carolina. Crawford and Clay were represented still less. There simply was no national poll of the candidates.

it basically came down to the fact that Adams played by the ules and won.....while Jackson showed his true colors and his bad sportsmanship

 

[Lasher]

Damn. And I thought that I was going to be the only one here to stand up in favor of the Electoral College. Whodda thunk it? I don't think most people realize that the purpose behind the Electoral College was to prevent factionalization of the voting process (any who isn't sure what that causes need only look at the government of Israel).

Maybe we could get Celestial Body in here to quote some of the wise words of Hamilton, Jay, and Madison on the subject (although I believe it was Madsion that wrote on factions... I've got my copy of "The Federalist Papers" here somewhere).

Although one thing I would like to see is for the nation as a whole to adopt the method of distributing electors that is used in the states of Maine and Nebraska. Seems to me that would bring the national candidates closer to all the people, and really level the playing field between big states and small states.

 

[Thumper]

UMMMM.....

Actually it is anachronistic and flawed. It came about as a compromise between those who favored a directly elected president and those who were inclined to leaving the selection of a president up to an "elite" group of individuals. The reason being that a significant number of people at that time were illiterate and for the most part uninformed.

This is no longer true today. I believe that every person under our constitution has an equal voice. One person=one vote. This is not true under the electoral college. Indeed, every vote is not equal. Right now Bush will win based on roughly 1700 votes in Florida, totally negating the more than 200,000 votes that he trails Gore by. Simply put the majority of US voters chose Gore but Bush will win. Besides, the Electoral College can give too much of a spoiling influence to fringe parties.

Now I know you all will think I am taking this stand on account of I supported Gore. Not true, I would find this outcome appalling if the roles were reversed. I have long thought the Electoral College was a mistake. The Presidency should be decided by a simple majority of voting citizens.

As far as who wins, I am not thrilled with either candidate and I only chose Gore based on his environmental stance. In today's media driven environment we can expect the parties to pick the most bland appeal-to-everyone cookie cutter candidates they can find. No more firebrands or hellraisers.
Look at this election...neither of the parties could get any more than one half of the electorate. Sad...very sad. Or maybe just a symptom of a very comfortable population. No big issues. Cut away the silly alarmist warnings(If Gore gets elected he's gonna take our guns and cars!/ If Bush gets elected he's gonna reverse Roe v. Wade!) and there isn't anything that urgent to take care of. No wars to get out of. No crappy economy.

Scrap the Electoral College so that my vote counts as much as some blue haired dowager's in Florida! The constitution isn't written in stone. I have said before it is a living entity and as we change it will change. Our founding father's were wise enough to provide for this change. The system may have worked for them but it doesn't here and now.

Next time I'm voting for Buchanan...hey at least it might be fun to watch the fallout

 

[jcgirl]

Democracy is defined as government by the people, either directly or through elected representatives, majority rule. A republic is similar to a democracy, but instead of a governing body of elected representatives, there is a president appointed as the head. With both government types combined, and with the governing body broken into three separate parts, it is assured that no one person can take over the entire governing body.

The U.S. Constitution goes further to protect these democratic rights. Appointing a body of representatives to elect the President and Vice President ensures that a party dominated house and senate will not vote in their candidate, but the choice of the people. This is exactly the reason why we need the Electoral College

The Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution. It would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. Which is very close to impossible. Considering 2 states divide thier electoral votes unlike the other 48, this is a much better idea then completely abolishing the electoral college.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

Ha, there you have it.....

And why I think it all sucks.....

The fore father's were right at the time and a good while after - Thumper's right - not today.

JC is right too - it would take a catastrophic event to chance the Constitution - that probably won't happen.

So, what to do?

You've got this beat up jalopy - once a finely engineered machine. Once ran like a top. Now it's grown old, antiquated and you can't even find a mechanic or parts that will make it run any better. And it only gets worse with age.

What do you do?

Blow the fucker up!!!!

The failure is in the inability to change - to reengineer - to modernize.

If you can't improve it - and it only gets worse....

Blow the fucker up - it's less painful over the long run - and your children, yes your children - will have a safer, newer, technologically up to date car to ride in.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

You know.........if we had a cartoon of this, it would be like those crummy movies we all saw in middle school.........remember "The bill"??? The piece of paper that danced and sang and taught us about how bills are passed?.........Do ya think maybe they need one of those oldies but goodies on how to vote? We could have a Ballot.........and he could tell us how to count ballots in a sing song voice.

 

[Guest]

Gore won, get over it.

The electoral college is an old system that was devised for the same reason that blacks and women were originally not allowed to vote - because the founding fathers did not believe that average people were smart enough to make the right choice on their own. Well, I'm sad to break it to you Bush supporters, but blacks are now allowed to vote and so are women (I know if almost cost your man the election, but that's nothing that a little fraud couldn't offset.)

The right of the people to directly elect senators was granted long ago - how can you possibly argue (without mentioning Rush Limbaugh) that we should not be allowed to directly elect our President but we should be allowed to directly elect the senators?

It must be a really sad time to be a conservative. Just a few weeks ago Bush and his supporters were saying that the electoral college must be booted, now you've all flip-flopped.

No matter how you slice it or how many excuses you make, Gore was elected by the people, Bush by the system. Spin that!

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

Actually, not all the Electoral College supporters are Republicans. Im technically registered an Independant. I voted for Gore, and before that I voted for Clinton....(And I would have again if they were not limited to 2 terms) I voted for Gore not because he was the best man for the job, but the lesser of 2 evils. He has 1 thing Bush doesnt......common sense. Under a Bush administration, there would be guns in every corner, we would eventually have to wear oxygen tanks because of pollution, and young women, whether by accident, incest or rape would again be forced into dark alleys for abortions. All the while the upper class so to speak would be getting all the tax cuts, while the lower class starved, our mothers, fathers and grandparents would eventually not be able to have even the simple medicines they so desperatly needed to survive, because the Bush admin had cut social security, and had no health plan for the elderly. (I mean come on, can we actually believe that he can save social security for the elderly and for OUR futures at the same time?.....I think not)


Basically, we're going to be poor, gun weilding anti choicers, who cant afford aspirin for godsake.


However, that does not establish that we have to abolish on of the oldest institutions in the world. It worked once and it can work again. Maybe we can follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska who have come into modern times and revamp an actually good system.

 

[Lasher]

Just to clear something up, (and that was pretty well said, CB), I wouldn't hand out the Electoral votes proportionally... That would've put the last 3 elections into the House of Representatives. And that's what we don't want.

Thumper said this above:

Besides, the Electoral College can give too much of a spoiling influence to fringe parties.

And the fact is that the Electoral College has the opposite effect. Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and under the current system had little effect on that election.

Nope, what I would do is just what Maine and Nebraska already do. The winner of each state would pick up 2 electoral votes, and the winner within each congressional district would receive and electoral vote for that district. That's what would even the playing field. Congressional Districts are drawn based on population, and would give everyone an equal vote within the electoral system.

The only way I could support direct popular election of the President is if it required a majority vote and not a plurality. To do that you'd have to make a provision for a run-off election if no candidate could draw 50% of the vote. You give third parties a chance to be involved in the General Election, and then if you have a situation like we do now (with the vote sitting at 48%-48%), then two weeks later you come back with a head to head showdown... That I could live with, but it's not my first choice.

 

[Skibum]

I think I would not be against an amendment to elect the President and Vice President directly. The purpose of the electoral college is archaic, and the means to amend the Constitution is available. It would be difficult to pass, but not immpossible.

 

[Vlad]

I applaud the previous posts on this thread; dissecting and hashing the pros and cons of the Electoral College. A job well done.

Having stated my admiration for the literacy and eloquence of my fellow Literoticans, I shall add my humble 2 cents. I feel the Electoral College is antiquated, useless, and negates the true meaning of democracy. One person, one vote. A person's vote in Alaska should have the exact same weight and bearing on the outcome of the election as the vote of a person in Electoral vote rich California.

The person who wins the popular vote should win all elections, local, state, and national. If no one wins over 50% of the vote, have a run off between the two candidates that received the most votes.

Vlad



[Edited by Vlad on 11-08-2000 at 11:20 PM]

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

Lasher is right. I direct election could be disasterous. We think that politics are full of fraud and conspiracy now? If we had a direct system it would be subject to all kinds of types of fraud that are impossible under the Electoral College system. With direct elections, there would be an incentive for Nebraska to produce more Republican votes or Massachusetts more Democratic ones. Majority fraud would be hard to combat, because the majority party would also be responsible for counting the votes.

The Electoral College system concedes some states to the party in power, but it eliminates any reason to run up the vote. Any fraud in the present system must be in swing states, where the parties can keep each other in check. Congress has been swamped with many direct election proposals that allow for a minority vote to elect a President. The last serious proposal gave the prize to the candidate who receved the highest vote tally greater than 40%. Only if no candidate receved 40% would there be a runoff between the top two tickets. Under the present system, the winning candidate has to win outright at least twice; first in the party convention, then in the Electoral College.

Direct election makes minority rule even more likely than the present process.

 

[Skibum]

The sad fact is that the framers of the Constitution were, for all their Revolutionary zeal, a pack of elitists. And while they were all literate, there were a great many small farmers who were not. At the time the Constitution was adopted, every state required a man to own land to be allowed to vote. It wasn't until Vermont was admitted in 1791 that any state alloweduniversal male sufferage.

The restrictions on who could vote, as well as the Electoral College, were calculated to keep power in the hands of those deemed worthy and wise enough to use it properly. And though they may have been elitists, they were mostly truly concerned with providing a stable, and fair government.

As for backing anything I said up, what part of my original post is controversial? I merely stated that I would not oppose a move to amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct elections.

 

[Lasher]

The other point I wanted to make about direct election... Just where exactly do you think the candidates would've been campaigning this week if it was ONLY the popular vote that mattered?

Dubbayah would've spent the entire week in New York and California (where he spent too much time last week and damn near fucked himself)... He lost those states by 1.3 million and 1.2 million votes respectively. If he spends the week in New York, he might have cut that to 950,000, either by changing people's minds, or more likely, by inspiring Republican leaning voters who weren't interested in voting because they felt they'd been abandoned to vote.

You sure as hell wouldn't have seen him in New Mexico or Oregon, or Iowa or any of those states, cause there's nobody out there to vote. Why go to Santa Fe and be seen by 50,000 voters when you can go to LA and NYC and be seen by 20,000,000 on local TV!

And where would Al have been? Right behind Dubbaya's ass trying to hold on to his 2.5 million vote edge in those two states cause he knew he didn't have a chance in hell without it...

Every fucking state was important in this election. And the candidates went where they needed to win, not just where the largest number of votes were...

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

Don't you all find it amazing how much has progressed (good and bad) since the days of the white landowners, the first voters, hell even before womens sufferage. Yet we are still battling the same issues that our forefathers did then. When are we going to have our next Victoria Woodhull? (And please oh please don't let it be Hillary Clinton)

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

However, CB, you said it yourself........only so much before a girl cracks.......with what she has put up with, it's going to be a helluva explosion. Do you want her finger within distance of THE button when it finally dawns on her what Billy played her for?

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

That, I must concede and give her credit for. I wouldn't have had as much restraint. I would have kicked his presidential ass all over the Rose Garden.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

Hmmmmmmmmmm

Well, let me pull up 'dees here dungaree's and thinks abouts thats for a sec......I reckon I mighta confused the red lever with the blue un......but ya'll know I ain't no way 'de onliest one tah.


<smile>

Hey, grace doesn't mean I have to watch as the world watches my husband explain his definition of a BJ........(besides in Clintonish, a BJ is not really sex.....shhhh)
He was/is a great president.....but as far as husbands go.....I would have filed the divorce papers before the blue dress dried