Electoral College

Sirus · October 2003

<div class="IPBDescription">Go or No ?</div> As many of you <i>should</i> know. The president is <b>not</b> directly elected by the population, only local/state and representatives of the House and thanks to some legistlation in the early 1900's, we can directly elect senators.

But what about now ?

Madison, and the other framers of the constitution didn't believe in the majority. Jefferson said "There never and never will be a country who is politically ignorant and free".

Currently, especially in light of the 2000 elections, Bush won without the popular vote, which is very possible, and very legal, although rare.

So, what is your say ? Our votes are representatively accounted for, because the electors of the college are chosen by our state legislation, the people we put in office.

So directly or not ?

I won't voice my opinion yet.

Hida_Tsuzua · October 2003

There have been electoral college wins without majority vote several times in American History admittly not within living memory up until 2000. As for the system itself, it has advantages and disadvantages. The biggest disadvantage is the "I win without majority votes" which wasn't considered a problem when it was first made. The advantage is that it helps out smaller states in population and ironically enchances the power of a vote (especially in the area of the figurative 50-50 slipt tie-breaker). However I don't remember the proof of the later advantage (it was in an old issue of Discover) so I might be incorrect. I do doubt that it'll change anytime soon however.

Sirus · October 2003

Are you thinking of the increased power of senators in relation to the fact that no matter how large the size the population, they can have only 2. So smaller states with a small population can have a very small ratio to senator to public, but states like California have a very large ratio.

The amount of votes is based on the population, from the electoral college.

Quaunaut · October 2003

None of it really matters, when it comes down to it. I bet even if we were to vote, many votes would be "Filtered" out, because of stupid reasons. And even so, who do you wanna bet would vote if the Electoral College stays or not? The electoral college. Just because America is that backward. Man...we really need to start reforming, and getting stricter rules in.

Sirus · October 2003

Would be done through Congress, or a National/State convention with a 3/4 vote, and a 2/3 vote from Congress.

RyoOhki · October 2003

Seriously, I study American history and I don't understand the Electoral College. Why the heck don't you just vote for the President directly?

Spooge · October 2003

I remember having this discussion awhile ago with Nem. Let's see if I can find it. *cue the elevator music*

Found it: <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=10&t=6654&hl=electoral%20college&st=40' target='_blank'>This discussion about GWB was the victim of numerous hijacks.</a> Nemesis and I got into it about half way down. <b>NOTE:</b> that thread is a year old and the current discussion rules did not exist and were not applied. I strongly suggest not following the examples of improper discussion behaviour in that thread.

For quick reference, I posted this link in the old thread: <a href='http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm' target='_blank'>How the electoral college works</a>

And here is a cut from my posts (Note that Nem continued to disagree with me <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tiny.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tiny.gif'> )
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Here is a very simple example:

50 states. 1 state has 1,000,000 people in it. The other 49 have 10,000 people in it. ( I did say this was simplistic but it will make the point)

If the popular vote was the controlling factor in the election, the candidates would only have to convince the first state ( and maybe a couple nearby ) that he or she was right for the position. Even the combination of all 49 other states would not add up to the first. This means the candidates wouldn't bother reaching out to the more distant states.
The electoral college removes some of that by reducing the numbers statistically. The larger state still has the greater value but the smaller states together could swing the vote. Again, it's not just the individual voter, it's also about the states (U.S. means United STATES). Because the STATES have value in the electoral system, candidates are more inclined to campaign across the country. It also means that an individual in a state has more voting power than an individual in a country.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Nemesis_Zero · October 2003

Ah, good times, good times. Note that my English back then was even worse than today.

Anyway, I stick to my initial thesis from the last time around:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The college is, as Rob pointed out earlier, a remainder of a time in which this equal vote wasn't possible due to organisatoric and educational issues, which are, as you'll have to admit, no longer present.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Now, for the gritty. Maybe, we should first shortly analyze the constitutional backing of the electoral college. Its source of legitimation stems from the first section of the second article of the constitution:

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President[...]</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>(<a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1' target='_blank'>Source.</a>)

What we see here is a short description of how the electoral college works. And it is undoubtely part of the constitution, so many will wish to end the discussion at this point, reasoning that this kinda carves the college in stone in much the same manner it carves the very existence of the presidency in stone.

There's two objections.

The first one is the fact that one won't be able to find the word 'electoral college' mentioned anywhere in the text of the constitution, which degrades it a little compared to outspokenly mentioned aspects of the state.

The second objection has to do with the <a href='http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxii.html' target='_blank'>Twelfth Amendment</a> that was passed in 1804 after the election of 1800, in which Jefferson and Burr tied for presidency and thus threw the young nation in its very first mayor constitutional crisis.
It supersedes parts of the original constitution and makes changes to let president and vice-president be elected seperatedly to avoid similiar crisises in the future. This shows that even the very founding fathers did not view the organization of the election as carved in stone; they changed it when a new process appeared to be more practicable.

Now, coming back to the initial question, my point from a year ago remains: The electoral college can't be justified by the representation of smaller states as the Senate does already fulfill that role. Seeing that the democratic process proved acceptable during the large majority of elections on every stately level both within and outisde the US, it only seems sensible to elect the President, after all the most powerful person in todays constitutional reality, by the largest possible pool of legitimation the nation has to offer and that is already widely involved in the electoral process, anyway - the people.

Handman · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Now, coming back to the initial question, my point from a year ago remains: The electoral college can't be justified by the representation of smaller states as the Senate does already fulfill that role.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Yes the senate represents their constituents when it comes to voting on Bills and what not. The president, howevers, is the last word and has many power the senate does not. The representation that the senate provide in no way bears on the presidential election, not the electoral college. The representation that the college provides, is to keep the presidents from pandering to the 3 or 4 states that make up the majority of the US's population. For example; lets say their is a drought in the mid-west, a big farming area. Instead of informing the farmers of what help, if any, the canidates would provide, the canidates would just go from New York, Pennsylvania, California, Florida, and what not discussing key issues to them and only occasionally adressing the minor issues that have a great effect on other states.

Onto the popular vote. Believe it or not, there voting sytem is corrupt. Homeless are picked up, bussed to voting centers and encourage to vote on certain canidates. People are intimidated into voting one way, ballets are thrown out, and ballets appear out of thin air. This could cause a shift in the winner that was not their before. The electoral college limits the damage that these deceptive acts causes.

Anyway my rant is done. All spelling errors and grammer problems are for artistic purposes. Actually they are because I am tooo lazy to proof read <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>

<img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/pudgy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='pudgy.gif'>

Nemesis_Zero · October 2003

I doubt any of us wants to go into a big discussion about the principle of checks & balances, so, in short, if a minority (such as a less densely populated area) is to be defended within the political system, this can never happen by putting it in the position of the constructive force (the acting force), as the minority will act in its, and not the majorities interest; it can only be allowed to obtain a passive force to control the constructive force and keep it from ignoring the minorities interests.
Thus, it makes sense to make the Senate the place for the defense of a minority (see Spooges '50 states' example and my rebuttal in the old thread), while the President should be forced to first consider what's best for the majority of the population and <i>then</i> wager it against the needs of the minorities.
Also, don't act as if all urban Americans voted in one way, and one way alone. Political sentiments are diverse, a majority of votes can thus only be obtained by appealing to different demographics in different areas.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Onto the popular vote. Believe it or not, there voting sytem is corrupt. Homeless are picked up, bussed to voting centers and encourage to vote on certain canidates. People are intimidated into voting one way, ballets are thrown out, and ballets appear out of thin air. This could cause a shift in the winner that was not their before. The electoral college limits the damage that these deceptive acts causes.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, I believe that popular voting can be compromised, but the damage done by a few homeless influenced into voting somebody who bought them a hot meal can just not be compared to a corrupt elector representing tens of thousands of people, and don't be so naive to assume that doesn't happen either. Popular vote and democracy aren't perfect - they're just less flawed than the rest.

Handman · October 2003

The problems of the Majority are not always as important as the minority, look at racism. I don't want to get into checks and balance arguements nor arguements about the powers of the branches of government (thought the legislative brach over stepping its bounds could be a good discussion).

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Oh, I believe that popular voting can be compromised, but the damage done by a few homeless influenced into voting somebody who bought them a hot meal can just not be compared to a corrupt elector representing tens of thousands of people, and don't be so naive to assume that doesn't happen either. Popular vote and democracy aren't perfect - they're just less flawed than the rest. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

There have been very little cases of a state's electoral vote going against the will of its people. I don't believe it has happened in my Life Time, 25 years, and please don't bring up florida(I know some one will), they recounted multiple times and Bush seemed to win most of the time. I don't know if how electors are selected, in each state; I do remember while in school in Florida, oh so long ago, that the electors were elected and thusly could lose their job(at least in Florida). This provides reprocutions for any corrupted electors.

I do agree that a corrupt elector is bad, but you are underestimating the curroption of the popular vote. I live in a City and witness it all the time. Plus my roomate was the biggest partisan(democrat republican it doesnt matter) ever and helped in all the campagns. Thusly I was subjected to all the goings on in the campagn, some of it isn't pretty.

Anyhow no matter how much we argue, we do not live in a democracy. We are a Repressentative government, despite what they tell you in school.

DiabolusCaligo · October 2003

no, they should LEAVE the electoral colleges because its function is to make sure that stupid peoples' (sorry for any discrimination <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>) votes aren't effective. There are people out there who vote for people whom they don't really think will do the best job. They're the people who vote for whatever their friends ar voting for or for whatever person the TV tells them to vote for.

The only reason people are complaining about this (in my opinion) is because everyone just seems to hate bush. You know darn well that if it were a liberal president was in office, this discussion wouldn't have started (again, in MY opinion).

It's like in California. Although I'm glad Arnold won, he won by such a landslide because there were a fair amount of people who liked him only because he was a movie star and his name was so well known. The people hear 'Ahnold' and instantly think "wow, a movie star, I'm voting for him because he's famous." I think he would have won anyway if there weren't the 'stupid' people. (By stupid I mean people who don't have opinions of their own)

Right now, Bush has most of the nation's support, and it looks like he'll win the office again for another 4 years after the votes next year. YAY <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'>

Sirus · October 2003

Also keep in mind, that the constitution, and Framers, were opposed to democracy, they believed the few should rule the many. So when using the consitution to sway that it's not as democratic as it should be constitutionally it's not valid, in fact, it's quite the opposite, nowadays we have a very liberal view of the constitution.

Arg. And what is this about minorities ? Regardless of corruptness, thanks to Rhode Island when the constitution was ratified it had the Bill of Rights, in addition to the Writ of Habeaus Corpus.

DiabolusCaligo · October 2003

What do minorities have to do with voting... their votes count the same amount.

Also, indeed we do have a liberal view of it. Perhaps too liberal (my opinion)

I mean... look at that guy who wanted to remove 'under God' from the pledge of allegiance because it was 'upsetting to his beliefs.' I mean... come on, it's two extra words. I'm atheist, but I don't care, because the country was founded christian, and we shouldn't change what's been in effect for 200 years because some guy comes along and says it hurts him and his daughter...

Xzilen · October 2003

No need for it anymore. It was mainly used for communications purpose and because the framers weren't too sure about a direct election with the majority voting back then automatically winning.

Psycho-Kinetic_Hyper-Geek · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DiabolusCaligo @ Oct 8 2003, 06:23 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> What do minorities have to do with voting... their votes count the same amount.

Also, indeed we do have a liberal view of it. Perhaps too liberal (my opinion)

I mean... look at that guy who wanted to remove 'under God' from the pledge of allegiance because it was 'upsetting to his beliefs.' I mean... come on, it's two extra words. I'm atheist, but I don't care, because the country was founded christian, and we shouldn't change what's been in effect for 200 years because some guy comes along and says it hurts him and his daughter...  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Actually the "Under God" part WAS NOT in the original version of the pledge. It got added during the oh so lovely McCarthy era. In fact the pledge was written in 1892 by a socialist Baptist minister from Boston named Francis Bellamy. In it's original form it read:
(With the odd pauses we all gave it in school)

I pledge alliegience
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic
for which it stands
one nation
indivisble
with liberty, justice and equality for all

Spooge · October 2003

sigh.

Ok. I'll play Mr. MustBeFactual today.

The <b>Original</b> wording was:
</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Feel free to read up on the history of adaptations <a href='http://www.flagday.org/Pages/StoryofPledge.html' target='_blank'>on the Flagday website.</a>

Can we get back to the Electoral College now?

Psycho-Kinetic_Hyper-Geek · October 2003

Yes I couldn't remember everything exactly except that there was no under god and that it had liberty justice and equality for all in it originally.

Forlorn · October 2003

I like the electoral college because it is a fine balance between state and popular rights. Therefore it should always remain.

Nemesis_Zero · October 2003

Excuse my absence, I was distracted by the latest Pratchett.

<b>Handman:</b>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The problems of the Majority are not always as important as the minority, look at racism.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Sorry, but now you're simply mixing stuff up. What I was referring to was not the defense of ethnic minorities - although this should also play a big role in any modern state. I was writing about the defense of the political minority, as in 'representatives of a small demographic' (this can border into the ethnic defense, but there's also a lot of different white demographics, to name a different example). It is undoubtely necessary to represent their interests in the system, but depending on the position within the system, it can turn a lot of things upside down:
We'll all agree that the President has the most active role in the American political system: A lot of legislation originates from him, he's responsible for the foreign policy, is political symbol, highest executive power, and moderator within the legislative houses.

Now, take a system in which a certain demographic minority has an extended say in appointing this position. On the one hand, this does indeed mean that this minorities interests will be respected - on the other hand, it'll inevitably mean that the interests of the majority will recieve less attention. Thus, the bigger part of the people within the state will have to bear with a person cartering more to the smaller part. In an extreme situation, this results in a smaller 'elite' taking exaggerated influence into the politics of the country, thus treating the bigger part of the population unfairly. Such a system isn't called democracy, nor republic - it's an oligarchy.

On the other hand, take a look at the alternative for the representation of a minorities interests: The Senate. As everyone familiar with the creation of the constitution knows, the smaller states demanded that the house controlling the President - by him requiring its agreement on both the majority of laws and major decisions in the foreign policy - to consist of two senators from each state, regardless of that states population. The less densely populated states and their demographics have thus a say as strong as the densely populated states and their demographics.
Imagine a system where the President is elected by pure popular vote, but controlled by the Senate, which also includes strong and vocal representatives of smaller demographics. The President will mostly act in the interest of the majority - but be forced to take the interests of the minorities into account as they can block his efforts.

Which system seems fairer to you?
The one potentially disregarding the interests of the many in favor of the few, or the one trying to achieve prosperity for the most while being forced to respect the few?

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>There have been very little cases of a state's electoral vote going against the will of its people. I don't believe it has happened in my Life Time, 25 years, and please don't bring up florida(I know some one will), they recounted multiple times and Bush seemed to win most of the time.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh, I will have to mention Florida at least briefly, because it's a prime example. Yes, Bush won most of the countings. Problem is that they were all considered faulty.
The truth is that all observers of the last recounting saw Gore gain ground until the court stopped the still ongoing process. It was a dirty game played by both parties, and the electors couldn't possibly decide true to the voters will. I don't even think the electors were overly biased or corrupt, but they were in a completely unclear situation, forced into a decision deprived of its foundation. Personally, I believe the election should've been redone from scratch.

Anyway, popular elections aren't some rare occurance anymore. They're applied regularily throughout the world, on every level and in areas of every size. Most of those elections go smoothly, and this comes from somebody who's also got some insight into election campaigns and the whole buzz around one.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Anyhow no matter how much we argue, we do not live in a democracy. We are a Repressentative government, despite what they tell you in school. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This is a different topic altogether, and I led this discussion so often by now that I'm thinking about writing the different arguments down into a .txt file for faster access. If you wish, we can open a seperate thread and go through it.
For this discussion, the question bears little significance, as both democratic and representative systems ground themselves on the people. If a position is filled independently from the populations sentiments, who does it represent?

<b>DiabolusCaligo:</b>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>no, they should LEAVE the electoral colleges because its function is to make sure that stupid peoples' (sorry for any discrimination <img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'>) votes aren't effective. There are people out there who vote for people whom they don't really think will do the best job. They're the people who vote for whatever their friends ar voting for or for whatever person the TV tells them to vote for. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

This, I have heard one too many times, so excuse me for getting a little passionate.
Look around yourself. Look at the people surrounding you. Depending on where you are, you'll see representatives of different professions, ethnicies, genders, religions, social levels, and ages. You'll see parents, sisters, brothers, wifes, and husbands. <i>Look</i> at them.
Many, you'll not agree with on many points. Some, you won't like, and some may truly be jerks. But the most will be normal people. They're <i>not</i> stupid, at least not overly so, they're <i>not</i> irresponsible, and they're <i>not</i> children. They have a right to speak for themselves.
Don't equal the fourty atendees of a stupid talk show you zapped through on TV with the population of your country, and don't assume that the notions you hear there as represenative for 'the people'.

I'm working in a psychatric clinic right now. Day by day, I'm talking with people of often severe mental imbalance. So far, even in this gathering pool for people partitially a hairs breadth from infancy, I've yet to meet somebody I could call truly stupid, and I'm absolutely positive I'll never meet somebody I can't respect.

Don't underestimate the people. You're one of them.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>The only reason people are complaining about this (in my opinion) is because everyone just seems to hate bush. You know darn well that if it were a liberal president was in office, this discussion wouldn't have started (again, in MY opinion).</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Oh yes, it's all because we hate Bush. Xzilen, for example, whom I had to ask to take a time-out because he defended the second Gulf War too passionately, only speaks against the Electoral College because he hates Bush.
I, having noted my despise of the Democrats on multiple occasions, wouldn't complain at all about Gore.

There's a reason why blanket labelling is banned from this forum, you know?

<b>Sirus:</b>

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Also keep in mind, that the constitution, and Framers, were opposed to democracy, they believed the few should rule the many. So when using the consitution to sway that it's not as democratic as it should be constitutionally it's not valid, in fact, it's quite the opposite, nowadays we have a very liberal view of the constitution.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You can offer as many white-upper-class planter quotes of Jefferson as you wish, he remains the man who, in his position as governor of Virginia during the war, refused to raise taxes as long as the public had not agreed upon them (which was impossible at the time due to the logistics involved in staging an election in a combat area).
The United States constitution is founded on the philosophies of enlightenment, and a large number of the founding fathers can only be described as 'radical democrats'. Sorry, but stating that they truly wanted a rule of the few disrespects their whole achievement, down to the first three words of the text of the constitution.

Boy, do my fingers hurt. Excuse all spelling errors, I'll correct them as soon as I feel all my appendages again.

That_Annoying_Kid · October 2003

The electoral college was created as a buffer to make sure that the people weren't directly tasked with the important discission of electing the president, and the vote that people cast (the votes that I will cast in a year) are just to influence the members of the electoral college, there are cases where people have abstained from casting there electoral votes, like DC in 2000 becuase they wanted senate and house seats for there 2 electoral votes (that goes along with taxation w/ out representation but thats a different issue)

I would say that even though the electoral college helps keep the parties (a crumbling sytem) in power, and it also distances the people from the vote, even though most people don't put there mind behind what they vote, it would be nice to abolish the electoral college, but it's probably not going to happen.

Sirus, what say ye?

Ness · October 2003

As far as I have always understood it, we put the people into power who eventually appoint our electors. These electors look at our votes, and generally vote the way we want them to, which they almost always do (with a few exceptions). The reason this hasn't been changed yet, and this has always been my opinion, is that it's a system that has worked so far, and there doesn't seem to be reason to change it. Our country is not a true Democracy, and I seriously doubt it would have gotten very far had it been made so by the Original Framers. People back then weren't very informed about politicians outside who they elected for their district to the House of Representatives. Electors were well educated, and made the important decision of voting for President for the common man, based on what type of policies they seemed to be voting for. I believe the only real problem with this so far was in 1800, when there was a complete tie, and the President had to be decided by the House of Representatives (someone check me on that, I don't exactly have a history book in front of me here).

Nemesis_Zero · October 2003

Are people reading my posts?
Yes, this happened during the 1800 election between Jefferson and Burr, which then resulted in the 12th Amendment (1804), which was by the way later modified even further by parts of the twentieth Amendment. There was as far as I can remember another such case, I believe in the 70s of the 19th century, although I don't have anything concerning that one lying around.

Anyway, we should stop assuming that 'the Framers' acted as one person. Some of the more conservatives might've feared the mob, assuming this to be the predominant opinion does however seem improbable.
But even if - we're not in the 18th century anymore. Say about the 'common citizens' whatever you want, but they're by far better educated about federal politics than they were back then. Why keep an obviously outdated voting scheme that was, the <i>two</i> amendments modifying it prove it, never hard core of the constitution in any case?

Ness · October 2003

I tend to skip your posts. I'm all "hey look, it's nem, time to skip his posts".

Sirus · October 2003

Ness pretty much got the important gist of keeping the electoral college, also, I'd like to add, with the growing complexities of issues it would probably be prudent to keep the electoral college in place. In essence, it's almost completely democratic, it acts in practice, as almost a dynamic democracy it's not static, but almost always reacts democratically.

The important thing is that it slows down rapid changes in power. It favors slower progression, which is good, because it maintains a stable government.

Forlorn · October 2003

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Ness-Earthbound @ Oct 13 2003, 06:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> As far as I have always understood it, we put the people into power who eventually appoint our electors. These electors look at our votes, and generally vote the way we want them to, which they almost always do (with a few exceptions). The reason this hasn't been changed yet, and this has always been my opinion, is that it's a system that has worked so far, and there doesn't seem to be reason to change it. Our country is not a true Democracy, and I seriously doubt it would have gotten very far had it been made so by the Original Framers. People back then weren't very informed about politicians outside who they elected for their district to the House of Representatives. Electors were well educated, and made the important decision of voting for President for the common man, based on what type of policies they seemed to be voting for. I believe the only real problem with this so far was in 1800, when there was a complete tie, and the President had to be decided by the House of Representatives (someone check me on that, I don't exactly have a history book in front of me here).  </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> 
Why do people think that the electoral colledge is a bunch of rich dudes called "electors" that decide the president?

Electoral votes are nothing more than imaganary votes that are used to represent the state's population on a representative scale. States with disproportionate amounts of population in them either get more votes than they should, or less than they should. Case in point, Vermont and California. If electoral votes were assigned in a direct proportion to a state's population, then large states would dominante. Likewise, if elections were always direct domacracy, then large states would continue to dominate due to tendancies of states to carry similar political agendas.

Nemesis_Zero · October 2003

Erm... I'm sorry, but I won't bite the 'issues of increasing complexity' - hook. There's a number of reasons why:
<li>The election of the President is a personal election. It's not a vote about a single law or 'complex issue'. Even a hypothetical 'simple' public could still spot a smart guy who could then solve those issues.
<li>In reality, the public is <b>not</b> stupid.
<li>There's as far as I know no system in place to ensure the electors abilities - apart from the publics consensus about them, which you discarded as valid guarantee of qualification by dismissing direct popular elections.

As for slowing down political change, we live in the 21st century, in an age of globalized connectivity and, as you noted, high complexity. Slow political change in such an environment equals suicide.

[edit]Forlorn, why do you assume poltical interests to end at state borders? Conservative Californians will vote for the same candidate conservative Texans want to see elected.[/edit]

Sirus · October 2003

I'm afraid you might have to Nem.

Increasing complexity, in the 18th Century during the creation it might have been just fine to have no electoral college, they didn't have to worry about things such as nuclear warfare, bioterrorism, or anything of the like. There are more complex issues whether you <i>want</i> to swallow that or not. Presidential elections shouldn't break down to a charismatic election or even single-issues.

<ul>
<li>The public is stupid, however, individuals are not.
</ul>

Who said slow political change ? I said slow changes in power. That's even fundamentally important to the founder's fathers ideals in their distaste for factions, in fact, the whole "checks and balances" is prevention for factions and prevents them from taking control of the federal system.

Nemesis_Zero · October 2003

It's getting a little late for me, so excuse this one being short.

A personal election doesn't have to boil down to charisma (whether and why it does is a tangential issue at best, but would be fit for a nice seperate thread), but mainly on personal abilities. I, being a complete failure in abstract physics, can still trust Edward Witten to be the most capable Superstring theoretican alive. Similiarily, a person not capable of looking through complex issues such as bioterrorism can still decide which person appears to be the most fit at looking through them.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><li>The public is stupid, however, individuals are not.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

Either there's some <i>grave</i> difference between American and German elections, or your election cabines are sized for a single person, as well. People vote as individuals, not as the half-drunken dozen people who met in the bar the day before.

You did not adress my question for an ensurance of qualification of the electors.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Who said slow political change ? I said slow changes in power. That's even fundamentally important to the founder's fathers ideals in their distaste for factions, in fact, the whole "checks and balances" is prevention for factions and prevents them from taking control of the federal system. </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

In that case, the electoral college failed fundamentally. You're in a two-party system, remember?

Sirus · October 2003

Indeed Nem, a two party. That should show that's it's succeeded, since no party has been able to take control of the government.

<i>Individuals are intelligent, but the public is stupid.</i> The point is that more or less, when the public comes together, they will probably make a bad decision in particular topics, note : Not all things. But individuals can be trusted to control their own lives, basically live free of the federal government.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>A personal election doesn't have to boil down to charisma </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

My point was that only <i>simple</i> decisions can be made on charisma. So if you say simple, I trust that you mean <i>simple</i>.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>You did not adress my question for an ensurance of qualification of the electors.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

There's plenty of people participating, I didn't know it was geared to just me.
But our state governments are responsible for the electors. Any insurance would fall directly on our state legislation, and I don't think they are opting to be taking any flak at any time.

In fact, the whole US political system is just an attempt to balance self-intrest, and a rather good one at that. Everything boils down to people are inherently self interested. That alone insures that electors would be chosen particularly because they would be favorable to the public.

Forlorn · October 2003

I don't see what the big deal is. Electoral Votes are based on popular vote. If a state has 54 electoral votes assigned to it, then whatever the popular vote is will give those electoral votes to the person who was voted for.

</span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Forlorn, why do you assume poltical interests to end at state borders? Conservative Californians will vote for the same candidate conservative Texans want to see elected.</td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'>

You would think that, but no. Each state has it's own unique subculture to it, much like how each country in Europe has it's own culture.

Moreso to the point, I know conservatives in Vermont, my boardering state, are completely different from conservatives in my state, New Hampshire. Liberals in my New Hampshire congress are akin to conservatives in Vermont Congress. Liberals in Vermont are akin to Communists.

Electoral College

Comments