Enderw24 Explains the Stupidity of the Electoral College

Great Debates
21

maralinn, sorry if I sounded condescending, I did not mean it that way.

>> Then THEY should stop telling ME that I AM (voting for president)

Well, I do not know to who you refer by “they”. What counts is what is in the Constitution and laws. That is what “they” tell you and if it is not applied, then you have cause for complaint. If by “they” you mean politicians on the campaign trail… well, welcome to the real world.

>> Yup. They liked slavery, too. And they really liked opressing women. With your “formula,” nothing would ever be changed.

Nope, that is not what I said. What I said is that there is a reason for things having been set up a certain way and there are mechanisms for change as evidenced by the examples you cited. If you can go out and get the constitution changed so that the people vote directly for president, good for you and I have no opinion one way or the other. (good luck to you though). All I am saying is there is a reason for it being the way it is.

>>I can’t see how that’s (my UN example) relevent to presidential elections in the US.

Let’s see… the USA was formed when a bunch of guys representing a bunch of states, who agreed to sign a document with certain rules which were acceptable to all. Now some people would like to change that unilaterally based on the idea that all people’s votes should count equally without regard to the initial covenant.

OTOH, the UN was formed when a bunch of guys, representing a bunch of states agreed to sign a document with some rules which were acceptable to all (like the USA having the same vote as China in spite of the different populations, and some guys having veto power just because…). Now imagine some people say all people’s votes should count equally without regard to the initial covenant…

Can you see a parallel yet? Some similarity perchance? You can’t? Can I draw you an explanatory diagram? Would you like to borrow my reading glasses? Am I being condescending yet?

>> Here’s a better analogy. How would you like it if the legistlature in your state decided that for the next presidential election, they would simply appoint electors? That would fulfill the original plan as well as having a general election does. The State would still be doing the voting.

Yup, that would be between you and your state. When you voted you were not participating in a Federal election, you were participating in a state election and the state can set the rules. They cannot discriminate on the usual grounds of race, color, race, color, color, race etc, but, as was clearly and painfully obvious in the case of Florida, each state sets its own rules and requirements which may differ from state to state. You are not participating in a Federal Election.

Now, if your point is that you would like to see than changed, more power to you. This being the land of the free etc, you can go out and start a campaign to get it changed and I will admire you for it. But there is a reason, and a good one at that, that things are the way they are.

I do not know you personally so the following is in no way related to you or your posts or anything you have said or implied but…

I find it amusing that people have studied law for years, experts can elaborate for hours and days on the finer points of the constitution… I am not a lawyer and I recognise I do not know jack about this… people who know a ton more than I do (like Sua) have very complex analysis about a constitution which is the oldest constitution in effect and which has served this country admirably well…

and along comes someone like Guinastasia and dismisses the whole thing in two short phrases. I mean give me a break.

Look I am not a lawyer, I am an engineer, but what I say in the solar energy threads is equally applicable here: If you have a tremendously simple solution to a tremendously complex problem, then chances are you did not understand the problem and you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

Anyway, as I said, the fact that Americans today see themselves first as Americans is a tribute to the founders of this country.

Spanish America went through pretty much the same process at pretty much the same time but they did not know how to put aside their differences and form a more perfect union. The best is always the enemy of the good. Not only that, it is often unachievable. The Constitution of this country has done a pretty good job for quite a while and most countries would just wish they could show comparable results.

22

Minty, I do not agree with you. The signers were signing for their states, not for the people of the states and, in any case, the substance of the constitution says it is the states who vote for president. That is what the constitution says and that is how its done (or we wouldn’t be having this discussion). There is no way around this: you do not vote in a federal election for president, you are voting in a state election and the state will vote for president. I am not saying it should always be that way. I am saying there are some very good reasons why it was set that way and those reasons remain today, maybe to a lesser degree, but they remain. I think anyone wanting to change this would have a very hard time. That’s all I am saying.

23

So when they wrote “We the People,” they really meant “We the States”? I swear, I am soooooo tired of you liberals ignoring the plain language of the Constitution. You whacked-out lefties don’t get to rewrite the Constitution every time it suits your arguments, you know!

24

I guess it is appropriate to give a link to the document we are proposing to change: The Constitution of the USA

I would also like to make a very general comment about the rule of law. I think it is good for laws to be good in their dispositions but it is also very (if not more) important, that the laws be stable and known well beforehand. I am sure the US, the UK and other countries have many bad laws, but they have had a certain stability over the ages which allowed commerce to flourish. Laws should be changed when the need arises but it should not be done too easily or for superficial reasons.

I have discussed the concept of the rule of law often with my chinese friends and mostly they do not get it. Why should a criminal be able to go free on a technicality of the law? Isn’t this a bad thing? It is not easy to explain that what may be bad in the particular case is good in the general sense. The rule of law is what allows us to know beforehand how the law applies to us and our actions and this is fundamental for our freedoms and for a prospering economy.

Now, the electoral college may not be the best thing but the rule of law is. The constitution provides mechanisms for its ammendment. The fact is that today there is not enough support for a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college. Within the constitution you do not have the votes to change it. What would you propose? I hope it would not be to do away with it…

Oh, although many people know, I should add the disclaimer: I am not an American citizen, this discussion does not affect me in any way, I do not vote here or anywhere, I am a bohemian wanderer, an unwanted alien everywhere I go, I do not vote for anybody and I do not need anybody to vote for me, this is for entertainment purposes only, if the INS has any problem with anything I said or implied I will promptly correct it, etc…

25

>> I swear, I am soooooo tired of you liberals ignoring the plain language of the Constitution. You whacked-out lefties don’t get to rewrite the Constitution every time it suits your arguments, you know!

Oh Minty, please, that is just too funny! I have been called many things on this board before, but never a “liberal”. You really made me laugh there. I will bookmark your post and bring it up next time someone accuses me of being at the opposite end of the spectrum

At any rate, the constitution may start with the words “We the people of the United States” and that can be interpreted by stressing the “people” or the “states” It really doesn’t matter. The point is that it provides for the states to elect the president through the ellectoral college. I hope you do not dispute that which is what we are discussing.

26

Wow.

Hmmm. Where to begin…
Ender

I believe it is. Have we not added, removed, and otherwise adjusted amendments to compensate for a growing and changing nation?

Hmmm…yessss. But sometimes, because we’ve always done something one way, the mere act of changing it will cause more trouble than its worth. Can’t say, yet, whether this is such a case.

Well, that isn’t just a part of the electoral college, that’s the part of our whole representative democracy/republic thingy.

Not only bluntly, but emptily as well. Is emptily a word? Well, my question is why you think that the popular vote is really what we’re after exclusively. Much of the US’s population is crowded into certain locales. Why should those voters in those locals get to dictate what happens in areas like the midwest? The midwest is crucial to our country, but its population is low. Yet only those who live there know what is best for them. Why do you feel New York City should be able to outvote a whole state like Rhode Island? Does NYC have a keen perspective into the interests of the citizens of Rhode Island that the citizens of RI don’t have themselves?

Your reason #5 seems to center on the winner-take-all policy that many states adopt. That, however, is not a function of the electoral college per se but rather the state’s implimentation of it.

Reason #6 Ah, so it comes down to the individual’s vote being equal to any other individual’s vote at last. I’m not sure how to address this since I see no reason why a huge state like CA shouldn’t have more votes than a smaller one. But you say it makes the smaller’s states’ citizens’ votes worth more than their respective counterparts in larger states. From an analysis beginning at the level of the individual I can see what you mean. So you basically disagree with the fundamental idea of the electoral college: the states are voting. Not the people. As it is set up the state’s electors have the votes, and the state legislation sets up how those votes are determined. IIRC, not all states are even required to follow the public vote. This stand of yours is confusing when I read…

Reason #7

But with a popular vote scheme the result would be the same: campaign in the high population-density states, where the same amount of work in campaigning would lead to a lerger number of votes.

I’m not sure what upsets you here… that the small states’ voters have more power, or that they’re ignored. The two seem contradictory to me.

27

Glad you liked the joke. :slight_smile:

But, point of fact, it does not say “We the People or the United States,” it says “We the People of the United States.” I swear, it really is funny watching somebody as conservative as you are trying to weasel out of the plain language of the Constitution.

This really does make a difference. For the first time in history, a major national government was founded on the principle that its power derives from the people, rather than the gods, royal birth, or military might. Recognizing “the People” as the source of political power puts quite a different spin on the Constitution’s meaning. To the extent that there are state’s rights, it is because the people chose to leave those powers in the hands of state governments, not because the states themselves had some sort of magical sovereignty that may not be impugned by mortal man.

And if the People get pissed off enough at the Electoral College, they will, through legal and democratic means, dump it on the ash heap of history right next to a bunch of other anti-democratic ideas that the people put into the Constitution two centuries ago.

28

Relax, we’ll still have a representative form of democracy even if the EC is eliminated. It’s just that we’ll no longer have the ridiculous procedure of choosing representatives to choose our representatives. Talk about yer stupid bureaucratic redundancies . . .

29

wooly, why do you feel a voting scheme should act for or against third party candidates?

As for the rest, I’m going to lean with sailor here, and heavily. I don’t really consider myself a State’s Rights guy at all, but I’m definitely against strong centrism. I think the whole legislative branch of our government is set up to reflect and drive home the point: we are a collective of states under a common blanket, not living in the same prison cell. To that end, I think the EC is set up to reflect that idea. That we happen to, as citizens of our respective states, represent the interest of the states as a whole is sort of, well, incidental to the idea of what our government is doing.

minty

I haven’t heard the cry of “weasel!” since DITWD. Hmm.

Yeah, I don’t think anyone is arguing differently. But the chain of events here was that there were independant states (remember the Declaration?). These states united, and the United States government was what did that. The states, in turn, derived their power from the people. In the end you may say that that means the federal government’s power is ultimately derived from the people, but I don’t see that that is how things were, or are, set up. We tell our states what to do, and the states tell the federal government what to do. This is the general case; of course there are provisions for citizens to attempt to directly influence the federal government, but in the end the federal government’s legislative branch (to whom we would appeal) is just a collection of states (or rather, the state’s representatives).

30

article VII: The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same

I guess that makes it pretty clear that the constitution was “between” the states. Not to mention that the signers were signing on behalf of their states.

I think the point is not whether this system is perfect. There is no such thing as a perfect system. The point is whether it is wise and viable to change it now and provide for direct election of the president. I am not going to say if it is wise or not as it really does not matter. My opinion is that it is not viable and therefore the present system will remain.

BTW, the same argument would seem to propose getting rid of the Senate (only more so). Should that be done too?

31

You go away and watch 16 Candles for a couple of hours and look what happens!

Well, I’ve done a bit of research through government websites. I’ll give you guys one thing: smaller states are getting a disproportional number of votes as compared to their population.
NY, for instance, is getting 5.76% of the vote when they have 6.67% of the population and CA is getting 10.2 % of the vote when they should be getting 12.2%.

So I’ll concede the argument but…I never really brought it up in support of my position anyway. My bone of contention is that it’s a winner take all situation. THAT’S why 10 states get all the attention for a position that’s supposed to represent everyone equally.
You can have all the little 3 vote states you want and it’s not going to make a difference when there are behemoths like California out there with 55 votes for the taking.

Those 3 vote states don’t vote in packs. They’re each seperate and can cancel each other out. And sure, you can have a politician go around to all them but there’s no guarantee he’ll pick them all up.

Tell me, if you were a politician, would you gamble on winning
Alaska, Delaware, D.C. Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming?

Let’s say you spent all your time from California in those states. Let’s even say you managed to win all those states. Guess what? Your opponent just picked up California and, disproportional vote or not, he’s now in the lead.

It’s easier to campaign in one state than 15. That’s the bottom line.

That’s what the electoral college vote does. Popular vote is all votes are equal. Electoral vote is all votes are equal…but some are more equal than others.

Suasponte I don’t think that #6 and #7 were contradictory. In #6 I was saying that the same margin of victory means a greater number of votes to the winner of the more populous state. That isn’t an argument FOR smaller states. Winning by one vote is different depending on where it’s won and I don’t think that’s fair.
Besides, theoretically, 3 people can vote in CA and carry 55 EC votes to the winner. The entire state of Nevada can show up on election day and vote 100% for one candidate and he still only gets 5 votes. Again, not fair.

Also, there is a difference between wasting a vote at the state level and wasting one at the national level. The difference is in how they decide the elections. Naturally, anyone who votes for the losing candidate “wasted” their vote. The problem is that when I’m not voting for the president, when I’m voting for who my state will vote for for president, being on the losing side doesn’t mean my vote was wasted. It means my vote literally does not count towards the outcome of the election.

Cliche as this may be, I’m one person and I want one vote. I don’t want my vote to count more than someone else, I don’t want it to count less than someone else. It’s one vote.

32

Well, now that the US Supreme Court has declared that the election laws are subject to the equal protection clause, I guess there’s no reason not to consider it applicable to the Electoral College too (never mind that they found that principle only applied to Bush v. Gore; it’s gonna get invoked on 'em eventually). Yes, I know, parts of the Constitution itself can’t be found unconstitutional - bear with me, we’re talking should, not is, on this thread.

So then, is it right for voters in Tumbleweed, Wyoming to have 27 times (or whatever it is) the influence on the selection of the President of us all that voters in Los Angeles, California do? Argue if you like that the low-population areas shouldn’t always be rolled by the high-population ones, but the converse shouldn’t be true either, should it?

The EC made some sense when communication, not just transportation, went at the speed of a horse, and when the largest state had only about 10 times that of the smallest. Now, it’s a vehicle for the hard right faction that controls the politics of the empty states to get a President in who does not represent the bulk of the country.

The argument that the smaller states wouldn’t be campaigned in, or effectively considered by, the candidates also doesn’t reflect the reality of recent campaigns. First, those states were taken for granted as being in the bag under the current system, and didn’t get visited anyway. That wouldn’t change under a popular-vote-only system, or even an EC that eliminated the senatorial vote.

Second, even in the populated states, most of the land area doesn’t have enough voters to get candidates’ attention anyway. In Michigan, for instance, how many days did Bush and Gore spend in the Detroit area and how many in the Upper Peninsula? How much money did they spend on Detroit TV vs. Marquette? Yep, they went where the voters were even under the current system - so what would the difference be?

Our friend enderw24 could have made a better case, sure, but the case is there to be made. All we need now is a Congress that isn’t afraid to pass constitutional amendments, a situation that is only a recent phenomenon historically.

33

Ok, enough people have misinterpreted #6 that I pretty much agree it was worded badly.

It isn’t contractdictory to #7! There! We all happy?

I think that LARGER states are disproportionally more powerful. This, despite the fact that they have a smaller number of votes than they’re entitled to, percentagewise. Ironic, weird, but true.

and minty green, since no one else seems to put two and two together, let me tell you that I’m laughing over here. I really am.

34

Sure they signed as representatives of their home states, because they were sent there by the states to reform the Articles of Confederation. That does not change the fact that under the document the representatives drafted, political power derives from the mandate of the people, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony . . . er, the states.

Moreover, the Constitution was not even ratified by the states. Instead, the existing congress directed the states to call ratification conventions to consider the matter. Thus, new Constitution’s authority came from representatives of the people elected specifically to consider ratification, rather than from the then-existing state governments. When the people of nine states ratified the Constitution, it went into effect in those nine states–because the people had decided that’s how they wanted things to be, not because the state governments decided to join up.

35

It’s been many a year since math was a strong point of American conservatives. :wink:

36

elvis

It isn’t. CA, as a state, has more EC votes than someone with a smaller population.
ender

But this is a function of population density itself, not the electoral college. As I mentioned, even in a popular vote scheme it still makes sense to visit only the most densely populated areas. The EC compensates for this.

This is why I don’t feel Bush “stole” the election: he represented way more states. Because of that, I think he should have been president. It was Gore using the very tactics you describe that gave Bush the hard time. Well, that and the winner-take-all problem that so many states seem to impliment. I reccomend you take the matter up with your state.

37

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by erislover *
It isn’t. CA, as a state, has more EC votes than someone with a smaller population.

[quote]

Not in proportion to its population, it doesn’t. A Wyoming resident’s vote matters many more times than California’s in picking the President, even if the California electoral vote is larger. Californians are penalized for living next to a lot of other people. Do you think that’s right?

No it doesn’t, as I pointed out earlier. Only the cities and suburbs get real attention in campaigns even under the current system.

38

>> You go away and watch 16 Candles for a couple of hours and look what happens!

Yeah, There are two things I really hate: One is when people keep contradicting me so I have to keep posting, non-stop. The other is when I post and no one notices it. yeah, I feel unanimously bipolar about this.

>> I think that LARGER states are disproportionally more powerful. This, despite the fact that they have a smaller number of votes than they’re entitled to, percentagewise. Ironic, weird, but true.
Exactly, it is states voting and the rules diminish the weight of the biggest to favor the smallest. But not to the point where they both have the same number of votes.

I do not remember where to find it but someone should post a link to that proof that there is no such thing as a perfect or even fair voting system. Each one has its pros and cons. Should states exist at all? Should bigger states be divided to make more smaller states and so have more equality among states? You could go into so many possibilities.

The fact is that the country is organized a certain way which is not perfect but is good enough. I live a couple of blocks from the state line. Does it make sense that what is illegal here is legal a couple of blocks from here?

The Constitution, like most political treaties, is not looking for perfection, it is looking for what is viable and possible.

39

I think you are thinking of Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem. It is phrased (or can be phrased) as follows:

More info can be found here.

40

No way: individual votes in one state do not apply to individual votes in another state. In the end what matters is the number of EC votes the state has.

I don’t think they’re penalized. Their votes don’t determine the presidency, the state’s vote does.

The EC is not representative of a continuous function with individual votes as the variable. Trying to compare it to one is in error.

It compensates for this by bringing focus to more cities and suburbs than would otherwise be all that important. Any voting scheme which, on some level, depends on individual votes will always target densely populated areas. What is self defeating the the current EC is winner-takes-all, which IMO undoes the benefits of the EC itself.