Electoral College - Were the Founding Fathers Wrong?

[juanez]

There's been lots of talk about the Electoral College since the election in 2000. Like Bush created the Electoral College in an evil plot to win or something...LOL. The same rules were followed in 2000 that the Country has been following since, well, forever.

Here in Colorado, we have Amendment 36 on the ballot. This Amendment, if passed, "would make Colorado the only state in the union with a purely proportional system of casting its electoral votes." Funny, the initiative was pushed by some rich California Democrat who wants Colorado to do away with the EC for this election because we are a "battleground state" and, if the Amendment passes, would give Kerry a few extra EC votes and possibly push him into the win column. Why not push this idea in his own state? Because all the EC votes in California will already go to Kerry. It’s such a blatantly disingenuous ploy, disguised as an effort to make "every vote count". It appears that the Amendment will not pass, thankfully.


Mike Rosen (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3271953,00.html) makes a pretty good argument for why the Electoral College is a good idea and why the Founding Fathers implemented the system in the first place. Do you think the Founding Fathers were wrong to implement this system?

I encourage you to read the Entire Article (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3271953,00.html) , but here are a few quotes:
[ QUOTE ]
Students of American government understand that we have never had a national popular election for president. We have 51 separate elections, one in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We tally the overall popular vote only as a matter of curiosity. It has no legal bearing on the election.

This is no accident; our Founders intended it that way precisely because we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government ." The word "democracy" appears not a single time in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison says, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, Al Gore didn't defeat George W. Bush in the national popular election for president in 2000, simply because there was no national popular election. In any event, neither candidate won a majority of the vote. Gore's plurality was three-tenths of 1 percent above Bush's. But Bush won in 30 of the 50 states and carried 2,480 counties to Gore's 674, representing 2.5 million of America's 3 million square miles. Gore won three populous states (New York, California and Illinois) by a total of 3.3 million votes, and lost the rest of the nation by 3.2 million. If we did away with the Electoral College, rural America and the West would be swamped by the voting power of big cities, traditional Democratic strongholds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[MMMMMM]

Great post, Juanez. Maybe this will give the AndyFoxes of the world something to think about ;-) /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[wacki]

Agreed. I've named this book a numerous times in 2+2, but if you read Machiavelli's The Prince it outlines why democracies are bad and republics are good as well. It goes through numerous histrorical examples and analyzes them all.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Funny, the initiative was pushed by some rich California Democrat who wants Colorado to do away with the EC for this election because we are a "battleground state" and, if the Amendment passes, would give Kerry a few extra EC votes and possibly push him into the win column.


[/ QUOTE ]

Colorado is still getting Californicated, eh? How can an initiative in this election change the rules for this election?

[ QUOTE ]
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government ." The word "democracy" appears not a single time in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence.

[/ QUOTE ]

The founding fathers had a pretty healthy skepticism about majority rule. They had great respect for the individual, but distrusted those same individuals acting as a group. Rightly so, in my humble opinion.

Opinions aside, the facts are that we have an Electoral College, and that gives certain powers to the states.

[ QUOTE ]
If we did away with the Electoral College, rural America and the West would be swamped by the voting power of big cities, traditional Democratic strongholds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. The framers of the Constitution didn't care about political parties per se. They already saw the growing concentrations of population, and knew that pure majority rule tends to ignore the rights and welfare of certain minorities, and wanted to protect against that.

The Electoral College gives each state some degree of power in national politics irrespective of pure population. The system will not be changed at the Federal level, because the power given to the smaller states lets them prevent it from being taken away. If any choose to give it away, such as through Colorado-type initiatives, that is short-sighted but it is their option, which they may live to regret.

There has been much weeping and wailing on these forums about the unfairness of the E.C., and I expect to see much more, especially AFTER the election. But that is the form of government we have, and the rationale for it remains valid. The big argument against it is that the E.C. is not democratic. I say that that is a big argument for it, and have never seen a solid, logical argument here to show that pure democracy would be better than what we have.

[o0mr_bill0o]

[ QUOTE ]
There's been lots of talk about the Electoral College since the election in 2000. Like Bush created the Electoral College in an evil plot to win or something...LOL. The same rules were followed in 2000 that the Country has been following since, well, forever.

Here in Colorado, we have Amendment 36 on the ballot. This Amendment, if passed, "would make Colorado the only state in the union with a purely proportional system of casting its electoral votes." Funny, the initiative was pushed by some rich California Democrat who wants Colorado to do away with the EC for this election because we are a "battleground state" and, if the Amendment passes, would give Kerry a few extra EC votes and possibly push him into the win column. Why not push this idea in his own state? Because all the EC votes in California will already go to Kerry. It’s such a blatantly disingenuous ploy, disguised as an effort to make "every vote count". It appears that the Amendment will not pass, thankfully.


Mike Rosen (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3271953,00.html) makes a pretty good argument for why the Electoral College is a good idea and why the Founding Fathers implemented the system in the first place. Do you think the Founding Fathers were wrong to implement this system?

I encourage you to read the Entire Article (http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_3271953,00.html) , but here are a few quotes:


[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I was hoping this would be an article making good points that would take a little bit of thought to refute. It's not.

[ QUOTE ]
Students of American government understand that we have never had a national popular election for president. We have 51 separate elections, one in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. We tally the overall popular vote only as a matter of curiosity. It has no legal bearing on the election.

This is no accident; our Founders intended it that way precisely because we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is both misleading and false. It implies that in order for a government to be a constitutional republic it must elect its executive via electoral college. this is simply not the case, instead the United States is not just the only constitutional republic to use the electoral college, it's only state in the world to use the electoral college. Therefore, it is entirely inaccurate to say that the electoral college was implemented in order to create a constitutional republic in the United States. Furthermore, this consideration had little bearing on the strongest motives for the founders to create the electoral college. There are a myriad of different reasons it was created, however, at the forefront among them were these considerations:
The forefathers were concerned that the ignorant populace would elect an incompetent executive. That is not to say they doubted the intelligence of the American electorate, instead they feared that thanks to extremely limited communications capabilities voters would vote for candidates from their own state, a "favorite son." Therefore, they created the electoral college in order to trump the people should they make such a decision. Clearly this consideration is impractical under our current democracy.
Furthermore, southern slave states were concerned they would be overpowered by the north with regards to the presidential election, just as they had the same fears regarding congressional elections. Implementing the electoral college allowed them to use the 3/5 rule to gain an extra edge in national representation thanks to their large slave populations.

[ QUOTE ]
Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution reads: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government ." The word "democracy" appears not a single time in the Constitution, Bill of Rights or Declaration of Independence.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once more, this statement is misleading and shows a general lack of understanding regarding democracies worldwide, and the nature of a republic itself. There is no inherent trait in a republic that prohibits its nation from directly electing the executive.

[ QUOTE ]
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison says, "Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, and have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

[/ QUOTE ]

this statement is irrelevant to the electoral college, and once again shows the same confusion regarding the nature of democracies, republics and electoral systems that the rest of the article has shown.

[ QUOTE ]
For the record, Al Gore didn't defeat George W. Bush in the national popular election for president in 2000, simply because there was no national popular election. In any event, neither candidate won a majority of the vote. Gore's plurality was three-tenths of 1 percent above Bush's. But Bush won in 30 of the 50 states and carried 2,480 counties to Gore's 674, representing 2.5 million of America's 3 million square miles. Gore won three populous states (New York, California and Illinois) by a total of 3.3 million votes, and lost the rest of the nation by 3.2 million. If we did away with the Electoral College, rural America and the West would be swamped by the voting power of big cities, traditional Democratic strongholds.

[/ QUOTE ]

This inaccurately plays to fears that rural areas would be trumped by big cities. They already are, and the electoral college does nothing to alleviate this. The rural areas within each state are still far more sparsely populated than the urban areas.

Eliminating the electoral college would increase the representativeness of our government, with no cost to effectiveness. There is simply no reason to keep it around aside from a general unfounded fear of change. As it stands the electoral college systematically disenfranchises those states whose electorate is overwhelmingly in support of one party over another. Candidates have little incentive to consider the well-being of the country as a whole, instead they find themselves with a great incentive to disproportionately consider the well-being of swing states.

[natedogg]

Doing away with the electoral college is only the second stupidest idea on changing our election.

The worst idea, hands down, is fining people who don't vote, like some euro countries do.

natedogg

[sam h]

N/M

[sam h]

Many states are structured as federal republics. This has nothing to do with how they elect federal officials.

The electoral college sucks. It devalues the principles behind "one man, one vote" and makes the votes of some count effectively more than others. I suspect some of those on this board who defend it to the teeth might be reconsidering in about ten days, as the chances of Bush winning the popular vote and losing the electoral college seem good.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Colorado is still getting Californicated, eh? How can an initiative in this election change the rules for this election?


[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing how many of "them" have moved here in the past 15 years. They keep trying to Californicate us, but hopfully they will fail. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

This is a part of this ballot initiative. As it's written, it will apply to this election as well those in the future if it's passed. That's why it's an obvious ploy to gain Kerry a few EC votes "RIGHT NOW - BEAT BUSH" without any consideration of future elections. Pretty shortsighted.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Students of American government understand that we have never had a national popular election for president. We have 51 separate elections, one in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

This is no accident; our Founders intended it that way precisely because we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is both misleading and false. It implies that in order for a government to be a constitutional republic it must elect its executive via electoral college.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that that statement says anything other than our country chose to implement a constitutional republic via an electoral college. There is nothing there to indicate that there are not other forms of republics.


[ QUOTE ]
This inaccurately plays to fears that rural areas would be trumped by big cities. They already are, and the electoral college does nothing to alleviate this. The rural areas within each state are still far more sparsely populated than the urban areas.

[/ QUOTE ]

At the risk of putting words in your mouth, it is absurd to argue that the admitted influence of Cheyenne on the electoral process of Wyoming is anthing like the potential influence of Chicago on the electoral process of Wyoming, if all votes were counted equally on a national basis. The citizens of Cheyenne are aware of state and local issues, and of the potential impact on Cheyenne of economic and other issues that affect rural Wyoming.

[ QUOTE ]
Eliminating the electoral college would increase the representativeness of our government, with no cost to effectiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse my scoff, but there is a sweeping general statement with nary a hint of an attempt to back it up with empirical evidence or theoretical argument.

[ QUOTE ]
There is simply no reason to keep it around aside from a general unfounded fear of change.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Founding Fathers had many well-articulated reasons to adopt it, which are cited if not expounded in the original post. The system has worked for over 200 years. (Could another system have worked better? Maybe, but there is no evidence to show that.) Finally, attempts to change it have been soundly defeated. We have kept it because we have seen no reason to change it.

The major reason (not argument) for wanting to change the Electoral College system is dissatisfaction with the results. We lost because the rules aren't fair. We lost because the other team scored more runs, but we had more hits, so we should have won. It's not fair that we lost the football game even though we scored 6 times (all field goals) while they only scored 3 times (all TDs). Sorry, we play by the rules here.

The essence of the argument against the Electoral College is that the rules are not fair. And the rules are not fair because the winner of the overall popular vote may not win.

Where is it carved in God-given tablets that a popular majority is the only fair way to have an election? Everyone who argues from this position takes it as natural law that only a popular majority process is fair. Anything else is by definition deemed to be unfair. Sorry, that is not a fact, it is an opinion. It is an unsubstantiated opinion and assumption in every argument I have heard for the abolition of the Electoral College. I, and many others, don't accept the premise that a popular majority is the only fair way to have an election. Until someone justifies that basic assumption, they are not going to have any success arguing that the Electoral College is unfair.

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I was hoping this would be an article making good points that would take a little bit of thought to refute. It's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see many of your opinions, which are interesting, but no documentation or specific references to what our Founding Fathers were thinking when they created this great Republic. Can you provide a few to support your opinions?

You only respnoded to the quotes I provided. Did you read the rest of the article? Can you respond to:

[ QUOTE ]
Votes in the Electoral College are apportioned to protect less populous states from the tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College disperses political influence geographically and discourages narrowly regional candidates. It reinforces the principle that that our nation is not just a collective, amorphous blob but a confederation of individual states, each retaining some sovereign powers and certain unique qualities, values and interests. Casting their electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis is what gives smaller states political leverage. Proportional voting would dilute that. It would also encourage factionalism and fringe parties, undermining the inherent stability of our two-party system. Under the U.S. constitution, the winning candidate must secure a majority of electoral votes. With third-party candidates winning proportional votes, elections would routinely be thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote. Ironically, this would make presidential elections even less democratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

[juanez]

[ QUOTE ]
The electoral college sucks. It devalues the principles behind "one man, one vote" and makes the votes of some count effectively more than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you think "The Founding Fathers Were Wrong"?

I should have included a poll in this thread...

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


This is a part of this ballot initiative. As it's written, it will apply to this election as well those in the future if it's passed. That's why it's an obvious ploy to gain Kerry a few EC votes "RIGHT NOW - BEAT BUSH" without any consideration of future elections. Pretty shortsighted.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it passed, that's an obvious appeal issue that could go to the Supreme Court. People casting ballots on Nov. 2 are doing so under the law as it stands on Nov. 2. If the law about Electoral College vote allocation changes on Nov. 3, the legal implications of trying to change the results of something that happened ex post facto are staggering. Or at least the grounds for appeal are staggering. Can you say "disenfranchisement"? How fast and how often can a herd of lawyers say it?

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


The electoral college sucks. It devalues the principles behind "one man, one vote" and makes the votes of some count effectively more than others.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sorry, I missed that "one man, one vote" quote in the Constitution. Where is that again?

We have a federal govenment, the word federal coming from federation. The extreme opposite of "one man, one vote" would be "one state, one vote". Why is one more fair than the other? Actually, we have a compromise that tries to balance the interests of the majority against the interests of the members of the federation. It seems to be a workable system that has lasted 200+ years, until the losers started to get litigious about the results, wanting to change the rules ex post facto.

Why is "one man, one vote" the only fair way to run a country? No one has made any attempt to show that this is correct and that any other process is inherently wrong. All of the "one man, one vote" advocates present it as a physical law, like gravity.

The logical extension of this argument is that the U.N. should be run on a "one man, one vote" basis. What do you think, folks?

[o0mr_bill0o]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wow. I was hoping this would be an article making good points that would take a little bit of thought to refute. It's not.


[/ QUOTE ]

I see many of your opinions, which are interesting, but no documentation or specific references to what our Founding Fathers were thinking when they created this great Republic. Can you provide a few to support your opinions?

You only respnoded to the quotes I provided. Did you read the rest of the article? Can you respond to:

[ QUOTE ]
Votes in the Electoral College are apportioned to protect less populous states from the tyranny of the majority. The Electoral College disperses political influence geographically and discourages narrowly regional candidates. It reinforces the principle that that our nation is not just a collective, amorphous blob but a confederation of individual states, each retaining some sovereign powers and certain unique qualities, values and interests. Casting their electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis is what gives smaller states political leverage. Proportional voting would dilute that. It would also encourage factionalism and fringe parties, undermining the inherent stability of our two-party system. Under the U.S. constitution, the winning candidate must secure a majority of electoral votes. With third-party candidates winning proportional votes, elections would routinely be thrown into the U.S. House of Representatives, where each state gets one vote. Ironically, this would make presidential elections even less democratic.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

easy response to the boldened part. a popular vote would eliminate the electoral college, and thus eliminate the need to throw the election to the congress in the event a candidate doesn't attain 270 votes. Furthermore, a popular vote need not be a plurality vote. Instant runoffs, among many other electoral procedures come to mind, all without providing the legislature with the responsibility of appointing the executive.

[andyfox]

The framers needed to make nice to the states so that they'd ratify the Constitution. It's time to update our electoral process to 21st century ideas. Why have elections at all if the will of the people can be subverted?

[andyfox]

This Andy Fox of the world is too depressed from this week's baseball results to start thinking. Nevertheless, I have made a flippant response elsewhere.

Thanks for thinking of me. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

Not only were they wrong, they really didn't think about it too clearly. In fact, they got it so wrong that the election of 1800 was royally screwed up so that they had to fix things up with the 12th amendment.

[andyfox]

"The forefathers were concerned that the ignorant populace would elect an incompetent executive."

Thank god the electoral college has precluded that from ever happening.

Terrific post.

[andyfox]

In 2000, Bush got more votes in California than in any other state. Those people who voted for him in California might as well have stayed home. Four million five hundred thousand votes for nothing.

[vulturesrow]

A quote from the posted article:

All votes count and all elections are winner take all. The candidate with the most votes wins and all the others lose. If you voted for the loser, your vote is counted and deemed to have come up short. In a close race, the runner-up doesn't get to serve 49% of the term in office.

[andyfox]

All voted are indded counted, but not all votes count. Gore got less votes in the aggregate in Connecticut, Deleware, Washington D.C., Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Mexico combined than Bush got in California. Bush got zero electoral votes for California and Gore got 53 for the states I listed.

We still can have winner take all, I just think we can define the winner in a more democratic fashion.

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, southern slave states were concerned they would be overpowered by the north with regards to the presidential election, just as they had the same fears regarding congressional elections. Implementing the electoral college allowed them to use the 3/5 rule to gain an extra edge in national representation thanks to their large slave populations.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like it when people mischaracterize history. The 3/5ths rule was actually a victory for the Northern states. The Southern states wanted slaves to count as full individuals for purposes of representation.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry, I missed that "one man, one vote" quote in the Constitution. Where is that again?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say "one man, one vote" was a quotation from the constitution?

[ QUOTE ]
We have a federal govenment, the word federal coming from federation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and this is entirely consistent with directly electing presidents. Basically every other country in the world with a federal system has direct elections.

[ QUOTE ]
The extreme opposite of "one man, one vote" would be "one state, one vote".

[/ QUOTE ]

How is "one state, one vote" the opposite of "one man, one vote"?

[ QUOTE ]
Why is one more fair than the other?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about fair, but I can make an argument about which is better. The doctrine of "one man, one vote" embodies a core democratic principle that is really the bedrock for the functioning of modern democratic states: that we have equal political rights.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, we have a compromise that tries to balance the interests of the majority against the interests of the members of the federation. It seems to be a workable system that has lasted 200+ years, until the losers started to get litigious about the results, wanting to change the rules ex post facto.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, we have a compromise that arose out of a completely different set of politicl circumstances than we have faced for some time. It has been in place for 200 years, but that is not necessarily an argument in its favor.

[Ray Zee]

the e.c. worked back when. it was good and still is except for one thing. polls. polls are so now effective that they pin down exactly where the close states are. so the candidates only campaign in the swing states. which makes the other states voting almost useless and a waste of time. so it must either be eliminated or replaced with something where each person has a vote that counts. polls have ruined the voting system we have now.
in montana where i live it is a waste of time to vote as repubs win in most races. and bush wins for sure in his. except this year the gov. race will be close as we have had a bad gov. last time.

[whiskeytown]

I know Bob Brown - he was a teacher at my High School and he was our supervisor during a Close-Up Trip to Wash. DC in 1990.

His wife was my Honors English Teacher - I've been on a bit of an anti-republican rant the last couple yrs. but I kinda hope they make it in there.

RB

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
in montana where i live it is a waste of time to vote as repubs win in most races. and bush wins for sure in his.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I think we can safely project:

http://www.federalreview.com/projections/mtbush.jpg

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Even if the Amendment were to pass, it would likely be overturned by SCOTUS.

Colorado has 9 electoral votes. There is nothing in the constitution that would support awarding fractional electoral votes, thus how could you opportion 9 votes amoung 4 candidates getting 49, 48, 2 and 1 percent respectively.

The only logical way to split electoral votes is the way Maine and Nebraska do it: 2 "at-large" votes that go to the statewide winner, and 1 vote each to the candidate that wins each congressional district.

BTW, if all electoral votes were split, and fractional votes allowed, Bush would have still won in 2000. There would have been no majority, thus the election would have been decided by the House of Representatives. In that case, each State delegation gets one vote, and Bush carried more States than Gore.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

IMO, the founders never anticipated a system where ther would only be 2 strong candidates. The several States were too contentious at the time. In many ways the system may have been designed with the anticipation that most Presidential elections would be decided by the House, creating something not dissimilar to a coalition government in a Parliamentary system.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There is simply no reason to keep it around aside from a general unfounded fear of change.

That and the networks would have little need of big-salaried "analysts" (and Tim Russert's whiteboard) if all they had to do was count numbers. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Tongue-in-cheek answers aside, the EC is kept around because it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change it, and not many people in government want to start that necessarily long process.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

This is probably too deep a philosophical question, but from the perspective of Federalism, is the "will of the people" manifested in the opinion of the raw majority of total people in the nation, *or* by the majority opinion in the majority of the several states?

I'm not being partisan here. You obviously know that I consider Bush/Kerry (or any Republican/Democrat option) to be a Hobson's Choice, but doesnt the fact that in 2000 Bush carried 85% of the voting precincts in the country make my intial question valid?

[GWB]

On your "2 Major Parties" point. It is the electoral college itself that largely kills the 3rd Party or independent candidate option as a practical option for people. 1912 and 1992 show what the likely outcomes are when there are 3 contenders.

I say this is a good thing. If you don't agree totally with the 2 major parties you have a choice:
1) Pick the major party closest to what you want
2) Stay stubbornly away from them and have zero impact on the Presidential choice.

Colorado can allocate its electors as long as it uses whole numbers (since they are actually electing people). The problem with the amendment is it is retroactive. The constitution has a "no ex post facto" provision for Congress, and I am sure the SCOTUS will find against the State of Colorado in this case (the 14th amendment applies prohibitions against Congress against the States too). If it passes, the earliest it will go into effect will be 2008.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Tongue-in-cheek answers aside, the EC is kept around because it would take a Constitutional Amendment to change it, and not many people in government want to start that necessarily long process.

[/ QUOTE ]

The probability of getting such an amendment through Congress are quite low, and the probability of getting it ratified by the states is about zero. An amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. I'd be surprised if 30 states would ratify.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]


Colorado can allocate its electors as long as it uses whole numbers (since they are actually electing people). The problem with the amendment is it is retroactive. The constitution has a "no ex post facto" provision for Congress, and I am sure the SCOTUS will find against the State of Colorado in this case (the 14th amendment applies prohibitions against Congress against the States too). If it passes, the earliest it will go into effect will be 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US Constitution also says that the method of allocating electoral college votes shall be determined by each state legislature. The issue of whether or not an initiative ballot is a legal proxy for the legislature under the US and the Colorado constitutions should insure full employment for a bunch of lawyers for a goodly period.

As a practical matter, Coloradans would be crippling themselves politically if they were to pass such a law. Assuming that there was some threshold below which 3rd party candidates would get no electoral votes, virtually every election would end up with 5 votes to the winner, 4 to the loser. So winning or losing Colorado would be worth one vote, while winning or losing Wyoming or Alaska would be worth 3 times as much.

I assume that the law would have some threshold for 3rd party candidates, which would be another can of worms on appeal, but if a viable 3rd party candidate such as Ross Perot qualified, the vote division would be 4-4-1, and neither major party would be particularly concerned about Colorado.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]

I say this is a good thing. If you don't agree totally with the 2 major parties you have a choice:
1) Pick the major party closest to what you want
2) Stay stubbornly away from them and have zero impact on the Presidential choice.

[/ QUOTE ]


I have a better idea. Maybe in a couple of decades enough people will be informed and free-thinking enough to replace one of the two "major" parties with the Libertarian party. Giving support to this end strikes me as a very good thing.

Many conservatives and Liberals alike are sick of the too-big, too-controlling, too-interfering federal government, and the tax-and-spend policies of BOTH of the "Major Parties".

Truth be told, there is not that great a difference betwen the two major parties: neither truly respects the Constitution and our civil rights, and both see more federal "programs" as the answer rather than as the problem.

I think it will do more for positive change to vote Libertarian than to choose between the lesser of evils of two stagnant parties which both of which embody big government. One smiles out of the right side of its mouth while the other smiles out of the left side, but it is nearly the same smile overall. When enough people realize this, change will begin to occur.

Election 2032 (if not sooner): DemoPublican Party vs. Libertarian Party.

[GWB]

I agree. Any state using anything but the Winner Take All method is telling everyone: "Please Ignore Us."

Given the moderates on the SCOTUS unwillingness to defend the Florida Legislature's Laws last time against the Make-the-rules-as-you-go Florida Supreme Court, I wonder if they will rule against a initiative-led change though.

[GWB]

Its been done several times already.
Federalists are gone.
Democratic-Republicans are gone.
Whigs are gone.

Most 3rd Parties eventually are absorbed into the major parties though.

[MMMMMM]

The difference is that now the 2 major parties are becoming closer and closer to each other.

What are the major differences between the two? A piffling few percent difference in taxes? Huge budget deficits from either party? Federal programs out the yin-yang from both? A ridiculous and horrifically expensive war on drugs that is being lost and is creating more street crime by driving up the cost of drugs--and overcrowding our prisons to boot? Both parties favor abusive asset seizure and forfeiture laws, both parties do not respect citizen privacy, both parties want the government to "solve" problems such as high medical care costs--they are nearly freakin' the same party already. They look mildly different only when compared with each other, but when contrasted with a truly Constitutional approach to federal government, with an approach which is to merely safeguard the rights of the private citizen to try to make his own way in the world, then you can see where the real difference lies.

The Republicans have become Democrats and the Democrats have become Socialists, and they have both become each other and the Party of Big Federal Government.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
The Republicans have become Democrats and the Democrats have become Socialists, and they have both become each other and the Party of Big Federal Government.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have met the enemy, and he is us!!

New party formation usually occurs through the merger of a growing 3rd party and a declining major party. The problem today is that the declining party, the Democrats, are on the left, and the Libertarians are on the right, with the Republicans in between them.

The Republicans have become the dominant party by moving toward the middle, overlapping the consevative wing of the Democratic party and driving the remaining Dems further left. From what I've seen, the real conservatives in the Republican party are pretty much disgusted with Bush's domestic policy, which is turning into big government, but sticking with him for now because of his war on terrorists. They see Kerry as too wishy-washy to be effective. I'm guessing that a lot of the undecideds in current polls are hard-line right wingers who will hold their noses on Nov. 2 and vote for Bush.

Assuming Bush is reelected, the 2008 Republican primaries could be full-blown warfare between the moderates and the conservatives. I don't know who the Barry Goldwater of the 21st Century is, but I think we will find out in a few years. The fight between the big-government Republicans and the old school Republicans could, virtually if not literally, splinter the party. That could logically lead to a coalition between conservative Republicans and Libertarians.

All bets are off if Hillary runs. She would be the ultimate unificator of the right.

[Danenania]

"Agreed. I've named this book a numerous times in 2+2, but if you read Machiavelli's The Prince it outlines why democracies are bad and republics are good as well. It goes through numerous histrorical examples and analyzes them all. "

This is simplifying quite a bit. Most of The Prince deals with making the life of the PRINCE easier, not bettering the lives of the people. That and the historical context of Machiavelli's work is obviously extremely different than if it were written today. It's hard to say how the emergence of a technologically advanced global age would affect Machiavelli's political ideas, but they would surely be in need of modification.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I say this is a good thing. If you don't agree totally with the 2 major parties you have a choice:
1) Pick the major party closest to what you want

If I do this I vote for Kerry. I can't get beyond the fundamentalist Christian thing. Of course, tomorrow I might get ticked off at the Nanny State thing and go the other way. Do it the way you suggest and I'm an "undecided" voter.

2) Stay stubbornly away from them and have zero impact on the Presidential choice.

I have no impact as it is. Kerry will get 60% of the vote in my state. I'd rather vote Libertarian and try to influence the GOP that way.

Maybe if enough Nevadans vote for Badnarik and deny Bushg the state, the GOP will wake up, send the fundies and the dixiecrats packing and get my vote back.

[sam h]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree. Any state using anything but the Winner Take All method is telling everyone: "Please Ignore Us."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's see. Is Alabama likely to get more attention with winner-take-all or with proportional allocation?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

The 13 biggest states wouldn't want to give up their edge. That's all you need to kill it.

[lastchance]

I agree essentially with Ray Zee's points. Because of polls and other factors like that, only a few states are focused on come Election day. If you live in a state which is not a battleground state, your vote will not count as much as one who lives Ohio would. This Electoral College system leads to an emphasis upon certain areas over others.

However, there's no possible way this Amendment is passed, because battleground states want to keep their influence, which is, of course, precisely why we should change it so that every man can have his vote matter.

[vulturesrow]

Not having the Electoral college would make the problem even worse. States with little metropolitan development would have no real influence on the election. The candidates would be able to narrow down their campaigns even further.

[andyfox]

Yes, a valid question indeed. My thought is that we are a nation of people, not districts or any other demarcation. One person, one vote. Our ideas of the presiedency are very different than those the framers had in 1789. Three centuries have ended since then; we ought to be increasing the mechanisms of democracy in 2004.

[andyfox]

Good point. We have had no campaigning in the three biggest states in the nation because what the vote will be is clear to all parties.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I use to live in Boulder and I was addicted to his radio show.

[lastchance]

Well, it's a trade-off. Instead of Florida, Ohio, and Nevada, states like that, they would be going to New York, California, and Texas... While some areas might lose their control, like Ohio, other areas, like California, Texas, New York, with more people, would gain more say in the process. Some states don't have much say because they slant one way or another. Under a popular vote, states would not have say because of lack of population, not because other people in their state had a certain view.

One n00b's argument.

[andyfox]

"The Republicans have become Democrats and the Democrats have become Socialists, and they have both become each other"

Both of those things can't be true.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
My thought is that we are a nation of people, not districts or any other demarcation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That statement implies that we are a nation of homogeneous people, a person in rural Nebraska being interchangeable with a person in urban New York, and that all issues affect all people similarly. That is far from the truth. We are different people, with different needs, different circumstances, and different concepts of and impacts from the issues.

As the wine country of Califonia is a land of micro-climates, America is a land of micro-economies. We are also a land of short-term views and instant gratification. What meets the short-term wants of the urban Northeast may prove disasterous to the long term needs of the rural Midwest. And therefore what meets the short-term wants of the urban Northeast may prove disasterous to the long-term needs of the urban Northeast.

In point of fact, we are a nation of districts. The founders understood this to a limited extent of their knowledge and environment. By some combination of skill and luck, they came up with a system that still reflects those regional differences, and protects the minority from the short-sighted self-interest of the majority.

[ QUOTE ]
One person, one vote.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gag. There it is again. The mantra, an intuitive concept presented without logic or empirical evidence to support its practical application in our circumstances. One person, one vote is a system with a strong emotional appeal and apparent characteristics of fairness.

Is it the best system for the US now? The arguments against it were presented by the founders and remain valid. I have not seen any specific arguments for it as a better system here and now. The one person, one vote proponents present it as self-evident, a law of nature, without need for explaination or justification. An article of faith. One person, one vote can be a fair system. But it is not the only possible fair system, and its proponents have made no attempt to show that it is the fairest system here and now.

[andyfox]

Of course different people have different needs. That's why we have different levels of government: a local government to take care of local needs, a state government for state needs, and a federal government for needs that encompass all the people (to name just three).

One person, one vote is the essence of fairness and justice. My vote should not be worth any more nor less than yours.

[MMMMMM]

Obviously; but I hope it helped make my general point.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

My vote should not be worth any more nor less than yours.

Nice thought from a guy whose vote is worth nearly 14x what mine is.

Again, though, you're bucking up against the concept of Federalism. You say it's not valid any more. Ben disagrees. I'm not 100% sure, but my gut, which fears the tyranny of the majority, tends to be with Ben . I do know that your State and 12 others will never allow the Electoral College to go away. In each State, it *is* one person-one vote. With the election of the Chief Executive, we take a federalist approach and the several states elct the President.

Would you prefer a Parliamentary system when the majority party in Congress chooses the Chief Executive? I wouldn't. I like the option of having the President from the opposite party than Congress.

[andyfox]

A few months ago, I suggested a proportional electoral college system. That is, each state would give x % of their vote (I suggested 50%) to the winner, with the rest of its electoral votes divided proportionally among the vote getters. This would at least have the virtue of getting the cnadidates to campaign in states where they stand no chance of winning.

[andyfox]

Incidentally, your point about the Republicans and Democrats being essentially the same is exactly Ralph Nader's point.

I agree in terms of corruption, but not on other issues. If I imagine what our country would look like in a one-party state under the Republicans and what it would look like under the Democrats, I see vastly different outcomes.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Proportional distribution has never been allowed. Electoral votes are not numerical concepts. Each vote represents a person who casts his/her vote in Washington. Thus you run into the problem when the perscentages don't fit the number of votes.

I'm not even sure I disagree conceptually with the concept. What I was driving at was a debate on the concept of Federalism. Ben made a valid point. The US is far less a homogenous culture than most other countries. Thus, the concept of Federalism may be more valid now than it was in the late 18th Century.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course different people have different needs. That's why we have different levels of government: a local government to take care of local needs, a state government for state needs, and a federal government for needs that encompass all the people (to name just three).


[/ QUOTE ]

That was the original theory. The ever increasing federal usurpation of state and local power and money over the last 100 years has rendered the states more and more impotent in controlling their own destinies. This has made checks and balances against majority rule, like the Electoral College, more important today than it was 200 years ago.


[ QUOTE ]
One person, one vote is the essence of fairness and justice.

[/ QUOTE ]

As the "Great Communicator" often said, there you go again. You are stating opinion as fact. You are basically saying that one man, one vote is the only possible fair system. I agree that it could be fair under certain circumstances, but I argue that there are other methods of attaining fairness, and that it is not the fairest here and now. Everyone on this forum who has espoused one man, one vote simply states that it is the only fair method, and none has made any attempt to defend or justify that position. The only agrument made to show that the Electoral College is not fair is that it does not provide for one man, one vote in the election of the President. That is circular reasoning. Sorry folks, this is not a truth that we hold to be self-evident.

[ QUOTE ]
My vote should not be worth any more nor less than yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your vote is not worth any more or less than mine in chosing the electors of our respective states.

[juanez]

Yeah, he's one of the best on radio IMHO.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the option of having the President from the opposite party than Congress.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you look at the historic quantitative measurements, things like economic growth, employment, stock market performance, etc., you will find that the country generally does best when one party controls the White House and the other controls Congress. At the risk of being cynical, it may be because they spend so much time fighting each other, they don't get any of their "work" done.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Proportional distribution has never been allowed.

[/ QUOTE ]

The states can do it however they want. There are a few states that already distribute this way (I want to say Maine is one of them)

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
My vote should not be worth any more nor less than yours.
....
Nice thought from a guy whose vote is worth nearly 14x what mine is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Californians/New Yorkers votes aren't worth more than small states votes. They're worth less, much less. It's the small states that are vastly overrepresented (thus, the individual vote is worth more), not the large states.

[Mano]

You are absolutely correct. The current system gives the "swing" states way too much political clout. It would be suicidal for the candidates to have positions that are unfriendly to states like Florida or Ohio, even they may be good for the nation and favored by the majority of people in the country. I too live in a state (Utah) where my vote in Presidential elections is inconsequential. Why should people in states that are of a firm united opinion be ignored, and those which are from divided or undecided states be pandered to? Regardless of which side it favors, I believe we should use the popular vote to determine the Presidential election, and perhaps even a runoff system if a majority is not achieved (but that is another debate).

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

No. Maine and Nebraska do not distribute proportionally. Each state has 2 at-large electoral votes that go to the statewide winner. The balance (2 for ME and 3 for NE) are awarded one vote each to the candidate that wins each congressional district without regard to the percentages. In both states, a candidate can get 49.9% of the vote and get 0 electoral votes.

[andyfox]

But I don't think it's not allowed. Doesn't Colorado have an initiative on the ballot to porportion their electoral votes? The Constitution doesn't forbid it.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Colorado has 9 electoral votes. That's 9 flesh and blood people who will go to Washington after the election and cast one vote each. Unless the candidate with the smallest number of votes gets 11% and the rest of the breakdown percentages are divisible by 11, how will they apportion those votes?

There is no such thing as a fractional electoral vote.

[lastchance]

Actually, you're wrong. While an individual vote would be worth more proportionally, the people whose votes matter the most are in Florida and Ohio because they could go either way, and a small influx of new voters voting one way could decide this election.