Enderw24 Explains the Stupidity of the Electoral College

Great Debates
61

I said that the states no longer have any rights the feds need respect. I cited the 55 mph speed limit, the age 21 drinking law, and medical marijuana. Erislover said, “Consider gun laws. Consider taxation within the state. Consider licensing drivers, or license plates. States have all kinds of powers that the federal government respects.”

Erislover, suppose one or several states did something in regard to one of these things that the feds didn’t like? Suppose a state eliminated driving licenses and license plates? Or even just the plates? Do you think the feds would accept this?

The states have the right to do all sorts of things. But if a state does something the feds don’t like – such as permitting the medical use of marijuana – the feds overrule them. The feds also feel quite free to decide that all 50 states will do something – such as denying 18, 19, and 20 year old legal adults the right to drink – and the states fall into line and do as they’re told.

62

Hazel, your post is quite misleading, to say the least. There are many areas which are the jurisdiction of the states. The Feds can induce the states to do something which it may not force them to do. The Feds can offer incentives to the states for things which it may not obligate them to do. Speed limits and drinking ages are good examples. Indeed one of the main purposes of the Constitution is to limit the power of the Federal Government with respect to the several states and the people.

63

No, Hazel. Your description above is most emphatically not correct.

The federal government gives the states a choice between two outcomes: either follow what the federal law regarding disbursing of certain federal funds to the state governments requires or not get those funds. That choice is 100% a matter for the state governments to make.

64

I should have realized this yesterday, but that’s actually wrong. The states derived their political power from the King of England who chartered the original colonies.

65

Drinking is apretty bad example. That is a state’s law. In fact, I was living in Mississippi when Louisiana still allowed 19 year-olds to drink. Happened to be 19 at the time, you see :slight_smile:

I think it was two years later that the state gave in. Seems the federal government was going to cut certain funds to states that didn’t change their drinking age laws. So, yeah, we’re both right.

But the big thing I’m trying to mention is that the federal government’s legislative branch, the one that makes the controls, is a conglomeration of states’ representatives. It’s not like the federal government itself is independent from the states in that regard, and the reps certainly try to pull for their own state when they can. The federal government’s power is also limited legally, but as the drinking age example shows, they can pull people’s chains in more ways than one. Prime example, actually, of why I don’t like centrism.

66

I thought I was cynical :stuck_out_tongue:

67

Yup. The Federal Government also told China that if they improved their human rights record, in exchange they would get certain commercial concessions.

68

Nope. I refer you to Article I, section 2, which states: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States . . .” (emphasis added). And while the original Senate was certainly composed of representatives of the states (Art. I, sec. 3), there’s this nifty little thing called the 17th Amendment that provides senators shall also be “elected by the people . . . .”

69

By the people of the states. Its not like a Washington state voter gets to determine who represents Florida.

70

Yep. And it’s not like the State of Washington gets to determine who represents the State of Washington. Rather, it’s the people of Washington who get to decide who represents themselves.

71

Sounds more like a matter of perspective to me, minty. In both cases the state is a function of the state’s citizens.

72

So are you a person or a state, erislover? Ain’t no perspective involved. Under the Constitution, there is no procedure whatsoever for a state to choose representatives or senators for the U.S. Congress.

73

I’m still waiting for the definition of a state…people, institution, government, etc etc…

74

people. 1. Human beings. 2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national governmnent. . . . 4. the people. a. The mass of ordinary persons; populace. b. Citizens, as of a nation; electorate. . . .

state. . . . 3.a. A body of people living under a single independent government; nation. b. The territory of such a government. 4. One of the political and geographic subdivisions of a federated country, as the United States.

So it looks definition 3.a. of “state” supports erislover’s position that the two words are at least somewhat interchangeable. I don’t think it works that way in the selection of representatives and senators, however, since there was (originally) a clear distinction between who chose representatives (the electorate) and who chose senators (the political and geographic subdivisions of our federated country).

As for the Electoral College, it’s actually a mixture of both. The Constitution itself gives the states the power to choose electors, but the state governments have decided to give that power straight back to the people.

75

Who said there was? I said that those congressmen represented the interests of the state and the interests of the people of that state. Most of the time the two are synonamous; sometimes they aren’t, and it is up to the represetnative to determine which is more important: the state, or the citizens of the state.

It is a mater of perspective to think that the Florida congressmen represent the state or the people of the state because a lot of the time the distinction is negligible; the state’s interests are the people of the state’s interests. This, of course, is true regardless of who elects those representatives.

76

Well, maybe a lot of the time there’s no difference between the interests of the state and the interest of the electorate. But that’s not always the case by a long shot. For instance, my representative is Lloyd Dogget, a Democrat. As you can imagine, he’s quite often at odds with the positions of the State of Texas, since the state government is controlled by Republicans. So is Lloyd representing his tree-hugging Austin electorate when he votes to extend the Endangered Species Act to help save the Barton Springs Salamander, or is he representing the interets of the State of Texas? Ask the Republicans who run the state government and you’ll get a pretty clear answer to that question.

77

Sailor, you are right that the system has worked for 200+ years. You are right that the parts of the system that we don’t like now are exactly what made it work when it started. But, I completely disagree with your conclusion. After all, if Win98 had all the bugs that Win3.1 did (and only single-tasked), then no one would ever buy it. And, you just can’t fix problems if you always say “Well, it’s good enough”. Some times, you have to look at other options.

And, the voter disenchantment seems to be an offshoot of the EC system. Someone argued that it is possible that even in a popular vote for people to think their vote is irrelevant, but that would only happen when it was clear that there would be a landslide – and, so, by definition, the number of people who were disenfranchised would be a small percentage of the electorate. So, essentially, in the popular vote system, your vote is important if the national election is close.

But, with the EC system, it becomes very easy to be disillusioned, because in order for your vote to matter, your Electorate must be close, your state must be close, and the entire election must be close (and, of course, if your state is small, then the election must be VERY close ). This becomes easier if we remove the Winner takes all for states, then your vote matters if your Electorate is close and the entire election is close.

However, given that voter turnout is becoming smaller and smaller, perhaps voters are becoming disillusioned. And, if that is the case, maybe popular election is better.

Of course, no one mentioned a big problem with popular election – what happens if we have a close race? Then will EVERY state demand a recount. Yuck. It’d be like florida raised to the power 50.

Me’Corva

78

hey, waitaminute! I do not conclude anywhere the system should not be changed!

What I am saying is something like this: we know why we got to where we are and there is (was) a good reason for it. Now maybe it would be better if things were different but maybe there is a cost in changing things which maybe is greater than the cost of keeping things as they are.

But to shallowly dismiss the whole system as “wrong” shows great ignorance.

79

Seems to me that people’s identity with their state has weakened over time and will probably only get weaker. The trouble is that the state boundaries were drawn when the areas were barely settled by Old Worlders and the current population patterns hadn’t developed. So you have states like New York, which consists of a city with suburbs spilling into two other states and a completely unrelated upstate. Or the dual (and sometimes duelling) metropoli of Pennsylvania, Philly and Pittsburgh. And so on.

The other problem is that people these days move around. I’m only 30 and I’ve lived in four states, and my mother’s lived in eight. We probably aren’t the norm, but we aren’t rare either.

Maybe knocking out the EC is untenable now, but it seems to me we’re moving in that direction. I understand erislover’s qualms about centralization, but it seems like there have to be better ways of decentralizing than breaking into units that really don’t reflect the cultural geography of the country.

80

Why even have states at all? What’s the point?
Though it was rich to hear rep. Maxine Waters coming out in favor of states rights during the “recount” (barf) debacle last year, I think it’s a valid point.

Without the EC, politicians would need only campaign in a relatively few large population areas- New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc… The Electoral College is one of the, if not the, strongest powers that individual states have left after 70 years of increasing federal stranglehold. To remove this founding father artifact would require ratification by all the states, correct me if I’m mistaken- which seems highly unlikely, given it’s a form of political suicide.

Of course, given that “logic” we might as well abolish the United States Senate, since two senators are installed for each state regardless of population.

Weren’t Senators elected by the House of Representatives, as specified in the constitution originally, btw?