Electoral College

[sfer]

Keeper or discard?

[El Barto]

Definitely Keep it.

If you thought recounting Florida was bad, just think what recounting the entire nation would be like when a very close popular vote result comes.

[sfer]

Wouldn't that create a strong incentive to get the count right the first time around? I think it is possible that the disconnectedness of the EC (maybe our state will be close, which means maybe our district will be close, which means maybe our accuracy is important) doesn't create a good incentive now.

[Dynasty]

This is a purely hypothetical question because there's 0% chance of the Electoral College being discarded. The small states which it benefits will never allow a change since 75% of the states have to agree to the necessary constitutional ammemdment to change the law.

My answer to the hypothetical: it doesn't matter. If the election is so close that one person wins the popular vote and another wins the electoral college, then there is no concensus about who should be President. Flip the coin and move on.

[El Barto]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't that create a strong incentive to get the count right the first time around?

[/ QUOTE ]

The states you got to watch out for are the 'one party" states where all the officials belong to one party. They would have nothing to stop them from "padding" the vote.

At least now, a one-party state is not likely to be a swing state, so there is no reason to create fraudulent votes.

[jslag]

Discard.

I'm not sure a popular vote is the proper solution, but I think we can have something more fair than the electoral college. You may find this interesting reading:

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

I think that the current system does not really live up to what it advertises: that each individual has a voice and a vote that actually counts. As it is now, state voting is somewhat strategic in a sense. I am attracted to the idea that MY vote for an individual actually goes into their column and counts towards getting them elected. If you're in a state that as a majority votes differently than you, then you're vote is basically null and void. It becomes a popular vote statistic and that's it. Doesn't seem wholey democratic to me.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't seem wholey democratic to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I have pointed out in the past we live in a Republic, not a Democracy.

Jimbo

[IrishHand]

We directly elect our country's Executive, our Congressmen and our Senators - this is a democracy. It's not necessarily a good one - note the pathetic voting rates - but it's at least set up to be one.

[Jimbo]

Republic:


A political order whose head of state is not a monarch and in modern times is usually a president.

A nation that has such a political order.

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.
A nation that has such a political order.

Jimbo

[andyfox]

Shouldn't we be attempting, in 2004, to make our republic more democratic?

[IrishHand]

Democracy (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=democracy)
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

[vulturesrow]

Sorry man, the USA is a republic, not a democracy. Did your high school teach civics?

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't we be attempting, in 2004, to make our republic more democratic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not at all, the sheep need to be herded. Otherwise the next thing you know another Democrat is elected President. /images/graemlins/smile.gif




Jimbo

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

[/ QUOTE ]

The majority rule requirement is what proves we do not live in a Democracy.

Jimbo

[riverflush]

[ QUOTE ]
We directly elect our country's Executive, our Congressmen and our Senators - this is a democracy. It's not necessarily a good one - note the pathetic voting rates - but it's at least set up to be one.

[/ QUOTE ]


I hear a lot about "pathetic voting rates" and such...how it's so sad that millions of people don't vote. How disconnected "youth" are with the political process.

What I never hear discussed is the possibility that maybe, just maybe, many of us realize that we don't need to rely on government for 99% of our lives, and that increasingly...in the age if instantaneous communication and commerce...state power is growing more and more obsolete.

I don't necessarily see it as a "sad state of affairs" - I find it somewhat comforting that many feel that they have control of their daily lives, not Washington or (insert state capitol). We live in an age where you can function just fine while still paying short shrift to politicos. I put more effort into selecting an accountant than I do my state senators...personally I don't see anything wrong with that.


By the way - I vote. That doesn't mean I respect today's political parties, or lose much sleep over the process.

Those who lament the lack of interest in elections seem (to me) to be the ones who put faith in a government to provide them with something tangible. I, of course, do not.

[Cyrus]

Democracy : From the Greek words demos meaning the gathering of the citizenry to take decisions and kratos meaning state. The combination means that the general assembly of the citizens is the (power of the) state.

Republic : From the Latin words rex meaning ruler (king) and publicum meaning, well ..the public, the citizenry. ("Tractus deinde per publicum"). The combination means that the people/citizenry are the rulers.

There is no difference in the literal translation of the two words, as you can see, but they have come to represent, through the centuries, whatever meaning one wanted to invest in them. Witness the many democracies whose head of state is a hereditary King (or Queen) and the numerous travesties of People's Republics -- the ultimate in titles was of course the Democratic Republic of Germany (i.e. DDR).

Essentially, when one says (as dear Jimbo is fond of doing and I picture him stamping down his foot when he does!) "We live in a republic and not a democracy!", one says nothing really. One must be specific and explain what sort of regime one refers to.

--Cyrus

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

In a Democracy, 3 wolves and 1 sheep vote on what's for dinner

In a Republic, 3 wolves and 1 sheep elect representatives who vote on what's for dinner.

In a Constitutional Republic, what's for dinner is not subject to a vote, and the sheep have guns. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Since it's been quite a while since *any* presidential candidate actually go a majority of the popular vote, with what do we place the oft-maligned electoral college? Or do we just say the guy with the most votes wins?

As a corollary, what would the networks do on election night if it were just a count of the popular vote? No fancy graphics or Tim Russert's retro whiteboard needed.

[Abednego]

They did get it right the first time

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
As I have pointed out in the past we live in a Republic, not a Democracy

[/ QUOTE ]

As I have pointed out in the past, we live in a Democratic Republic. It has elements of both a pure democracy (characterized by the populace voting) and a Republic (characterized by the representative form of government.)

Just saying Republic isn't descriptive enough. You could have a Republic with 100 Senators and how ever many Representatives there are who are all appointed by me.

Just saying Democracy isn't enough. The citizenry does not vote for individual laws.


We live in a system that contains elements of BOTH system --- this is one of the topics that was discussed in the various Federalist papers.

[elwoodblues]

You could apportion the electoral votes in each state based on the % of the popular vote.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
You could apportion the electoral votes in each state based on the % of the popular vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't solve the problem of the popular vote winner losing some elections.

The only plan that would work (assuming an amendment is not possible), would be for a group of states to agree to give all their votes to the national popular vote winner whether he/she wins in their state or not.

With a big enough group of such states (as little as 80 EVs), the popular vote winner would almost surely win every race.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
The only plan that would work (assuming an amendment is not possible), would be for a group of states to agree to give all their votes to the national popular vote winner whether he/she wins in their state or not.


[/ QUOTE ]

And which states would these be? States of a certain party's choosing? And what if one/some the colluding states (or just individual electors) decided to go against the pack and vote the way the wind blew? (Clue: This can happen anytime anyway).

Come on, were you being serious, or is this just an idea born from a "Gore/I got rooked" frame of mind?

Ten

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
As a corollary, what would the networks do on election night if it were just a count of the popular vote? No fancy graphics or Tim Russert's retro whiteboard needed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurn, you have provided the best reason why the Electoral College should be abolished.

[riverflush]

Yeah...get rid of the Electoral College and go to a straight popular vote.

That way, three metro areas - NYC, LA, and Chicago - can decided who runs the entire country. Sounds like a great deal for everybody in Missouri...


The Democratic Party wants this - because they're hemmoraging support in "fly-over" America. All you have to do is look at the breakout of the 2000 vote to see why they're gripping.

The EC is an amazingly leveling and fair concept for a republic of separate states. It's not going anywhere, so don't get your hopes up.

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't solve the problem of the popular vote winner losing some elections.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because it's not a problem.