Eliminate the Electoral College

[Al B. Sure!]

imran, if a state ignores federal laws, how can it still be part of the union?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It was concieved as a sort of veto. The state would recognize the limited federal authority, it just would not recognize federal laws on certain individual things. Remember, this was before the Civil War, when the federal government had VERY little power.

[Al B. Sure!]

federal laws, derived from powers which the constitution does explicitly grant the federal gov't, excluded, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not entirely. A lot of the discussion was based on tariffs. However, those that wrote the Resolutions (Madison and Jefferson) would not ones to advocate for secession (especially since Madison is considered father of the Constitution). For example, simply since the US doesn't follow every UN resolution doesn't mean we have seperated ourselves from that body. Not to say the original government was like the UN, of course.

[Al B. Sure!]

what i mean is... powers which are explicitly granted to the federal gov't (warmaking, foreign relations, currency regulation, etc.) could not be nullified... right? that's the line between mere nullification and all out secession, right?

[Imran Siddiqui]

In the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the 'Nullification Crisis' of 1832, the states tried (or thought they should be able) to void a law that it thought unconstitutional. So it seems that part of it is that the state must think the law is unconstitutional and overreaching by the federal government.

One interesting distinction is that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were done before Marbury v. Madison, which gave the SCOTUS the right to decide unconstitutionality. Nullification was done afterwards, but still there wasn't an attempt to seceed at that time.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
One interesting distinction is that the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions were done before Marbury v. Madison, which gave the SCOTUS the right to decide unconstitutionality.

And here I was thinking that their powers came from the Constitution...

[Ramo]

Nope, judicial review doesn't explicitly exist in the Constitution.

[civman2000]

Except that it existed before Marbury v Madison and was mentioned in the Federalist Papers, so though no one had explicitly declared it before that case everyone agreed it existed (http://artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci/cal...y.html#marbury)

[GePap]

Interesting how the "states rights" folks utterly ignore the simple fact that since EC votes are tied to a simple majority vote in the state, the EC does nothing to protect the interests of any one state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
In essence all the EC does now is disfranshise huge blocks of voters. Essentially a republican in NY or a democrat is MIssissippi might as well not even show up to vote-their vote won't count.

Well Democrats in New York shouldn't bother show up either because their votes are redundant.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Interesting how the "states rights" folks utterly ignore the simple fact that since EC votes are tied to a simple majority vote in the state, the EC does nothing to protect the interests of any one state.

Except for the fact that Bush is going to win because of those two extra votes allocated to states qua states.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Except that it existed before Marbury v Madison and was mentioned in the Federalist Papers, so though no one had explicitly declared it before that case everyone agreed it existed

Um... no. Firstly, the Federalist are not binding on ANYTHING and where never treated as such. They are merely propaganda pieces. Secondly, it was a very huge case which was unexpected by many people. It was not universally agreed upon that the SCOTUS could overturn federal law, saying it was opposed to the Constitution. and most people did not think it existed. Jefferson believed it was a wrong decision, but since it wasn't used again during his lifetime, it didn't seem to matter (since the ruling came out in his favor). Why do you think it is such a famous case?

Also if you read the Second Kentucky Resolution, it says the states should be the arbiters of what is Constitutional and whether federal law is violating that. So no, they didn't believe the court should have the right.

[MrWhereItsAt]

I have to say that I agree with GePap here.

I've seen how much more representative (ironically enough!) proportional representation has made government in NZ, and when looking at other nations without a similar system, I have been surprised and puzzled that the US' system seems even further off this than the norm.

Although until starting on this thread I could see no reason for this cumbersome-sounding Electoral College way, I at least have seen that the point is to protect the interests of States. OK, fair enough. State interests need to be defended at the Federal level. But what does that have to do with the Presidential vote? The President does not decide everything, and as far as I can see as long as each State has its own government and representation in the Senate and House of Reps then there are your protected interests.

I still don't see why a simple 'one vote from one American counts as one vote for one candidate' system is opposed by PLATO and others, unless there were purely partisan political reasons for it (eg one side would always win, or something). With respect to water rights, as the example goes, does a President elected by, say, California voters, have the power to divert water from AZ reservoirs to supply CA, where AZ voters voted for the other guy? If this is the case there are FAR worse problems than with the Electoral College system. But this is not the case, is it? I'd hope that it was the State governments of both AZ and CA as well as perhaps the Federal government that would have to agree on this.

Which sounds more ridiculous - saying that State rights are eroded if less populous States have a smaller say in who the President is (only the President, not their own representation at Federal level), or having a system where a President can be elected with a majority of Americans having voted for the other alternative? The President is supposed to represent the affairs of America as a whole, and thus should be representative of the majority of voting Americans' wishes. State governments and Senators are supposed to represent their State - this does not seem to be the Presidents' job.

Can someone explain how things would be significantly different, seeing as one of the two main candidates are bound to be elected in each case ANYWAY?

[Ned]

Mr. WhereItsAt:

1) Small states are protected because states get two extra votes for each senator. This allows the candidate favored by the small states to carry an election when an election is essentially even. This happened in 2000. Bush won the election solely because of the extra two votes he received from each of the 10 more states he won than Gore. ("Twenty bonus electors.") If the current elections close, Bush will win again because he will have won more states, i.e., the small states.

All this shows is that the balance intended by the founding fathers works.

2) As to proportional splitting of electors according to the popular vote, this is entirely possible under today's system. Each state can allocate its electors any why the State Legislature designates. Thus, for example, if Nader got 5% in Kalifornia, he would be allocated up to 3 electors. In a close election, those electors might be decisive, giving Nader a lot of bargaining power as to who becomes the next president.

So I propose that all the large states, such as Kalifornia and NewYork divide it electors according to the vote.