Electoral college.

Factual Questions
41

Omniscient asks:

Nope, “pleonasm”. It means “redunancy”.
Conjoining the words “party” and “convention” in a single phrase would seem to be gilding the lily (and, yes, I know that that’s a misquotation from King John). But, whilst national political conventions occasionally manage an good floor fight (D-1948), good street fight (D-1968), or witty remark (R-1988), most of the time the signs, songs, and funny hats are there to disguise the fact that they’re somewhat less interesting that soccer matches.

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

42

My knock against the Electoral College is just what has been discussed earlier - it does not reflect the popular vote. Nowadays candidates just concentrate on the big ticket electoral states of TX, FL, CA, NY & MI and ignore the smaller fish. I say we just tweak it a little bit. I suggest that the candidates receive the same percentage of Electoral votes from a state as their percentage of the popular vote from that same state. This winner-takes-all crap is all worng! In this way the candidates would have to work for every little vote they receive and truly reflect the voice of the people. Also, everyone’s vote would truly “count”. I believe this is where the “my-vote-doesn’t-count” attitude stems from today. Your vote would directly affect the popular vote % and therefore the number of Electoral votes a candidate would receive. No more west coast low voter turnout because your vote would decide the race instead of it being predetermined by the time your polls close because as I mentioned the big electoral vote states earlier, most of them are 2 and 3 hours ahead of the last big ticket state: CA.

As far as holidays/days off on electional day, I just know the liquor stores are closed until the voting polls are closed - at least here in NC.

I usually vote out the incumbents anyway, unless there are really a couple of losers running (WIMP vs. SHRIMP '88?) - my own little way of setting term limits.

“Quoth the Raven, ‘Nevermore.’”
E A Poe

43

A bit of an urban myth, actually. Some feared this, but the real consideration was that the US was, by a huge ratio, larger than any successful republic in history. They expected a pure popular election to result in a dozen or more minority candidates, all nationally unknown.

The introduction of political parties threw off everyone’s calculations.

John W. Kennedy
“Compact is becoming contract; man only earns and pays.”
– Charles Williams

44

The Electoral College was, at first, designed, with the idea that Congress would end up choosing the President because no one would get a majority.
The Constitution originally provided that the top 5 candidates would end up being voted on in the House.
Since the House was voted on by the people (at least the rich, white male people), it was supposed to be more responsive to the people’s needs.
Once parties crept up and there were the unpleasant vice-presidencies of Jefferson and Burr, the Consitution was changed so separate votes were cast for Pres and Veep and only the top 3 candidates would be voted on in Congress.
The only candidate who got the short end of that deal was Henry Clay who finished fourth in 1824 (behind Crawford whom I believed had been incapicitated by a stroke and Adams and Jackson).
Adams ended up winning despite finishing second in both the popular and the electoral vote.

45

[[Nowadays candidates just concentrate on the big ticket electoral states of TX, FL, CA, NY & MI and ignore the smaller fish.]]

To be specific, a candidate can win 11 states’ electoral votes and be elected president, even without a single vote from another state. These states, and their current electoral votes (ie. the votes as they with be for the election of 2000) are:

California–54
New York–33
Texas–32
Florida–25
Pennsylvania–23
Illinois–22
Ohio–21
Michigan–18
New Jersey–15
North Carolina–14
Georgia–13

TOTAL–270

Regarding the idea of having Election Day as a national holiday, I personally doubt it would increase voter turnout that much. I was an officer of a political party for several years, and I can assure you that most of the people who don’t vote aren’t so busy that time was the issue. A lot of them simply don’t care enough to bother–having the day off wouldn’t make a bit of difference. (And presidential elections have very large turnouts compared to most state and local elections, unless there’s something especially controversial going on.)

If you really want to get people to vote, enact a reverse poll tax–a tax assessed on every citizen age 18 or older, which is then waived upon proof of voting in the general election. (This isn’t my idea, by the way, but I can’t remember where I came across it.)

On the other hand…not bothering to go to the polls can be seen as a passive vote in favor of whoever wins. Maybe we should leave the abstainers alone and be content that our own votes swing that much more weight.

Personally, I’d eliminate the ELECTORS but keep the Electoral College–make the popular vote binding on the EC. Award the votes by Congressional district–the candidate with a plurality in the district gets that electoral vote–with the two votes representing the Senators going to the winner of a plurality statewide. I’d also add a national electoral vote–say 63 votes, which would bring the Electoral total to 601–which would be awarded to the winner of a plurality nationwide. If nothing else, this would mean that every person who bothered to vote for president would be doing so in three different ways–for the district, for the state, and for the nation.

Nature abhors a vacuum, which means there are a lot of people whose brains are in mortal peril.

46

Jayron: no malice aforethought. (Sorry about the movie title.)

I’ve a pet peeve with the popular (mis)conception of how the government in these United States is selected. Part of that peeve is in descriptions such as yours above.

Whilst I hold no doubt about your friend being an Elector; I, however, do not discount out of hand the validity of a particular party selecting him as the Elector. The Constitution states that the Legislatures of the Separate States will provide for the choosing of the Electors in any manner of their choosing. “Thier” obviously referring to the Legislature.

As it is, in no state does a particular party actually select the Electors; it merely advances a slate of Electors.

Even if the entire voting population selected those Electors, the Electors are only bound by their consience and the two Constitutional restrictions placed on their choice.

I think you and I are on the same side of this issue here.

To tell you the truth, I’m betting that the next popular election and Electoral election will be widely divergent.

And what fun the fallout will be!

Cheers!
-Chip

47

Just how will the popular and electoral votes vary wildly? That would require one of two things:

  1. A very strong third party candidate or
  2. A divisive issue that turns one of the two parties into a sectional party (like the Democrats in 1888)

I don’t see #2 on the horizon, so it’s more likely that #1 would occur. Let’s assume that we get the scintillating Bush-Gore matchup. If a 3rd party candidate, presumably the Reform Party candidate can make a respectable showing, then you could get some breakdown like 40%-35%-25% I suppose.
That assumes that a Reform Party candidate will do better than Perot did in the last two elections.

Since the Electoral College is winner-take-all for all practical purposes, I suppose that would be the disparity.

48

You left out:

  1. The Electors vote their conscience, completely disregarding the result of the so-called popular vote.

Oh, I guess that one vote Ronald Reagan got the election before he declared he was running wasn’t really a vote?

Who knows, maybe a goodly number of Electors will just vote for their Cousin Bob just to throw a wrench into the works. Or to make a political statement.

49

kunilou

This seems like a lot of trouble to go through to create the same result as a direct first-past-the-post contest. Why not just formalize a direct vote with a simple plurality rule? I’m not in favor of this, but you might be.

The whole electoral college question seems like it could be cleared up a lot with a little comparative politics. Very few countries have direct, first-past-the-post Presidential elections. Most provide for a direct runoff if no candidate wins a majority of the popular vote. Presidential electors are only used in a few countries (Germany, Argentina, and Italy), and only in Argentina is this an executive President.

A direct majoritarian system is also used in Israel to elect the Prime Minister.

I don’t see why this plan hasn’t gotten more support in the United States. Probably because it is unfamiliar, and for some reason gasp at the concept of a runoff. Some people say the 50% threshhold is way too high, since this result is not guaranteed and would be rare in a multi-candidate election. This is why weird compromises are proposed: Jimmy Carter advocated direct election, with a runoff if no one received more than 40% of the vote.

What is so bad about a runoff, I don’t know. If it were held a few weeks after the first round (which could be held earlier if desired), then yes, it might extend the 18-month campaign season by a few weeks. Big deal.

Yes, this system would treat minor parties more fairly. Who knows how many votes other candidates would get if people weren’t always afraid of the sub-majority election of their worst enemy? In fact, I don’t even think the distinction between major and minor parties would exist under this system. Who knew which candidates would make it into the run off in the last French Presidential election?

Why don’t we join France, Israel, Finland, Peru, and a bunch of other countries in choosing our chief executive this way? Because confusion and demoralization about the electoral college is as American as apple pie.

50

What do you think of the idea of making election day a national halfday holiday? This would reduce the number of people who would use it as an excuse to go to the mountains. I don’t think we need a whole day to vote and I think it would be interesting to have a half day holiday. The oddness of it might draw further attention to it, which would be a good thing.

If men had wings,
and bore black feathers,
few of them would be clever enough to be crows.

  • Rev. Henry Ward Beecher
51

Boris B

I don’t think a run-off will help third parties until the two major parties splinter.

As long as a run-off featured the two leading vote-getters, you would almost always wind up with the Democrat and Republican anyway. The third party, whether it’s Libertarian, Reform, Constitution or whatever, would always wind up being a protest vote.

If, however, the two major parties, split into – let’s say four (social liberals, economic liberals, social conservatives and economic conservatives) – and you throw in a couple of small, single-issue parties in the mix, you can easily wind up with a President who started with 24% of the popular vote, squeaked through a run-off (where three out of five of the people who voted in the first election stay home because their candidate already lost) and now has to deal with a Congress comprised primarily of people who not only don’t agree with him, but don’t agree with each other.

At least with an electoral college, the president has a chance at getting a majority of SOME vote.

You think political rhetoric is bad now? Try slinging “minority President” in there? You think government is distasteful and gridlocked now, try doing it Italian-style, where no one is in charge.

52

The electoral college can and has voted against the wishes of the people, and in at least one case it turned out to be something of a good thing.

[commence humming patriotic music]

In 1820, James Monroe ran essentially unopposed for reelection and carried the popular vote in every state in the nation. When the electoral college met, one elector dissented and cast his vote for someone else (I’d like to know whom). His reason? George Washington was the only president to ever be unanimously elected by the electoral college, and the dissenting elector intended to keep that honor Washington’s alone, thus preserving a special place for our first president and our election history. It serves as a reminder that this is a republic, and that the voice of dissent will at least be heard, if not acknowledged.

[end patriotic music]

Someday, the electoral college might just turn out to be our best friend. It’s like that “get out of jail free” card that you can only use once. I offer you a hypothetical example.

After the resignations of President Bush, Vice President Dole, Speaker Hastert, and every Democrat holding public office for receiving oral sex on the job in 2002, President Pro Tempore Strom Thurmond takes the reigns of the presidency, but Congress bickers for twenty months trying to decide whom to appoint as his vice president. Furthermore, house Republicans cannot find a single Representative or Senator who has not had oral sex on Capitol Hill, so they do not officially appoint a Speaker or President Pro Tempore.

President Thurmond stuns an apathetic nation by announcing that he will run for reelection in 2004, and as a publicity stunt, the Republican Party nominates a computer-animated Teddy Roosevelt as his running mate. This is really a plan to have Newt Gingrich appointed Thurmond’s vice president after the election.

Thurmond’s main opponent is from the newly formed White Quilt Party, Adolf Heidler, IV. Two days before the election, it is determined that Thurmond has in fact been dead since his last bid for the presidency in 1949, and has been getting himself reelected to office ever since simply out of habit.

An emergency convention settles on Arnold Schwartzenegger as the Republican candidate, but election officials point out that because Arnold was born outside of the United States, he is ineligible to run. In the wake of this unexpected result, every single member of the Republican Party announces him or herself a candidate, and splits the vote forty million and one ways.

Heidler walks away with the election, winning a majority vote in every state mostly because he is the only non-write-in candidate on the ballot, and a majority of Americans are by now functionally illiterate and really wanted to push that shiny red button, anyway.

In the intervening period before his inauguration, Heidler announces that he is the direct descendent of the secret offspring of Adolf Hitler and Geli Rabaul. On Charlie Rose, Heidler announces invites his followers to burn the Capitol and take members of the legislature’s mistresses (or masters) hostage in order to have Congress declare Heidler Fuhrer. The public watches with disinterest until Vice-President Elect Bill Gates announces that Windows 2005 will be available only to White Quilt Party members, and all prior Microsoft products will recieve no further technical support.

A sober Electoral College meets on a cold winter day to rubber-stamp the election results. But instead, they elect Reform Party Candidates Jesse Ventura and Jerry Springer President and Vice. The first act of the 109th Congress is to offer an amendment banning the electoral college, and it is quickly approved by every state except Minnesota.

Former Secretary of State turned Acting President Jesse Helms turns the presidency over to Ventura that February. America is saved, sort of.

So you see, the Electoral College might not be such a bad thing after all, right?

Right?

53

Normally Sofa I say you were crazy. But then I consider that there may be a Buchanon-Beatty ticket on the 2000 ballot and I decide that nothing’s too crazy for politics.

54

All I want is for my vote to be a factor in deciding who is to be president. Right now it isn’t. Not really. If this results in having a bum as president, I’ll take my lumps and use the system to get him/her out. Speaking of “him/her”, maybe direct election would finally let us experience a woman as president. Our present system certainly hasn’t given us the “cream” of the political crop. I’m tired of “default” presidents.
I’m also against term limits (presidenial too) and for campaign finance reform.
Peace,
mangeorge

55

MG: I’m maintaining that so long as this country still has that abomination known as the Bible Belt, there’s no way a woman will be president or vice-president.

Damn shame, too.

56

I heard on NPR that of the 10% of Americans who say they would never vote for a woman for President, almost all of them are in the Republican Party. That means there is a big chunk of the vote that Elizabeth Dole doesn’t have a shot at. I heard this as a possible reason why Dole isn’t doing very well.

I don’t know what poll they were talking about though.

57

“I heard on NPR that of the 10% of Americans who say they would never vote for a woman for President, almost all of them are in the Republican Party.”
—Boris B

Where does this attitude come from? I would like to hear to some well thought-out reasons why anyone would say they’d never vote for a woman. Religion?
And please, don’t sully this discussion with any of that “Go to war once a month” crap.
Peace,
mangeorge

58

Several years ago Jeff Greenfield of CNN wrote a very good novel about abuses inherent in the electoral college system. Unfortunately, I can’t remember the book’s title, but the gist of it was that the president elect died shortly after the election and some members of the electoral college of that party revolted against voting for the vice-president (a Quayle-like dupe) and the machinations that resulted from the high-tech/instant news coverage of the events. I highly recommend the book.

I’ve looked in the Constitution, but I see no mention of the New Hampshire primary or the Iowa caucuses (not to mention the recent Iowa county fair straw polls). I’d be in favor of knocking those two states down to size and giving the rest of the country more of a voice in selecting the party candidates. Come to think of it, I see no mention of the two-party system there either. An oversight, no doubt.

While we’re at it, we have too many states that skew the results. Do we really need a North and a South “Dakota”? Can’t we just make them one big “Dakota”? And Delaware has no reason to exist either. It’s capital is just a suburb of Philadelphia, for Pete’s sake. So why does it get 3 electoral votes? But I digress.

I’d say we should call a new Constitutional Convention to look into these matters, but we’d probably wind up revoking the Bill of Rights and declaring Michael Jordan as president for life.

59

PatrickM writes:

Well, that’s because those institutions aren’t Constitutionally mandated. If you wish to change them, move to either New Hampshire or Iowa.

No, a fervent hope. The writing of various early politicians made it clear that they were hoping that organized parties would not developed, although many accepted or even welcomed faction of the type then found in the British parliament.
The institutions that existed in the colonies, were created via the Federal Constitution, and largely copied in the later states, virtually guaranteed that a two-party system would emerge (actually, a 100-party system, coalescing into two confederations at the national level).

Well, here we get into the political philosophy behind the Constitution. The object was not to create a unitary state like Britain or France, where local authorities only enjoy such powers as are devolved to them by the central government (in fact, the two schemes that answer to this description, the “Virginia Plan” and Hamilton’s proposal, were rejected by the Convention when they were brought up). Rather, the Constitution was intended to create a federation of pre-existing states, the limited authority and evident imbalances of which would be acceptable to the smaller states of the time.
Thus, two critical clauses of the Constitution burke this scheme. Article IV, Section 3, forbids the alteration of state boundaries without the consent of the states concerned. Article V forbids a state from being deprived of its equal vote in the Senate without its consent.
The Electoral College is a sufficiently misunderstood institution that, some time in the not too distant future, it stands a good chance of being abolished. The two institutions in the former paragraph do not (indeed, most people don’t eve know that they’re there).

“Kings die, and leave their crowns to their sons. Shmuel HaKatan took all the treasures in the world, and went away.”

60

Akatsukami:

Thank you for pointing out that my ideas about making one big “Dakota” and eliminating Delaware are presently unconstitutional. That fact alone does not make them bad ideas though.

I would argue that the Founding Father’s original compromise and the way states were subsequently added has had the unanticipated result of vesting too much power, in terms of the electoral college and the US Senate, in states without sufficient population to justify such power. Is it constitutional for that to be so? No doubt it is. Is that the way it ought to be? That is a different question, and I argue that it shouldn’t be so. The delicate balance the Framers created has swung too much in favor of “empty” states without many people, to the detriment of more populous states. While it is true that the framers wanted representative, as opposed to pure democracy, what I am saying is that we need to shove the balance back toward democracy and away from the reprentation of states aspect.

As for the NH Primary and the Iowa Caucuses, you suggest I move to one of those states and attempt to have them change their laws. I guess I failed to make my point clearly enough, so let me try again, to wit:

As a citizen of United States residing in the present state of Ohio Ohio I am opposed to the existing ad hoc jerry-rigged system of selecting candidates for the office of President. The residents in the US in New Hampshire and Iowa have much more say in the matter than I do, and I resent that. I do not intend to move to NH or Iowa, what I am suggesting is, to put in in Constitutional terms, that the present non-systematic system violates Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. That provision states in part:

“The Citizens of Each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several State.”

Whether you consider having to dodge Bill Clinton and Pat Buchanan while eating your breakfast in the corner diner a “Privilge” or not, the fact of the matter is that the residents of Iowa and NH have more say than the rest of us Americans in deciding who the presidental candidates will ultimately be. Iowa and NH have usurped this “privilege” from the rest of us Americans and that is not as it should be.