The biggest loser in the recent election was...

[Shapley]

GC,

Two things,

First, the boundaries are not "artificial". The United States is a union of States, not people. (which is why we don't call it the "United Citizens of America", or simply "America") The state's boundaries are clear and precise. Much of the Constitutional powers deal with disputes between states, and regulation of commerce between the various states. The tenth amendment expresses that those powers not provided to the Federal government by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the Constitution to the states, are reserved first to the States, then to the people. It is very clear upon reading it that the Constitution is very much about State's rights.

Two, each State has the authority to decide how its electors are divided. Colorado had to decide during this election whether or not to change to the format you suggest. They rejected it. New Hampshire has a different system which left one of its electoral votes up in the air until all the results were in.

V/R
Shapley

<small>[ 11-08-2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>

[barfle]

GC, note that your post clearly states that this country is called The United States of America. States have had an important role in the formation of the Federal government since the beginning.

You may feel that states' rights are a thing of the past, but if so, then you disregard 200 years of a generally well-working Constitution.

[rwcrooks]

GC,

Should we also eliminate the Senate becuase of the fact that the less populous states have power out of proportion to the population?

[OperaTenor]

Haggis has mentioned(for the fourth time if memory serves me) the single significant justification for maintaining the EC, IMO: Increasing the relative importance of states with smaller populations. Makes perfect sense to me. However, I don't understand the logic behind the "winner take all" bit. From the research I've done, it seems more logical to have the EC vote reflect the popular vote proportionally state by state. It would still give the smaller population states their two extra vote advantage while giving a fairer representation of the populace.

We were at a dinner last night with several hard-core Republican friends. They all felt somewhat disenfranchised by the fact California went blue, and their votes didn't register.

<small>[ 11-08-2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[RC]

I like that OT

[rwcrooks]

OT,

I agree with you on that. Unfortunately, it is up to the states to decide how to elect their Electors.

I have a feeling, though, that all of a sudden, big states, like CA, NY, OH would realize that they are on a par with the other states. Just think how hard it would be for anyone to get all 55 CA votes. Maybe a 29, 25,1 split (counting Nader)? A lot less impressive that 55.

[OperaTenor]

Yes, but certainly more representative.

[GreatCarouser]

GC, note that your post clearly states that this country is called The United States of America. States have had an important role in the formation of the Federal government since the beginning.

You may feel that states' rights are a thing of the past, but if so, then you disregard 200 years of a generally well-working Constitution.


GC,

Should we also eliminate the Senate becuase of the fact that the less populous states have power out of proportion to the population?

I never mentioned redesigning the Senate, House, Federal Courts or anything other than the Electoral College. Those of you who are students of history will be aware that Senators were not always elected by popular vote yet that change has not upset the apple cart. The states haven't gone belly-up.


Where were you states-righters when the Supreme Court was trampling the concept by overruling the Florida Supreme Court in the 2000 vote recount decision?
When this nation was founded only white,free, land owners could vote. The same group that placed such importance on states' rights created the Electoral College. They are also the group that would have made Washington a king. It was only his belief in democracy that averted that.
Is it coincidence that states' righters are most often the same folks who are most invested in denying the franchise to as many people as possible?

If you want everyones' vote to count get rid of the EC and count everyones vote equally. The office of President is a national office. It and Vice President are the only elected national offices in our system of government. They should be elected by the people of the nation, unfiltered by artificial devices designed to circumvent the popular vote. Only if that process ends in a tie (and how remote is that possibility?) should the House of Representatives get involved.

[barfle]

GC, I take it you really don't care much for the idea of States forming a Union, with all the requirements for fair treatment of those States and their citizens that such a Union entails.

Yes, I am fully aware that Senators were selected by state legislatures at one time. The popular election of Senators was a blow to the states and to the idea of a republic. However, I was unable to make my views known when the 17th amendment was passed.

You may well ask if I believe in democracy, and the answer has to be "not very much." Democracies are fine as long as the population understands the results and consequences of what they are voting for. If a majority of voters decided to institute slavery of a minority race, I believe most of us agree that it would not be a good thing. Much of the California budget mess was caused by Californians having ballot measures that cut taxes and other ballot measures that increased expenditures. The electorate has no sense of their own responsibility to keep a fiscally sound government.

Fortunately, there still exist such things as states, so California's mess doesn't cause the same problems in Arizona or Virginia.

<small>[ 11-09-2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: barfle ]</small>

[shostakovich]

From Shap: "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."

-------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for the clarification.

And, Haggis, I agree with you that the EC is here to stay for the foreseeable future. But if the popular vote carried the election, I'd feel more that my vote counted. CT was predictably for Kerry. If I (just one person) had foregone voting, I would have known my vote wasn't missed. The minority voters in the SOLID red or blue states needn't have shown up. Their votes DIDN'T count, except in the (worthless) popular vote.
Shos

[shostakovich]

I'd like to say thanks to the people who have been posting facts and conjectures on this thread. I'm learning. It's also just good practice to re-think the Constitution and its meaning in both the 18th and 21st centuries.
Shos

[barfle]

Again, here is a link to a short essay by Texas congressman Ron Paul about the value of the electoral college.

A few points worth considering:

a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

The electoral college system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.

[shostakovich]

From Texas congressman Ron Paul with my comments in brackets:
"A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers.

[This does not follow. It may have been true before TV, but the addresses to populated centers reach rural America, too. It also assumes the population centers can be swayed by one candidate over another enough so that their composition can be changed. None of this year's rhetoric, largely damnation, distortion, and outright lying, seems to have done this. The population centers were hardly ignored by the candidates.]

A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states.

[ That's equally true of the electoral college.]

Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions.

[Er, there was no lack of political pandering and empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, maistream positions.]

Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

[This strikes me as absolutely meaningless political babble.]

Those who call for the abolition of the electoral college are hostile to liberty.

[Holy shit!!!!]

Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts.

[This doesn't make sense. States with large population centers should prefer the electoral college so that the large minorities in those states don't count. It might be interesting if B.com had a poll on the home page regarding which form of election is preferred and whether they come from a blue state (largely east and west coasts) or a red.]

These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights.

[I don't know what this opinion is based on. The nation is more unified because of the strong centralized government, which is what we have, isn't it? States' rights are fine as long as they don't supercede national rights. That's how we got all that civil rights and equal employment stuff passed.]

They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

[So maybe we shouldn't farg around with any more Constitutional amendments adding to Washington's accursed omnipotence. And what the heck does this have to do with electoral vs. popular voting?]
No Fan of Ron Paul

By the way, congress has 2 houses as a reasonable compromise. The senate gives equal representation to states, and the House makes representation proportional to population. If it had not been for the compromise of adopting BOTH houses we wouldn't have a country. The electoral college takes that compromise into the method electing the president. But the president is a single person. His/her actions are based on one mind and do not reflect the split personality of congress. So his/her election is not inherently better through the electoral college. Congress gets the last word anyway (usually), so that the 2 forms of representation affect this last word no matter how the president is elected.

<small>[ 11-09-2004, 07:19 PM: Message edited by: shostakovich ]</small>

[piqaboo]

Originally posted by barfle:

Much of the California budget mess was caused by Californians having ballot measures that cut taxes and other ballot measures that increased expenditures. The electorate has no sense of their own responsibility to keep a fiscally sound government.

Fortunately, there still exist such things as states, so California's mess doesn't cause the same problems in Arizona or Virginia.

Or in otherwise financially healthy states like Louisiana?

ehctuelly....CA's current financial situation primarily caused by stupid handling of energy deregulation.
Particulary by insisting that brokers not be generators, thereby removing much of the control from generators in-state. This opened the door wayyy open for the price gouging orgy.

Prop 13, long may it stand, doesnt help the budget much, but I thoroughly approve of it.
Thats our little goodie that freezes property tax increases to <= 2%/year, except when property is transferred or sold. That lets the lady who crocheted a blanket for Altoid to continue to live in her home. She's been there since '58, raised 10 kids there, the mortgage is fully paid off, and in the last 10 years the property values did some wild'n crazy things. She and her husband are retired and could not afford to pay "market level" property tax. Bless Prop 13.

[rwcrooks]

Piq,

And because of that what she pays in taxes to Altoid's school district will not even come close to providing actual fiscal support.

On our tax bills in Wisconsin, everything that our property tax goes to is listed with the amounts that go there. These things include schools, parks, garbage pickup, our conservation district, among others. There is actually nothing that I'd want to cut out. I'm not sure how I'd feel about my neighbors paying a fraction of what I pay for these services, just because they've lived there a long time.

[rwcrooks]

Shos, On the East coast, the Dems were only effective in the North, nothing in the central or southern East coast. They have sucessfully completed the transition of the Democratic party into a regional party. I'm not exactly sure why.

[Shapley]

Shos,

RE:No Fan of Ron Paul

Ron Paul is the closest thing to a ture Libertarian we have in Congress. He believes strongly in working within the framework of the Constitution as written, and in maintaining limits on the powers of the Federal Government. It is intirely understandable that he hails from fiercly independent Texas. He doesn't want to see the Federal government assume powers that rightfully belong to the States, and to the people.

I thought that meant something to you. :p

V/R
Shapley

[barfle]

Shos, it appears that you and I have fundamentally different views on the proper activity of government, and on the proper method of choosing the people who make it up. I fear the tyranny of the mob. The Constitution deliberately and wisely only provided for direct election of representatives. The great unwashed masses have their voice there, and an appointed Senate (as originally constructed) and an indirectly elected President kept a lid on the power able to be wielded by an electorate that may or may not be swayed by temporary issues. That's a polite way of saying that I believe a mob with power can easily be as corrupt as an individual with power. I think gridlock in Washington (other than vehicular traffic) is a good thing. They should have stopped writing at the end of "Congress shall make no law."

Piq, I wasn't trying to pick on California particularly, it's just the case I'm most familiar with. I lived in California (Anaheim and Orange) from 1959 to 2001, so I am also familiar with former governor Davis's inability to deal with the electricity issues, and have received the benefits of prop 13. And I noted, even while I was there, that the ballot measures were going to cause a crisis someday. Prop 13 really only affected county revenues, though, not state revenues (although Sacramento did send a lot of money out trying to make up for the shortfall in the counties). I also remember 3% sales taxes, although they were 4% by the time I started working in retail and adding it to every customer's receipt.

So far, I haven't seen Louisiana try to recall their governor.

[treebeau]

I hope this is the last political comment...

The election is over.
The result is well known.
The will of the people
Has clearly been shown.
Let's forget our differences.
Let the bitterness pass.
I'll hug your elephant
And you kiss my ass.

Regards,
Tim B.

[BigJon]

John Simon:
Democracy encourages the majority to decide things about which the majority is ignorant.

Thomas Jefferson:
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

Alexander Tytler:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.

That last one pretty much sums up my impression of democracy in government. Democracy is great in our clubs. As a form of government, give me republicanism any time.

BigJon