Elections and the Electoral College

[Imran Siddiqui]

For those who say that the candidates will ignore the farmers of america, when was the last time you saw any presidential candidate go to some rural town in Alabama?

Actually both Bush and Gore went to rural towns... I'm sure one of them was in Alabama.

It would also help end this silly State vs. State crap since we are a single nation

Actually we are a country (which is different than a nation), and futhermore the states make up the country, not the other way around.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned

But, our founding fathers intended these two extra votes to be decisive in a close election. Now, you may assume your ideology of one man one vote is preferable to the plan given us by the founding fathers, but I am reluctant to rush into change for the sake of change.

Its been 200 years. There have been at least three elections like the last one. There is no way to call this rushing into things.

Your statement that system did not work in the last election is pure crap.

Its completely true.

It worked perfectly as intended.

It was still a travesty. We are not a collection of independent states and have not been for a very long time.

Apparently, though, you disagree with the result.

I would disagree who ever won. I have disagreed with the Electoral College for decades. The latest travesty is merely one more.

But the conclusion you draw that the wrong man was elected president is simply elevating your personal choice for president or your personal preference for one man one vote into a constitutional principle.

It is a constitutional principle according to the Supreme Court. Whenever nothing else in the Constitution applies such as the Electoral College or the Senate the Supreme Court applies the principle of one man one vote.

The founding fathers deliberately set out to establish a system of checks and balances. They deliberately chose the electoral college to have two extra votes for a state's senators to assure that the election for president would be a balanced mixture of people power an state power.

They made a mistake. It wasn't a bad mistake when the US was first formed since the States involved where to some extent sovereign. It has been 200 years and we are not in the same position anymore. Change is long overdue.

This system has stood the test of time and should not be changed, IMHO.

It has failed three times that I know of. The nation has stood despite it not because of the Electoral College.

Besides, George Bush has proven to be one the greatest presidents this country has ever had. I doubt Gore would have done even half as well considering his known cowardice.

Known cowardice? He was in Viet Nam and Bush hid in the National Guard. Bush has not been a good President from what I can see. All I see is the usual war popularity. Wait a bit before you go around calling people great presidents. Especially one with a war involved.

There is no way so far that I would put either Bush over Teddy and so far Dubya has been inferior to his father who did an excellent job in forging the coalition in the Gulf War. Can't say as much for him economicly though.

In any case the specific winner is your bugaboo here not mine. I am argueing against the Electoral College and its iniquities not for or against Bush and I pointed that out allready. You seem to want to use a red herring to avoid what I really said.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by red_jon
Blue = Conservative (right-wing)
Red = Labour (supposedly neither)
Yellow = Liberal Democrats (leftist)
Green = Green
Orange = Scottish independant

I never knew Plaid Cymru was sub-ordinate to the Greens.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
The electoral college was established as a voting club. Since travel time took a long time back in the day, no candidate could reach out to everyone. (no media, no airplanes, no trains )Therefore, the Electoral College was designed to vote for the people of that state. There is no more need today of this system.

Agreed. It modelled on the Roman system. However, the addition of two extra votes for a state's senators has nothing to do with "remoteness."

[Imran Siddiqui]

There have been at least three elections like the last one.

Name the three. AFAIK, only Tiden v. Hayes in 1876 was the only other election when the person with fewer popular votes won the election.

And btw, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to in the last election. The person that won the electoral college won. The popular vote is simply a modern contrivance that the media likes.

We are not a collection of independent states and have not been for a very long time.

Our states are more independant than any other provinces in the Western world. It is one of the defining things about the United States, the states have REAL power, such as their own independant court systems and legislature that can make significant laws.

It is a constitutional principle according to the Supreme Court. Whenever nothing else in the Constitution applies such as the Electoral College or the Senate the Supreme Court applies the principle of one man one vote.

And in the Constitutional principles stated, the founders decided 'one man, one vote' was not to be forwarded, and rightly so, might I add. The states have power and the Senate and the EC are part and parcel of that power given. It is because of that, that the rights of the states have not been raped by the federal government.

[Ned]

Well, Ethelred, next you will be asking to abolish Congress because the president is all we need given that he was elected by the people, one man, one vote.

[Capt Dizle]

The electoral college system protects the rights of the people against the federal government. The people are safer from federal tyranny when the individual states are strong. Votes cast in a state are certified by the state, individuals from that state are electors, and those electors cast the final votes.

If a popular vote were held without limiting the number of votes a state could put into the national pot there would be greater opportunity for election fraud (mostly likely by federal incumbants).

For example if California has 55 votes and Colorado 3 then the people of California know that there votes are protected against voter fraud in Colorado at least insofar as the most votes that can be stolen would be 3.

If a popular vote was held, the Colorado vote could be greatly overstated and it could swing a close election. California voters would have to take the word of Colorado since none of their representatives would have the opportunity to oversee the election in Colorado.

Thus the integrity of the election is enhanced by the electoral safeguard. It ensures that the peoples vote in one state is proportional to the others. It limits the opportunity for fraud and thus is demostratably superior to a popular vote.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Ethelred, next you will be asking to abolish Congress because the president is all we need given that he was elected by the people, one man, one vote.

My district is 90% Democrat, I don't have the same vote as a district that is 50-50! Waaaah!

[Drake Tungsten]

Maybe we should declare the part of the Constitution that sets up the Electoral College unconstitutional...

[Capt Dizle]

The United States is a representative democracy. Congress was designed to have two houses, one of which gives each state equal votes irregardless of population. If you take the position that the electoral college is wrong, you would have to lobby for the elimination of the Senate on the same grounds.

And you will be redesigning the basics of the Republic. It would require an amendment to the constitution, which, ironically, requires a majority of votes of states, not of the people.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Imran:

The second one was the election of 1824. IIRC, on Election Day, Jackson got more popular and EC votes than Adams. The election went to Congress, where Henry Clay threw his support to Adams.

I think the third would be 1888 (Cleveland vs. Harrison). Harrison got fewer popular votes than Cleveland, but won anyway. (I'm not sure if this one counts, since Cleveland didn't have a simple majority in the popular vote.)

[Capt Dizle]

Yes, and that brings to mind two questions? What happens when no candidate gets sufficient electoral votes and second, if D!ck Cheney dies now, who is vice president?

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The electoral college system protects the rights of the people against the federal government. The people are safer from federal tyranny when the individual states are strong. Votes cast in a state are certified by the state, individuals from that state are electors, and those electors cast the final votes.

If a popular vote were held without limiting the number of votes a state could put into the national pot there would be greater opportunity for election fraud (mostly likely by federal incumbants).

For example if California has 55 votes and Colorado 3 then the people of California know that there votes are protected against voter fraud in Colorado at least insofar as the most votes that can be stolen would be 3.

If a popular vote was held, the Colorado vote could be greatly overstated and it could swing a close election. California voters would have to take the word of Colorado since none of their representatives would have the opportunity to oversee the election in Colorado.

Thus the integrity of the election is enhanced by the electoral safeguard. It ensures that the peoples vote in one state is proportional to the others. It limits the opportunity for fraud and thus is demostratably superior to a popular vote.

Excellent point! Bravo! I knew there was a problem with a nationwide election.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

1) Election goes to Congress, as it did in 1824 and 1876.

2) Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert. Problem is, given that the House is so tight now, he might defer to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Strom Thurmond. After Thurmond, it'd be Colin Powell, the Secretary of State; Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary; Rumsfeld, the defense secretary; and then John Ashcroft, the AG. (Don't know after that.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Yes, and that brings to mind two questions? What happens when no candidate gets sufficient electoral votes and second, if D!ck Cheney dies now, who is vice president?

If Cheney dies, the Pres. nominates a replacement that is confirmed by Congress.

If no one get a majority of electors, the issue is decided by the House voting by states, one state, one vote.

Sorry Ethelred. Your one man, one vote principle shot down one more time.