You’re right: I’m sure inertia has a lot to do with it. It’s just that many posters here seem to imply that it’s such an obviously bad system and that it makes no sense in this day and age. Obviously it’s either AOK with most people, or it is of such little consequence that most people don’t care. Either way, the net result is that it we aren’t going to see it changed in our lifetimes. Yeah, we just witnessed the unusual in 2000, but I fail to see the groundswell to change.
In fact, contrary to what the OP lays out, I believe we might see some dire consequences if it looked like the EC were about to be scrapped-- some smaller states threatening to secede from the Union. It’d be mostly posturing, but you’d hear a governor or two try to raise a rallying cry.
In the end, it boils down to your vision of what this nation is. My vision is one where the federal government has very little to do with people’s day-to-day lives. That their interaction with “government” is overwhelmingly with their state and local governments. The feds are here to take care of only that which the states cannot take care of themselves. Beyond that, the more we centralize authority, the less free we become.
But I’d also be the first one to agree that removing the EC and going to a popular vote would be chicken feed compared to how much authority the feds have assumed over the last 100 yrs or so.
I am not a voter expert (nor have I even looked at a voting case), but I did get a 5 on my US History AP test;) ) This issue could be discussed for weeks. My teacher had a doctorate in US history and was also a member of the EC, which he took very, very seriously. His reasons for the EC are closely, IIRC, resembled by the arguments put forth by Bryan Ekers and Milum. His biggest argument is that candidates’ strategy would boil down to the biggest cities for the sheer fact that it’s the easiest way to hit the most people.
You have to consider the founding father’s intent, and the issues involved dealing with a country this size. The Founding Fathers never intended the people to directly vote for the president. People are stupid, and they get more stupid when they start thinking in groups (argumentative, but bear with me). So, there’s a balance that needs to be considered between the general populace and the educated elite (not to sound smug). Then, there’s the problem of distance, and people living in the more rural areas. They need their voice heard, too. Also, states rights were very great back then. The rights of states have to balanced against the federal powers, so that was another issue that needed to be addressed. Long story short, the EC was the best compromise that they could come up with and still works today. How many discrepancies between the popular vote and the EC? 4? In 200+ years, that isn’t bad at all. In order for a PV to work, this notion of statehood would have to away. But, it won’t. Since the first settlers landed here, there has been differences in regional thinking. How many northerners still make fun of Georgia, Alabama? How much violence ensued in the EC vs. WC rap wars? These regional differences cut across education, class, race, etc. This nation isn’t divided into states merely b/c it’s nice to have little administrative units.
** If you would read the thread before posting ( boy that phrase is getting old ) you would notice that I have already noted that a majority of Americans favor the abolition of the EC and have for as long as Gallup has been asking the question. Will of the People, my ass!
Given that a majority disapprove of the EC I wonder why it wasn’t rejected the last time We The People expressed our Will by agreeing to our Constitution. Oh wait! That’s right, we don’t do that. In fact, the last person to ratify it has been dead for over a century. Will of the People, my ass! The Constitution is the Will of Dead White Guys.
Back in the '70s a constitutional amendment to abolish the EC passed the House but failed by a few votes to gain the 2/3 majority in the Senate. Had those legislators known of my plan back then we wouldn’t be having this discussion right now because it only takes a simple majority in Congress ( well, and 3/5 of the Senate to acheive cloture ). That means that ( thanks to me ) the next time reform gains momentum we can move to a more equitable form of election. :: pats self on the back ::
You know, John Mace, I have had reason to question your credibility in the past and you are making me do so again. You have claimed that “The vast majority of Americans don’t understand the difference between the electoral and the popular vote”. I have asked you to support this claim but you have ignored me. Can you do so or will you retract your assertion?
Milum,
I have never claimed that I can prove that the EC is a bad idea to everyone, only those who believe in democracy. It seems that you do not so I won’t even try. I would watch out for John Mace though. He is already yelling “elitist!”
I have read a thing or 2 about the framing of the Constitution. In fact, I am reading a book about the news coverage of the federal convention right now. I can find some cites for their belief that property deserved representation. Can you provide even one where they claim that territory does? **
With a PV everyone would have a vote. If they want to base that vote upon regional differences then they are free to do so.
Since we have elections every 4 years, that’s about 4 out of 50, not 4 out of 200. 8% problems, not 2%. I know that 10% is generally “close enough for government work”, but 8% is still pretty significant. But this doesn’t mean it’s a bad thing. The founders intended the president to be elected by the sates. One might just as well say: Thank God we have the EC. Otherwise, 8% of our presidential elections would’ve been wrong.
Sorry, but “the will of the people” in constitutional issues is defined as 3/4 of the states, not “over 50% of Americans”. I actually thought of putting that in my post originally, but I thought most people would understand that. Do you get it now, or do you want to change that part of the consitution, too?
Doesn’t cut it. I could make the same claim about any part of the constitution. By your reasoning, the entire document is not legitimate.
Yes, I remember the thread you openned about your plan to eliminate the EC w/o a constituional amendment. Do you remember how many people you convinced that your idea was a good one?
It was a statement of my opinion, not a fact. I probably should’ve put a smileyface after it. Feel free to question my credibility any time you like.
[QUOTE]
Remind me again why the smaller states would agree to this [abolishing the Electoral College]?
[QUOTE]
For the same reason male state politicians, answerable in most states only to male voters, decided in 1920 to enact the 19th Amendment: Because it was clear to them that the people wanted it. If the EC ever becomes really and truly and broadly unpopular, it will be abolished.
For the same reason male state politicians, answerable in most states only to male voters, decided in 1920 to enact the 19th Amendment: Because it was clear to them that the people wanted it. If the EC ever becomes really and truly and broadly unpopular, it will be abolished.
An interesting analgoy, but it doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny:
In light of what is scientifically known about the intellectual equality of men and women, there can be no objective rational for denying women the vote. This was true as well in 1920. There are still very valid reasons for retaining the EC. Electing the president by popular vote is not compelling from an inherently scientific or objective standpoint. There are valid points on both sides.
While men had “nothing to gain and everything to lose” by giving women the vote, that is not true of politicians. Some elected officials could reasonably expect to gain more votes than they lost by giving women the vote. The legislators of a small state, however, have absolutely nothing to gain by giving up the EC. Even if a state typically goes for one party over another, there is nothing that says it has to always be that way.
Only if it becomes truely and broadly unpopular in 3/4 of the states. It can be truly and broadly unpopular in the US as a whole, and if it’s not thus in a full 3/4 of the states… well, to quote Gandalf on the bridge in Moria: “You… shall… not… pass!”
Yeah, and if you marshalled most of the votes of the top nine states, you’d get your simple majority (assuming a total electorate of 200 million, though voter turnout is typically only half that). What’s your point? The EC offers a slightly greater voice in Federal elections to the smaller states without giving them the store. Besides, if it’s regional dominance that bugs you, I don’t understand your dismissal of districting as a viable compromise. Instead of fifty winner-take-all states, consider 435 winner-take-all districts. And since the two extra votes could go to a state majority winner, candidates will be inclined to campaign in smaller states with evenly-divided voters, thus making them pay attention to all that 'little guy" crap you keep embracing.
Anyway, you guys managed to settle a highly disputed election without any bloodshed. That isn’t true in 90%+ of the world, so what are you complaining about?
Besides, the day-to-day lives of U.S. citizens are affected far more by the decisions of municipal and state governments, which are formed (mostly) by popular votes, aren’t they?
I don’t see anything here that proves the EC needs to be changed, let alone dumped, and pseudo-populist rhetoric don’t count.
I have read a thing or 2 about the framing of the Constitution. In fact, I am reading a book about the news coverage of the federal convention right now. I can find some cites for their belief that property deserved representation. Can you provide even one where they claim that territory does? - 2sense
Sure 2sense, I’ll cite a future post that you will make if you’ll stop relying on so-called “cites” and began to rely on your own deductive thinking. You’ll say…
Oh yeah, now I get it. The people will be better served if value is assigned to the simple aspect of their cultural isolation. Kinda like the Romans did when they conquered outlying lands and allowed local laws and customs. Today the fifty states act as territorial test sites for experimental laws. This continuing influx of diverse ideas leads towards positive social evolution and as such needs to be protected from the tyranny of the dogmas of the larger group. The US Senate and State Rights are major manifestations of this realization. The Electoral College is a minor one.
Wow! 2sense, you are even smarter tomorrow than you are today!__
So if the Framers had decided that the Constitution could only be amended with the unanimous consent of red headed, left handed, and brown eyed Quakers named Jedidiah then only their consent would be considered the will of the people for constitutional issues? Hardly. It’s a democratic term. The the will of the people is the will of the majority of the people. The constitutional amending process doesn’t represent the will of the people; it is designed to thwart it. The framers of the Constitution didn’t trust the people any more than Milum or lawboy do.
If you had read the 28th Amendment Thread before posting you wouldn’t have to ask that. **
And the truth shall set you free. **
Ouch! I do remember but those were all pro-EC folks and despite the fact that I can demolish any argument in favor of the thing ( unless based on anti-democratic premises ) I have never, so far as I know, changed anyones mind. You pro-EC people are stubborn.
If I start from the premise that the lives of all persons named John are worthless I can make a valid argument that you deserve to die. Logic is only as good as the propositions it is founded on. Start with a wacky premise and you can prove anything. So far as I am aware there are no valid arguments in favor of the EC if you start from the premise that no one deserves more of a say than others. This is what I mean that you have to believe in democracy in order for me to show you that the EC should be dumped. If you favor the rule of the better sort or the divine right of kings or something then you can make valid arguments against a popular vote. Do you?
Welcome aBoard. Feel free to invite your old professor if you still see him. I would be happy to demolish his arguments as well though perhaps not right away. I am taking a long weekend out of town with Mrs 2sense.
Notice I have already dispensed with the “This Isn’t A Problem Very Often” argument and the “Only Big Bad Metropolitan Areas Will Matter” argument and the “The Structure Of Our Government Demands The EC” argument and pointed out that a popular vote leaves individuals free to acknowledge regional differences with their ballot if they wish. If you have something else to add just toss it in. Oh, and if you want to claim that people are stupid then be prepared to offer some proof of your assertion.
** My point, which I think is clear when examined in context, is that you are wrong to assert that the EC requires a candidate to appeal to a lot of Americans in a lot of different places. To repeat, a candidate could appeal to just 11 states and win without a single vote from any other state.
I don’t notice any specific percentage in your post. What do you mean by “most of the votes of the top nine states”? What is that? 80%? 90%? More? How many times in the last century did a presidential candidate win whatever the percentage is in a single state? Did it ever happen? Because I can tell you about how many times a state cast 100% of its electoral votes for one candidate: every time except for some faithless electors. That’s why districting lends itself to regional dominance. No one ever gets all the votes but you don’t have to as long as you can get a plurality in a district. Here I am refering to dividing the electorate into any districts: states, congressional districts, whatever; not just the plan to assign EC votes by congressional district. Just to be clear. And also to be clear: the “little guy” I care about is the individual. I’m not concerned about the “small” or any states in the EC. I think states should be eliminated from the equation. It is people I am concerned about. Tons of voters in the “small” states get disenfranchised in the college as well.
** This isn’t about Election 2000. It is about every presidential election. They are biased.
** Just because you can’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t here. Try harder. And calling my arguments “pseudo-populist rhetoric” doesn’t change the fact that they refuted your points.
Milum,
If you want a cite from me all you have to do is ask. Many of the Framers did believe that representation should be based on property. You don’t have to look far to find proof of this. The infamous “Three Fifths Provision” allowed for Southern property ( slaves ) to count toward congressional ( and thus EC ) representation. If you want some direct quotes I can give those to you as well. This is well known among those who are familiar with the history of the time. If I couldn’t back up my claim I would abandon it. Now will you show as much integrity? Can you cite your claim that the creators of the Constitution knew that “Territory, like people, needs representation.”?
Nice strawman, but I’m not biting. I believe in the right of sovereign states to enter into a larger union on the the terms agreed to by the sovereign states. And I believe in the right of those states not to have those terms changed at a later date except by a process agreed to by the states in the first place. And that includes the right of sovereign states to agree to terms that do not support a one-man-one-vote for issues outside the jursidiction of each individual state.
I wasn’t offering a strawman. It was just a question. A rhetorical question, yes, but only a question. Notice that no conclusions were based upon it. That’s a giveaway that you aren’t looking at a strawman.
I agree that independent nations may enter into agreements with each other on their terms but that’s not what we have here in the US. I have already pointed out that this nation is not a federation.
When was there ever a time when the top 11 electoral-vote states colluded to shut out the rest of the country? You’re talking about a hypothetical stealing of the vote (though as thefts go, it ain’t much, since the voters can support whoever they like) and so am I. When did it ever happen that a candidate decided to campaign only in the top 11 states and forget the rest of the country? You bring this scenario up a lot, but do you have an example of this strategy ever been used or attempted?
It’s conceivable to me that in a popular-vote election, a candidate could aggressively campaign in the most populous states, in an effort to raise voter turnout in those states well above the national norm, and convince the majority of citizens to vote for him by promising all kinds of benefits to their states at the expense of all the others. Conceivable, but I find it unlikely.
It’s always possible to suspect collusion or the potential of collusion in elections. That’s democracy for ya.
You should be more concerned with your country (hey, I can throw out the bullshit rhetoric, too). You’re calling for a radical change without sufficient reason (and judging from the lack of widespread demand, without public support, too). Seeking a compromise is more worthwhile. For a guy who doesn’t seem to like all-or-nothing systems, you’re sure riding your popular-vote pony to death.
Ah, the “d” word. It should be obvious, but I’ll point it out, anyway. Voting on what ends up being the losing side of an election does not mean you were denied your right to vote. You were not “disenfranchised.” Your guy just lost, is all. That, also, is democracy for ya.
I don’t see where any such refutation occured. Can you put the refutation in point form?
Don’t look at me. Regional dominance is your issue. You brought it up when you claimed that under a PV a candidate could “swing certain major cities, while disregarding all other citizens.” I never said it was likely that one part of the country could dominate the rest. I am just pointing out that regional dominance is easier under the EC than a PV. If you want to abandon your claim ( and why wouldn’t you? ) then I won’t need to point out the folly of it anymore now will I?
When did direct election become radical? Its good enough for every other elected official, isn’t it? It is the Electoral College that is radical. The only other time you see it is when they need a new pope. I think the fact that the EC is biased is suficient reason to dump it. Call me crazy but I have the notion that folks should be equal. Again, I have already pointed out twice now that a majority of Americans favor abolition of the EC and have for as long as Gallup has been asking them.
Why compromise when I’m right and you’re wrong? Besides, the only one that has been suggested is the nationwide district plan which is worse than what we have now.
** When they decide before the election who gets to vote and who doesn’t then yes, that is disenfranchisement. You don’t actually vote for the president, you know. The real election takes place in the college. Or to put it another way: when your share of your state’s electoral power is given to a candidate you voted against, how is that not being disenfranchised?
Well, the EC was originally set up to prevent regional dominance, because at at the time there were many fewer states and the most populous ones could easily dominate a national popular-vote election. Those states already had the effective domination of Congress because of their greater number of seats. The Senate (and the Electoral College) were set up to minimize the advantage of pure numbers and give an ege to smaller states.
My primary claim is that your claim (the EC should be abolished) is unfounded. My secondary is that no huge impetus exists in the U.S. to change the current system, suggesting the citizens are more-or-less satisfied with it. My third is that should a change ever be attempted, districting would be an effective compromise solution. I’m not abandoning any of them, because you’ve given me no compelling reason to do so.
Don’t play such transparent word games. Abolishing the Electoral College would represent a radical change, as I stated.
Well, as radical as 200+ year-old things get, I suppose.
Funny, I thought the College of Cardinals elections were pretty straightforward one man/one vote, though with repeated ballots until a candidate wins. What relevance does this have?
Well, there you go with the folksy rhetoric again. As I understand it, the bias in favour of smaller states isn’t all that great, but taking it away could easily make some of them wonder why they should bother staying in the union at all, which is largely why the system was put in place initially. The bias, such as it is, is just the two extra votes each state gets, which naturally is more significant with smaller states. This bias has the same basis (but is not as important as) the notion that each state gets two senators, regardless of population. I’m a little surprised you’re not advocating a dramatic (or shall we say… radical?) change in the configuration of the Senate. If all citizens are to be treated equally, why does California get the same number of Senators as Wyoming, despite having many times the population? Further, the Senate is in session most of the year, voting on important legislation all the time, while the Electoral College only gets dusted off once every four years. Why does the EC get your attention but the Senate doesn’t, when the latter is much more significant to the daily lives of Americans?
Well, why are they telling telephone pollsters and not their elected officials? Could it be not enough of them consider this issue important enough to push for an Amendment?
Because this is politics, not physics, and “right” answers don’t exist. Only acceptable ones.
How many times (say, post-1900) have state electors willfully disregarded the popular votes in their states, anyway? Besides, if the popular votes don’t count, it’s by definition not a case of disenfranchising, since those votes were never franchised in the first place.
For the same reason when you call a fruit an apple, it is by definition not an orange. By your own pointlessly smug admission (“You don’t actually vote for the president, you know.”) you explain that individual presidential votes are meaningless. How is it disenfranchising when a meaningless vote is disregarded? And are they being disregarded? I thought the majority vote totals were being used to choose where the electoral votes went.
Since you have free speech, I can’t stop you, but I can only advise that you stop using an important word like “disenfranchise” if you can’t or won’t bother learning and respecting the common definition.
It isn’t that we’re complaining as such, but that we recognize that we can do better. It’s kind of our nature to keep looking to improve anything that affects our lives - and our democracy and its workings certainly do that.
Day-to-day life isn’t really the entire point, either (and your premise isn’t right, either, btw). We’re not (well, not all) smug and insular enough to think that nothing beyond that matters. Along with our constantly looking to improve our own lives, there’s a strong, perhaps uniquely American, messianic impulse that makes us think we have a special responsibility to the world and not just ourselves. That sentiment is partly reflected in the strong evangelical religions we have here, also perhaps uniquely, but it’s also partly reflected in the liberal internationalism that promotes human rights and democracy worldwide. It also shows itself in rank imperialism, some with a racial tinge, that is shown by the administration’s Iraq conduct. The democratization impulse has also, yes, been used frequently to provide cover stories for the imperialist impulse, and Iraq is only the most recent example.
The tension between that international moral messianism and the smug isolationism that you seem to think should be the norm has been a key feature in our politics from independence if not earlier, and particularly in the post-war period.
How can you possibly know this? I have an inordinate interest in both the Electoral College and the federal convention and yet I can’t figure out any unified intent on the part of the Framers for the way we elect our president. That’s why I continually question these unsupported claims about why the EC was set up. Historians disagree on the reasons and yet here you are blandly asserting that you know what it all means. In fact, in Creating the Constitution Thornton Anderson argues that some large state delegates ( led by Madison and Wilson ) purposely set up the EC so that the large states would dominate. His claim is that they didn’t believe that the college itself would produce a majority very often at all and that in fact they ( who naturally didn’t share this belief with their fellow delegates from the small states ) saw the college as a nominating body. There would be no consensus leaving the House to choose from the top three contenders. Since the Electors were likely to vote for men from their own state those three would naturally be from large states.
I remind you that the claim I was talking about, which you conveniently left out of the quote, was that certain cities could dominate a popular vote. Since you haven’t produced any numbers for that claim, despite my challenge to do so, and indeed have omitted any reference to it at all, I shall assume that you have abandoned it. And with good reason. The numbers wouldn’t add up.
As for these claims you present here, given how many times I have been forced to remind you of inconvenient information I am unsurprised that you aren’t convinced that the EC should be abolished. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him think. My points have no chance to convince you if you deliberately ignore them. I notice that neither you, or anyone else, has cared to argue the merits of the national districting plan. And also for good reason, I have demolished the idea that it would be beneficial. I do agree though that there is no great movement afoot to reform the EC… right now. I would think that would be little comfort because the next time their is, you and yours don’t have a leg to stand on. Unless you think telling the public they are stupid is going to convince them.
You stated it, yes. But your unsupported statement is worth no more than what supports it. Why would moving to a regular election be radical? There would be no change at all in the governmental structure. The difference is that presidential hopefulls would have to take into account the hopes and dreams of ALL Americans and not just those that live in swing districts. If that is radical then so be it. It is also the right thing to do.
And the connection to the College of Cardinals should be obvious. Both are elections within a college. A choice by a few instead of everyone.
Clearly you don’t understand much at all here. And by design it seems to me. If you weren’t ignoring things that might force you to change your mind you would remember that the bias in favor of the “small” states is only one third of the major problems I have pointed out. And the last and least of them as well. How about you screw up your courage and dare to actually face my arguments instead of this strawman?
Allow me to remind you of yet another thing you seem eager to forget. This is a discussion of the Electoral College. If it were a discussion of Senate abolition I would favor it. Yes, it should go. Now that would be radical change.
Despite the fact that you are acting like a politician this is a debate not a campaign. In a forum called Great Debates. I’m not trying to convince you; I’m trying to refute any and all arguments in favor of the EC. I have yet to see one that I couldn’t take apart.
** I don’t believe that individual votes should be meaningless. I believe the president should be elected by those votes and not by the votes of those priviledged few like lawboy’s professor.
** While you have a point about the prefix of the word it is a minor semantic quibble. People should have a vote in who governs. If you deny them that vote then as I see it you are disenfranchising them. If you know of a convenient term that doesn’t imply that they once had equality but lost it, you let me know. In either case, they are denied an equal share which is what the term is commonly understood to mean.
The votes are only meaningless because they are discarded. If they weren’t then they would have meaning. They would affect the outcome. This is my bitch, or one third of it anyways. Before the election takes place tons of votes are made meaningless. Doubtless you will ignore it as well.
Well, that is all I have time for this week. I’ll check the thread when we get back.
Yeah, I was going to say, what, 44 elections? Still, I don’t think it’s all that bad. Anyway, as another posted already said, if you’re going to change it, we have a process, let’s see it get more than an inch off the ground.
