The biggest loser in the recent election was...

[rwcrooks]

One of the original ideas put forth for the Electoral College is that early in our country's history, most people were ignorant, if not unaware, of politicians from other states and would vote only for who they knew, their 'favorite son.' This would have the effect of awarding the presidency to the most populous state.

Another idea that formed the Electoral College was the French Revolution and how quickly an absolute democracry truned into a dictatorship.

Also, the Electors originally were to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be from someone not from their state. The person with the most votes would be president (probably, everybody's second choice) and the second place finisher would be VP. That was changed in 1804 by the 12th admendment (due to the Jefferson election shenanigans) to have the states cast one vote for President and one for VP. The states must still cast one of their votes from someone outside of their state. That's why W didn't select a fellow Texan as VP.

How did the 'winner take all' method of Electoral College voting develop? Simple. The Electors are supposed to be elected and the people voting for the winning candidate would also vote for that party's Electors. So the winning party in the state would control all of the Electors. Winner Take All. (except Maine and Nebraska)

You say that you never voted for any Electors? Take a look at the ballot next time and you'll probably see the words 'Electors for' in fine print before the list of candidates.

According to how the Electoral College works. There are only 2 factors required to winning the presidenct. First, that the candidate reveive sufficient popular vote, even if not a majority (as in 1888). Second, that the support is widespread. This means that the distribution of support can take precedence over the majority of support, and has in the past.

[OperaTenor]

Originally posted by RichC:
You say that you never voted for any Electors? Take a look at the ballot next time and you'll probably see the words 'Electors for' in fine print before the list of candidates.

Not on my California ballot. Just the candidates.

As for reforming the EC to reflect proportionality state by state, even if that was done, given the extra two votes across the board, it would be conceivable for a candidate to win without getting the most populous states, therefore preserving the less populous states' advantage. It would still be a representative republic, and not a direct democracy.

[haggis]

...and if I rememebr correctly most of the electors are not legally bound to vote reflecting the majority of their states, theoretically they could decide that 58 mil American adults were wrong and elect Kerry.

There's a book waiting to be written in that premise!!

[Shapley]

Haggis,

There was some talk in 2000 that Gore was going to have people lobby the electoral college in order to convince some of them to change their vote in his favor.

Jesse Jackson was on TV recently talking along similar lines.

V/R
Shapley

[rwcrooks]

The EC reflects the basic structure of our government. If we were going to do things in strict proportion to population, we wouldn't need the Senate. And small, less populous states would get no EC votes.

As for faithless Electors, in the 1900's there have been 7 who voted not as they were elected to. In 1988, one voted for Dukakis for VP and for Bentsen as president. No faithless Elector has changed the outcome of an election.

OT,
Do you still have the sample ballot you were mailed? I checked our Wisc. ballots and it looks like they have done away with that wording.

[haggis]

"faithless Electors" how could I have forgtton that phrase?

That's almost as good as “ANNUS HORRIBILIS”

[OperaTenor]

Hi Rich,

Yes, I have my sample ballot. I also scrutinized my actual ballot fairly thoroughly when I voted, and it was identical in wording to my sample ballot.

I don't agree with your thoughts regarding the Senate, mainly because the proportionality wouldn't be direct as the smaller states would still have a bigger say with their two extra EC votes. To me, especially in the larger states, the will of the people would be more acurately reflected without disenfranchising the smaller states.

[GreatCarouser]

Altoid's generation and their children are the biggest losers in this election. Perhaps she'll get lucky and aliens will abduct her.

[GreatCarouser]

Originally posted by Shapley:
BigJon,

RE:[b]He should hand in his resignation

That would require integrity. I think he has demonstrated an incredible lack of it during this election season.

V/R
Shapley [/b]

Let's not badmouth the President this way boys.

[shostakovich]

It's theoretically possible, but highly unlikely, that a president could be elected by less than 30% of the electorate. Suppose the 12 most populous states (sufficient for over 270 electoral votes) favor Mr X (not the composer) by about 50.1 %. Even if all the other states go unanimously for Mr Y, Mr X wins. This assumes the usual "winner take all" policy.

Does anybody know the name of an elector? They seem to be invisible people, if they exist at all. Frankly, I figure they are Halliburton executives earning a tax-free bundle by being tapped as "electors".
STOP THAT, Shos

[piqaboo]

RC - LOL! excellent link!


Every country wants a world that supports that countries philosophies, economy etc. Some countrys have enough stuff to share, adn can use that stuff as a bargaining chip to get what they want.Quite reasonable. GThose with enough to share also are the ones that get to help those what dont have enough.
Sadly, the stuff gets used as a bargaining chip then too.

Instead of the classic phrase, tis better (IMO) to do unto others as they would be done unto.

(since they probably have different needs & desires - in the details at least. )

[rwcrooks]

Shos,

Rest assured that there are actual Electors. They meet in December to cast their votes.

[OperaTenor]

Yeah, up at the North Pole. And then they make toys for Santa after they're done voting...

[Shapley]

OT,

You left the grin thingy off your post.

If you watch the news, they report on the electoral vote the day they are cast. There are usually no surprises, so it is generally just an aside on the evening news program.

I've known two people who were sent as electors to D.C. to cast there votes. They are elected at the party caucuses or by the party at the convention. They are usually party loyalists, so there is seldom any defection among the ranks.

V/R
Shapley

[OperaTenor]

Hi Shap,

[shostakovich]

From RichC: "Shos,

Rest assured that there are actual Electors. They meet in December to cast their votes."


From Shap: "They are elected at the party caucuses or by the party at the convention. They are usually party loyalists, so there is seldom any defection among the ranks."

---------------------------------------------------If the electors' votes are determined by the voters in each state on election day, they are only a redundant formality.

If they are elected at the caucuses or conventions and are party loyalists, then about half of them ARE defecting with the "winner take all" voting.

The electoral college should be dispensed with. Only then would every vote count. Any argument in favor of the electoral college can be countered by an argument against it, I'm sure. For example, one argument for would be: "If some wicked setback proves to even the electors that Bush is scum, then they could give the world a Christmas present and opt for Kerry." I'll leave the countering argument to others. I'm rather fond of this one.

[Shapley]

Shos,

Each party elects its electors, that is, who will go to the electoral college to cast the vote if the voters send them there to do so. If the Republican nominee wins the vote, then the Republican electors are sent, if the Democratic Nominee wins, the Democratic electors are sent.

I assume electors are selected by the "third parties" as well. Otherwise, they would have to be selected following the successful election.

Again, the electoral college is designed to ensure that the president is elected by the States, not by the people at large. One only need to look back four years to see that that is, in fact, the case.

V/R
Shapley

[haggis]

"The electoral college should be dispensed with. Only then would every vote count. Any argument in favor of the electoral college can be countered by an argument against it, I'm sure."

Here's a simple argument for the EC that will probably be easy to refute but difficult to disprove.

If we didn't have the electoral college or some device like it and relied on the popular vote then the election would be decided in less than 20 states and the rest of the 32 states that don't have any major population would not even be consider worth campaigning in.

Shos, Connecticut wouldn't be considered an important state in a "popular vote" only scenario. The margins of population in the 20 big states would dwarf all the others, rendering your state (and your vote!) insignificant and so small that there wouldn’t be any reason to count the votes, much lest vote.

True, CT doesn’t have that many EC votes now, but there’s enough to make the candidates compete for them.

We already see the candiddates dedicate a lot of time to the "key" states now, but they still visit the "not-so-key" states as well. In a popular vote race, they wouldn't even bother.

In addition, without the electoral college at least two and possibly three presidential elections in the 20th and 21st Century would have gone to the House of Representatives for the selection of the president, not something I'd be fond of regardless which party holds the house.

Finally, to change the current system would require a Constitutional Amendment and I don’t think there’s enough interest to drive that process.

Bottom line, the EC is dated and creaky but has served us better than any other system we’ve considered.

[rwcrooks]

Haggis,

That is exactly one of the key reasons the EC was put into place. Let's remember the population distribution of the early colonies. Outside of MA, PA and NY, there really wasn't much. The EC made it possible for even the less populated 'southern' states to have a say in electing the president.

Remember, the President is elected by the States, not the people.

Did anyone happen to see the red/blue map in the special edition of Newsweek that just came out? The colored it in by county. It shows in great clarity that the Democrat support is strictly 'big city' support. Even states that went blue (like NY) had a whole lot of red in them!

Here's a link to one of the county-by-county maps. Very interesting!

http://usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm

[GreatCarouser]

Originally posted by Haggis:

If we didn't have the electoral college or some device like it and relied on the popular vote then the election would be decided in less than 20 states and the rest of the 32 states that don't have any major population would not even be consider worth campaigning in...


...We already see the candiddates dedicate a lot of time to the "key" states now, but they still visit the "not-so-key" states as well. In a popular vote race, they wouldn't even bother...

I think most of us can see the flaw in this reasoning. I submit that making the popular vote the 'sole elector' rather than using a system that ultimately relies on artificial boundaries that obscure and redefine the popular vote will increase the importance of the smaller states' votes. This will be especially true in close elections and it will be true because the limiting factors I referred to (the Electoral College) are geographic in nature. Candidates and campaigns often leave states and areas once they believe they can no longer gather the electoral votes in that area. I think many Republicans who reside in a 'blue' state feel their votes didn't count. I can't speak for every Democrat but I know many in Florida who feel their votes 'don't count'.

The EC is antiquated and flawed. It would be improved if we dropped the 'winner take all' format that is almost universal and allowed each state to divide it's electors by percentage of the vote but even that wouldn't remove the fundamental flaw that when we bundle the votes in this fashion we devalue the votes of many individuals. The office of President of TheUnited States of America is a national office and all legal citizens of that nation should have their votes count equally not skewered by a system adapted when many felt our nation was TheseUnited States of America.

<small>[ 11-08-2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: The Great Carouser ]</small>