**
http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/archive_mn/dec_1997-04mn.html
Game, set and match to me, I think.
And you still haven’t explained why you aren’t more upset by the concept of the U.S. Senate than the electoral college.
Check Exapno Mapcase’s first post: “It’s what we agreed to going in” was the sentiment expressed. Granted, it’s possible he could have meant the 2000 election specifically, but since the Electoral College has been a fixture of every presidential election since 1788, there’s no reason not to interpret that statement as meaning “from the framing of the Constitution onward”.
Unsuccessfully or just not to your satisfaction? I have previously spoken, to a much lesser degree, about why it’s undemocratic today. The gist of it is that it gives undue weight to some states based on the politically arbitrary (in this case) factor of population.
As for being an integral component, I can’t see any way for the Compromise not to be - or, rather, have been. The chain goes something like this:
Q: How do we determine the number of electors?
A: By adding the number of representatives and senators.
Q: How do we determine the number of representatives?
A: By counting the population of each state.
Q: What method do we use for counting the population?
A: Count each and every free person, and count three-fifths of the slaves.
Each question begs another question, and the answers lead us straight to the Compromise. The answer to the third question forms a part of the more general answer to the first question and is therefore an integral component. That’s as plainly as I can spell it out.
Truth Seeker - you got numbers of votes to go along with that statistic? It would be interesting to see whether or not that 59% represents 59% of the total California voting population overall - something I sincerely doubt. (Of course, it should be said that denying immigrants access to state-funded programs, however distastefully racist, is a far cry from dispossessing them and shipping them south of the border in crate containers, so the real-life situation doesn’t offer irrefutable proof of the hypothetical - namely, that the Californian population is insanely racist.)
I certainly admit that pointing out the difference between the majority of votes and the majority of the voting population has implications for the greater subject at hand. I’m not arguing Gore had a mandate by any stretch of the imagination - his vote total reflected only 25% of the voting population in 2000. 50% of the eligible voting population either didn’t register or stayed home - a clear indication that the majority thought both mainstream candidates were full of it and not worth troubling over.
Senators are directly elected. The president isn’t, due to the interference of the College.
- essential to completeness
2 : composed of integral parts
3 : lacking nothing essential : ENTIRE
Exactally which of those definitions are you using?
The Electoral College continues to exist now that the 3/5ths Compromise is no longer valid. So clearly, 3/5ths Compromise isn’t “essential to the completeness” of the Electoral College.
Understood. Please see Olentzero’s earlier cite from 3:10 p.m. The 3/5 ratio first arose in a proposal to amend the Articles of Confederation to reform the basis of taxation. The amendment failed of ratification. However, the proposal resurfaced as the basis for both direct taxation and allocation of representatives at the Constitutional Convention.
You’ll notice I did say “or, rather, have been” - a nod to the fact that the Compromise was invalidated as a result of the Union’s victory in the Civil War. Nevertheless, the method of counting the population is “essential to the completeness” of the Electoral College - and therefore an integral component - regardless of the form.
Truth Seeker’s example of Prop 187 in California does seem to present evidence that the will of the majority can produce undemocratic results. I want to examine this further. And, unfortunately for those of you who have been driven nuts by this, I think the Three-Fifths Compromise offers an illustrative parallel.
Walloon points out that at least one delegate to the Constitutional Convention - John Adams - did bring up the question of whether counting the slaves was proper as far as representation was concerned. His view, given the obvious results, was in the minority of delegates. I quite think that his view would have been in the majority had the slaves themselves been involved in the decision.
Similarly, Prop 187 passed in California because it expressed the view of the majority of participating voters. One naturally wonders whether the immigrants themselves who were the subject of the legislation were allowed to vote. Had they been, I sincerely doubt Prop 187 would have passed so handily.
My conclusion, therefore, is that undemocratic legislation stands a greater chance of being passed the less representative the majority of voters is. None of the delegates at the Constitutional Convention represented the slaves themselves (though some of them, like Adams, gave their interests a nod in passing). It seems likely that immigrants weren’t given much of a say on Prop 187, either.
The Electoral College, by reducing the tallies to a handful of votes based on location rather than choice of candidate, does the same thing. Granted, I’m still working on how it does that, but the results have already been borne out in practice.
This goes back to my earlier post. Here we have a voter who expresses no affinity for Bush or Gore. So I ask again, who can cite a poll or a study that answers the question, “Did Nader’s candidacy take more votes from Gore or from Bush?” I know the accepted wisdom on this matter is that he must have taken more votes from Gore. At least that’s what I read in the papers and in certain web sites over and over again. But is there any proof to back up this conjecture?
Depends on whether there were any polls taken of Nader voters before or after November, asking them if they’d have voted in the election had Nader not run, and if so for whom. A quick look in Google under [“poll of Nader voters”] only pulled up some rant page.
Personally, I wouldn’t have voted. Though I have serious disagreements with the Greens, I certainly would like to see more than just two parties competing in national elections. That’s why I voted Nader - to try to help get the Greens enough of a vote to get federal election funds. God knows if they’d let Nader into the debates that just might have happened.