Electoral College

[CelestialBody]

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[insideShiraz]

When it gets 3 pages long...

and each page post is about 10 posts long in pseudo latin, I jump to the last thread and go from there. I'll make a point of it to go back and read the usual string of haha's on the second page

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Isn't that the chief bitch here? "It's too loooooong. I can't read it allllllll. the Electoral College hurst my bwaaaaaaiiin."

Sorry, Inside, just making a smarmy point.

The electoral college members are appointed by the candiates themsevles. Half are mandated by their states to vote the conscience of the people. The other half can vote their own conscience, but since they're handpicked by the candidates them selves there's really no chance of them stabbing their guy in the back. There are also some fines involved in some states for not "doing the right thing".

No, Thumper, the candidates don't already only go to the biggest states. Yes, they favor them, and that is just and proper since the majority of people live there, but because of the Electoral College they will court and listen to the other 45 states considerably more. Also, knowing that an Electoral college exists is incentive to the parties to NOT screw around with voter fraud on any sort of grand scale.

The Electoral college works very well. This is still Goverment for the People By the People, but just as you can curtail Freedom of Speech by not allowing someone to shout "Fire" in a movie theatre, so can you guarantee civil representation and voice without turning the choice of President into a popularity contest just because it's faster and "we can't waaaaaaaaaiiiiit".

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[insideShiraz]

Electoral Candidates...

Iz the same process of picking prospective jurors to Determine the Outcome for America?

[Edited by insideShiraz on 11-09-2000 at 02:39 PM]

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[insideShiraz]

From wondering for Awhile...

So Junior picks 'em, huh?

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[insideShiraz]

I'm from your hometown, perhaps...

And if, I, too pay taxes, my vote should mean more than State Legistlature's, whose allegiance is to the Boss and not to me.

 

[Thumper]

I neither want...

nor need to be protected from my self....if you choose to "be protected" then so be it. I do not.

The problem lies in the fact that Americans don't see politicians as specialists in government, they don't recognize that Political Science is a science. No, it is not a quantitative scienece like Physics or Chemistry, it is qualitative. Politicians aren't respected for the same reason that psychiatrists aren't, people are not willing to even consider that someone else might be better qualified to decide an issue that affects them, than they are themselves. Politics is a career, no one has showed us that better than the Clintons. You have to be capable, knowledgable, and believable-you have to recognize that the postion that you are aspiring to is not for your own use, it is not your own little toy. The President of the United States represents us as a people to the rest of the world, a lot of Americans don't take that into account. They don't take into account anything but partisan preferences and personal gain. That is why the Electoral College exists, to protect us from selfish, greedy people like ourselves.

James Madison discusses this with far more care and depth than I could ever manage in Federalist 10. He explains why it is necessary for factions to exist and how to protect ourselves from them.

The EC is not defunct, it is unwieldy, I have to agree with Lasher-the Electoral votes should be counted proportionally.

[Edited by CelestialBody on 11-08-2000 at 06:37 PM]

Did you read that part?

I read it all...elitist dogma.

I still believe in one person one vote. Perhaps this is too radical an idea. The "sanctions" against Electors that change their votes have never been used, and likely would not stand up to constitutional scrutiny. Electors have indeed in the past changed their votes but with no effect on the outcome...in this case it could affect the outcome. Some Electors threatened Kennedy with switching if he didn't slow the pace of civil rights reform. It never happened but it threw a scare into the Kennedy camp.

Maybe it would be good if it happened...just to prove how screwed up it is. To my simple mind the winner should be the candidate that garners the most votes..TOTAL...makes sense and it falls in line with the KISS principle...Keep it simple stupid!

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: I neither want...

To my simple mind the winner should be the candidate that garners the most votes..TOTAL...makes sense and it falls in line with the KISS principle...Keep it simple stupid!

I'm not fond of the idea that until California reported, Bush had about a 1 million vote lead in the popular vote, yet Gore won by a wide enough margin in California to reverse that margin. eg a 2 million vote swing from one state.

Nor am I fond of the idea that neither candidate has gotten more than 50% of the popular vote.

I don't want 2 million voters in the land of fruits and nuts to decide the presidency just because there are more Californians than any two other states. (except for New York and Texas.

Nor, do I want another month or two of political ads, recordings of the president calling me at dinner time, people knocking on my door trying to persuade me, or the tax dollars spent on a run-off so one will get 50.01% of the popular vote.

I think it's noteworthy that the states are split 29,19 and 2 right now between the candidates. There's obviously a regional consideration as well as a population consideration. The Electoral College addresses both regional and population issues much better than a stictly popular vote does -- as the framers of the constituion intended.

 

[Thumper]

Maybe it's in the water.

Just because they live in California means their votes are suspect? Why? Do you advocate disenfranchising a large segment of the population just because of where they live? Where one lives is irrelevant. They could just as easily have lived elsewhere.

I am willing to bet the farm that Bush garnered 90% of the truckdriver vote. Does that mean that everyone else that voted for Bush should be lumped in with that group?

Half of the people that voted, voted for Gore....

I don't know maybe your half is just much smarter than my half....

Bush's support came from people who say character and morals are more important than the ability to lead...Didn't work for Carter.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Maybe it's in the water.

Just because they live in California means their votes are suspect? Why?

It means that if I wanted to live in California, I'd move there instead of avoiding that state like the plague.

What Californians want for their state is fine with me. I don't like many of their laws, and don't think that that region should have a disproportionate say in how the rest of the country is run. Same thing applies to New York and other overpopulated states.

Urban dwellers should not decide things for rural dwellers, or even other urbanites.

Dividing the electoral votes so that each congressional district has an equal say in the election makes sense. The winner-takes-all approach of every state except two disenfranchises more people than telling California not to vote at all would.

 

[Lasher]

Amen, WH. I agree with everything you said above.

If you look at it closer, the results of the popular vote are skewed by the campaign style necessary to win in the current system. Early on both candidates wrote off states that they new they couldn't win... Bush stayed away from some big states with a lot of voters - New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, and New Jersey come to mind - that he absolutely could not win. And he got absolutely crushed in these states. When the margin of victory doesn't matter, there's no point in campaigning in a state you can't win.

When that happens the local party apparatus doesn't have the cash to run get out the vote programs like the competitive states do. And you end up with otherwise loyal party members staying home cause they feel unnecessary.

Gore did the same thing. There was never any reason for him to go to places like Wyoming, Montana, Utah, Idaho... small states with a disproportionate number of electoral votes because of their size. Gore got waxed in those states.

The difference is, in an election based on only the popular vote, Dubbayah couldn't have ignored places like New York, Massachusetts and Maryland and you would've seen tighter races there. Gore still wouldn't have had any reason to go to Idaho or Wyoming or Montana... There's no votes out there.

I hate to say it, but if you want to see the will of the people in this election, you can only look at the states where the two went head to head. Look at the vote in places like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Tennessee, Wisconsin, West Virginia (my God, both candidates were in West Virginia during the last two weeks of the election... Do you think that would've happened in an election based solely on the popular vote?), Missouri, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington. Again, how many of those states do you think would've seen visits from the candidates without the current system?

The current system works. If this thing ends 271-267, it means that the vote in Alaska was just as important as the vote in California. And that's the way it should be.

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

wouldn't you hate to be the one to have to hand count that many ballots?

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

I hear theyre recounting in NM too

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

Damne? Really? Pretty soon the entire country is going to be hand counted

 

[Johnny Ringo]

1, 2, 3, 4, uhm? 5, 6, uhm?

1, 2, 3, 4...................

 

[CelestialBody]

 

[jcgirl]

1, 2, 3, 4, uhm? 5, 6, uhm?

1, 2, 3, 4...................

What happens when you run outta fingers, Johnny?



<grin>