I don’t think you can make any constitutional argument against winner take all elections in the states. The Constitution just says that each state legislature may appoint the electors for its state. It doesn’t say how they have to do it. South Carolina’s were picked by the state legislature well into the 19th century before the popular vote was used there.
I wonder if there has been a case of this type before the Court. I would think there has been.
So, if I am following this argument correctly, our wise founding fathers arranged this so that the evil states of California, and New York are not able to dictate their preference to the rest of the country. And because of their great foresight, Florida gets to dictate its preference to the rest of the country instead. And this is a good thing. Did I get that right?
Tris
Florida is just dictating the election because it happens to be the only large state that is still undecided. If California were still undecided, it would be deciding the election.
The decisive state will likely vary from election to election.
Does anyone know where I could get the names and/or e-mail addresses of the electors in the states that Bush carried? I’d like to ask them all to screw their pledge and vote according to the will of the people.
I’d wager that people in California could dictate policy in Alaska–say, by electing a president who is pro opening up protected natural areas to more oil drilling. Or in any other state by electing a pres. who is pro closing military bases, etc. (I know the legislature decides that sort of thing, but the pres. still has to sign it.)
Because this is a union of states, not a union of people. It is the Unites States of America not the United People of America. If when the union was formed all representation was made proportional to population, then the less populated states wuld not have joined. That is also why you have a Senate where all states have equal say. If you change that you are changing the basic law of the land and conceivably some states could say “OK, in that case we will no longer be part of the Union. If California is going to run the country, then we would rather be our own country.”
The will of the people?
The last time I checked MSNBC Gore was only ahead 167,838 votes in the popular vote. This was out of a total of 100,804,464 votes.
Also, if Bush takes Flordia then he will have won the popular vote in 30 (or 29, I am not sure about OR) out of 50 states.
I don’t think that the will of the people is clearly Al Gore.
toadspittle:
Actually, it looks like the opposite is true…Alaskans went for Bush, who is pro-drilling, and Californians went for Gore, who is anti.
Sure, you can laugh at my question if you want. But this morning on the news the Gore people were talking about suing…A lawsuit could take months & in that time, the Speaker of the House could be president.
If electors have to vote the popular vote anyway, why do we have them? Isn’t it the same as the popular vote winning?
I’m sorry, but two days after the election I still don’t understand how this stuff works.
Deb
Debbie, there are dozens of threads about the EC on this site. Nearly all of them give explanations of how the EC works. Please look it up. The information is available to you, if you’re willing to look for it.
I’m pretty sure that it couldn’t be more clear. More people voted for Gore. I’ll admit that it’s not by an overwhelming margin, but I can’t think of a better way to determine the will of the people other than the popular vote. Now I just have to convince republican electors that the will of the people is the best way to determine the president.
Interestingly, I just read a really good article {Here} on this very topic.
A mathematician has actually calculated the ways in which voting power is affected by different polling systems and population sizes, and he has found that each individual voter has MORE chance of swaying an election if the voting population is divided into districts (witness: Florida, November 2000).
He further makes the observation that the fair winnner SHOULD NOT necessarily be the candidate who gets the most votes, just as the winner of the World Series isn’t necessarily the team that scores the most runs, but has to win a majority of 7 games.
It’s a really interesting and thought-provoking article, and I am seriously rethinking my opinion on the electoral college based on it. Check it out.
By the way, on #2 above, the electors were not originally (and still are not, if I remember correctly) required to vote the popular vote from their respective states. They were directed to pore over the issues much more carefully than the average voter. The same way we elect a Senator to make laws, a Sheriff to enforce them, a Contractor to build a house, etc. We can’t all be expected to have every expertise, so we choose people who do have it, but share our vision. So we choose electors with opinions that match ours (more or less) to study each candidate’s history, experience, what have you, and make a more informed opinion than we can reasonably make. Thus Party A electors would be more likely to vote for the Party A candidate, but not necessarily required if they found good reason not to.
After thinking about it, I’m inclined to believe the electoral college may not be such a horrible idea as I had previously thought.
If we want to be consistent with the principle that the voting power of states should be proportional to their population, then the US should not only give up its veto power in the UN but also accept that China’s vote should weigh six times as much as that of the US, and India’s vote… well, you get the picture. Anybody willing to defend that position?
Heck, I say let 'em! States like Delaware, Wyoming, etc get something of a free ride as the laws currently stand, since their population is disproportionally powerful in relation to their size. If they want to get pissy with us, well…
Personally, there’s a few states I wouldn’t mind seeing EXPELLED from the Union.
I thought one of the points of the EC was to make sure that the larger states didn’t become more powerful, that every state counted, and it wasn’t about which state was larger, or more populated, or something like that?
Well, the Preamble to the Constitution does say, “We the People of the United States . . .” That doesn’t make your point less valid, but it is there nonetheless.
**
I think the kibbosh was pretty permanently placed on that idea about 135 years ago. I can’t imagine any state even seriously considering trying.
Maybe I didn’t make my point correctly.
It isn’t clear that more of the American people voted for Gore. The percentage difference in votes is less then the difference in FL which forced the recount there.
You saw how they have “found” more votes for both Gore and Bush in the FL recount. A recount of all states could easily change the popular vote.
The margin of difference is so small as to be almost nothing. In addition there are still absentee ballots in many states which have not been counted.
In any case, the number of people don’t matter. The EC matters. Thank goodness! Can you imagine the FL recount times 50?
This, of course, is no longer true. Election laws in 25 states including the District of Columbia obligate the electors to vote for the candidate to which they are bound. Failure to do so subjects the elector to fines and replacement. The Supreme Court has upheld these state laws.
MR
That’s true, but if you read carefully, it says (all emphasis mine, of course):
We the people OF the UNITED STATES, in order to [attain a number of very important goals which are not really relevant to my point here], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The main clause of the preamble says simply, “We the People do ordain and establish this Constitution.” It does not say “We the people **ARE[b/] the United States…AND establish…,” it says “We the people OF the United States…DO establish…” A very important difference.
In other words, Sailor is exactly right. The US is a union of States into one Nation. Not a union of people.