Practical Plan to Abort Electoral College

Sofa_King · May 14, 2003, 4:02pm

I would point out that Florida is on that list. Thanks to recent amendments to their election laws, fraudulent absentee ballots from overseas sent after the election will be counted:

Thus guaranteeing that any close election will go in favor of the Republicans for the foreseeable future, thanks to day-after military voters.

Trying to force a popular-vote electoral swing in light of this practicality is only possible if the election goes in favor of the Government Of Pilferers. Since we’re practically there already, does anything really need to change?

Kent_Clark · May 14, 2003, 5:59pm

And if I am a duly-appointed elector for my state (i.e., if I’m a long-time, trusted party member whose candidate got more votes than the other guys) who the hell are you to try and “convince” me to vote for anyone.

Oddly enough, 2sense, your argument has already been proven in reverse. There are a number of presidential elections where one or more electors has voted for a candidate other than whom they were officially pledged. The courts have ruled time and again that electors can vote for anyone they please.

Ravenman · May 14, 2003, 6:53pm

Such an agreement between states would be unconstitutional unless approved by Congress.

Article I, Section 10:

Clause 3. **No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, **lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, **enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, **or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Honesty · May 14, 2003, 9:14pm

QUOTE]*Originally posted by Honesty *
I hate to sound childish but . . .
[/QUOTE]

U SURE TOLD ME! ROFLOLO@LOLO!!!LO!L!O!O!LOLOL!!I(^#LOLOL.

Amused Brian

chigger · May 14, 2003, 10:20pm

This may at first seem unrelated, but it’s not: Why isn’t there as much criticism of a two person per state Senate as there is of the EC, which is at least proportioned according to population?

2sense · May 14, 2003, 10:47pm

My idea is important because amending the Constitution to abolish the electoral college is considered impossible. Attempts passed the House in 1969 and 1979 only to die in the Senate. A popular vote is thought to be unattainable. I’m saying it’s within reach.

I’m also maintaining that the popular vote is the only fair way to elect the president. Divvying up electoral votes within each state proportionally would be a good deal better than winner take all… but only for the people in that state. Overall it would leave in place the electoral imbalances that devalue the votes from residents of “big” states. Worse, it would leave Americans who don’t reside in states without any voice at all. Any electoral votes assigned by looking beyond the borders of a state, even if by only a single state, would enfranchise all those Americans living in the insular territories ( Puerto Rico, American Samoa, et cetera. ) Once their votes can count they can be counted. How can a proportional system make more sense than that?

The popular vote is the only fair way because it is the most democratic and egalitarian. That some maneuvers are necessary to produce the best result is not a criticism of my plan but rather of the unjust manner in which this business is handled now.

A popular vote is within reach because we don’t need agreement from the “small” states to bypass the electoral college. Even if there were a successful fillibuster ( as in '69 ) the states don’t need congressional approval. Each state can assign their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote on their own. That would be tricky though and things would be a lot smoother with some kind of interstate or federal oversight body. So the approval of Congress would be of great benefit if not strictly necessary. Thanks for pointing that out, Ravenman.

And just to clarify I am figuring the electoral votes would be assigned to a candidate by simply allowing the winner of the popular vote to pick and replace the electors at will. There shouldn’t be any trouble convincing such appointees to do the right thing.

Hopefully that will clear up any misunderstandings of what I am arguing here. I have to admit that I can’t follow Sofa King’s argument. If we presume a state government in Florida willing to enact the plan then problems with how those votes are currently counted are minor consideration. Additionally a congressionally approved interstate compact could mandate certain electoral standards among its members.

And on preview, I give up chigger, why isn’t there as much criticsm of that collection of rotten boroughs known as the Senate and what has it to do with the electoral college?

owlofcreamcheese · May 14, 2003, 11:24pm

a popular vote isn’t a good thing, why?

because diffrent states DO have diffrent wants and needs and unless you give at least SOME power to little states your going to end up with the big states getting all the good stuff.

like if you made a law that said “we should take everyone’s money from everyone in maine and give it to people in california”

if we make it person by person counted… california wins… screw maine.

Rhum_Runner · May 14, 2003, 11:37pm

What are they teaching people these days? The senate is there to represent the states. Federalism is still an important thing in this government, and the states still matter. If anything, the direct election of senators was a bad idea, and messeed up the checks and balances of federal and state government.

chigger · May 15, 2003, 12:14am

The relevance between the Senate and the EC is that the EC was constructed to at least partly incorporate the structure of the Senate to ensure that the less populous states were not completely disenfranchised in the political landscape. This done in recognition that sparsely populated areas are necessary to produce food and raw materials. In a way, one could say the land (the provider) “gets a vote” that could be decisive in very close races.

My question was not rhetorical. It is related to this debate because the most common basis for arguing against the EC is that it is “not democratic”. Well, the Senate clearly isn’t, so quests to root out non-democratic institutions in this country would presumably start there. At least the EC is proportioned according to population.

Actually, I agree with the spirit of the OP that electors vote however they wish (allowed by the US Const.) Forcing electors to vote a certain way by statute or state constitution only aggravates objection to the EC. I would not, however, care to have the " … winner of the popular vote … pick and replace the electors at will". In that scenario, having electors is a pointless waste of time and money.

The “plan” in the OP, to “convince” electors to vote a certain way seems to be not only within reach but already at hand, and IIRC some of the major media dropped hints in that direction during the 2000 election. However, if more stringent “convincing” measures are pursued, one has to keep in mind that a state’s electors are chosen DEMOCRATICALLY by the people of that state according to the election rules in place at the time the vote was taken. It could be viewed as anti-democratic for “good guys” from the outside to ride in on white horses and attempt to forcibly reverse a vote without the voters having the right to object.

2sense · May 15, 2003, 3:15am

owlofcreamcheese,

A popular vote is a vote of people, not of states. “Small” states wouldn’t have any power stripped from them that isn’t also taken from the “big” states. Under a popular vote no state would have any electoral power whatsoever. Also see my response to Skillet38 about how the electoral college creates the possibility of regional dominance instead of preventing it.

chigger,

Clearly you are missing the point of the discussion. There is nothing in the OP concerning electors casting their ballots however they wish. I am definitely not promoting unfaithful electors. What I am proposing is that each state pass a law to give all of their electoral votes to the candidate winning the nationwide popular vote. The electors of those states would then be appointed by that candidate and would naturally vote to put him/her into the White House. I believe that electors ARE a waste of time and money unfortunately I see no way to change the Constitution to eliminate this relic of a bygone era. Thus the scheme we are currently debating.

As for the Senate, it should go too but that is another argument. If you’d like to have it BrainGlutton started a thread on the topic that should be on page 2 or three of this forum. Do you have a cite for your contention that it and the electoral college were created “in recognition that sparsely populated areas are necessary to produce food and raw materials”? I don’t recall anything like that from Madison’s notes on the federal convention. And why would you think land deserves a vote? Shouldn’t voting be reserved for citizens of the United States?

Gairloch · May 15, 2003, 4:41am

“If they, or some other collection of states or the District of Columbia that controls at least 271 electoral votes, all vote for a single candidate then that person will win. Period. So all we need do is convince enough of the “bigger” states to give their electoral votes not to the person who gets the most votes in their state but by the one who wins the most votes in the entire nation.”

This is called ‘rigging elections.’ Your proposal is, in sum, that if 100% of the population of California votes against a certain candidate, but that candidate nonetheless wins the nationwide popular vote, the electors in California would be compelled by law to cast their electoral votes in direct contradiction of the opinion of the State of California. How, exactly, does this further democracy? It certainly eliminates dissenting voices, by force of law, but that is called many things other than democratic. Fascism is one word that springs to mind.

“As I see it I am attempting to finess our undemocratic electoral machinery into producing a democratic result and I am hardly proposing to rig any votes. I’m merely suggesting that we count them.”

No, you are proposing that we count the votes, then compel the larger states to cast their electoral votes as a bloc, even if the result is against their own will. That is nothing more than rigging votes by force of governmental fiat, no matter what dress you want to adorn it with. The various States represent a confederation of individuals, you may recall, and those individuals participate in a federalization by common consent, and tolerate the federal government as a necessary evil. Just as the Soviet Union dissolved back into competing States, so can the United States become quickly ununited. Considering a common nationwide purpose as a presumptive premise is a mistake, and the bonds between Idaho and Alabama, for example, are thin at best.

The point of the Senate, and of the EC, and of the complicated machinations of checks and balances is largely to prevent popular hysteria or large voting blocs from ruling the nation at their whim, alienating dissenters and fomenting immediate revolt. On a purely ‘democratic’ popular vote, without some sober balance, prohibition would still be with us and McCarthyism would be the rule of law. The rules were put in place entirely to prevent mass hysteria and idiotic popular trends of the moment from subverting the business of protecting the minority opinion, as well as preventing one idea from ruling all. The principle is that the majority rules, but with respect for the minority, you might recall. The pure rule of the ‘popular vote’ would have Ronald McDonald or Jerry Seinfeld in the White House, and the founding fathers were quite aware of how stupid and bullying the masses can be. A purely ‘democratic result’ would have folks like us howling at the moon while being lined up and shot by the ‘democratic’ winners who don’t want to hear that the Earth isn’t flat. Fortunately, in writing the rules, the writers had learned from history.

Be careful what you wish for. The body politic, as a mass, is not so enlightened as you might imagine them to be, and does not usually decide in favor of intelligent outcomes. History, in fact, reveals that the masses – AKA "Everyone knows (Fill in the blank) – have never been right about a single thing. Pure democracy, the quip goes, is two wolves and one sheep deciding what to have for dinner. If one is in favor of a pure popular vote it would be good to be one of the wolves.

Gairloch

chigger · May 15, 2003, 5:47am

The words “convince” and “give” I interpreted liberally to allow some autonomy for the electors. But, you’re right. After your explanation, I see I did miss the point.

The sentiment that sparsely populated areas were not to be too easily subjugated or trampled because of their role(s) in providing the basic wealth of the nation is one I remember from a History course. Honestly, I can’t put a finger on a specific cite right away. And it may not do much good to refer to Convention - related discourse since it is the basis for such “relics of a bygone era” in the first place.

The pseudo-analogy that the land “gets a vote” is my own invention.

But, as to the proposed solution, I simply believe that it is (a) not democratic in that it subverts the votes of the people in the individual states who under the present system choose their electors democratically, and (b) would make the EC irrelevant and I believe it IS just as relevant (if not more so) now than it was in 1787.

I also think that the desire to base the presidential election squarely on the “popular vote” of the nation reflects a fundamental view toward the country not as the United States but as the United People. I think in the former frame.

By the way, thanks for the suggestion on the “dimantle the Senate” thread. I’m interested. I’ll go have a look.

2sense · May 15, 2003, 7:53pm

I don’t know exactly what y’all consider to rigging an election but to me it means adding bias to the system not removing it. Rather than silencing voices my plan allows everyone to have their say and to know that on election day at least their opinion is no less important than anyone else’s. Nor can any state government be forced into going along with it unless by the will of the people of that state. And why should not the residents of “bigger” states not want to assign their electoral votes in this manner? It is in their own interest to do so. There is no compulsion and this is hardly fascism, sheesh!

These “democracy run amok” arguments aren’t convincing me either. There is no big difference in the federal structure if the president is elected imperfectly by The People as happens now or more accurately from The People as I propose. We are not talking about moving to a direct democracy or anything like it. People who don’t believe that Americans have a bond are kidding themselves. If it didn’t exist then we wouldn’t be seeing all the flag waving. We aren’t going to split along state lines anytime soon or without a fight.

Some prefer things to be more federal. I don’t have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with is that some voices get more of a say than others. Democracy is the only moral form of government and the core of democracy is equality. The only thing anyone stands to lose here is an unfair advantage over their fellow Americans.

Ravenman · May 15, 2003, 8:32pm

2sense - do you have a concern about how a straight popular vote would effect presidential campaigns? I think we can agree, the EC gives small states more weight - making it slightly more attractive for a candidate to visit small states and be aware of their concerns.

If there were no EC, I think there’s a damn good chance that campaigns would become much more intensely focused on “big city” issues - after all, you get a bigger bang for the buck campaigning in a city of one million than a town of one thousand. Now, I’m a big city dweller myself, but I think the small states and little towns deserve a fair share of attention. I wouldn’t want to change a system that gives the underdog (that is, the more rural folk) a better shake.

Dogface · May 16, 2003, 1:15am

That’s not what those who would destroy the Electoral College would have us believe.

Do you want your state to become a toxic waste dump for Kalipornea and the East Sludge? Abolish the College of Electors.

2sense · May 16, 2003, 3:08am

What is a fair amount of attention for a small state or town? How could such a question answered objectively? A presidential candidate can’t visit them all. And if one small town gets visited, what good does that do me over in the next town? Should I feel jealous that a different small town got more attention?

Just as important, what benefit does a town gain from a visit from a presidential contender? Have you ever seen the campaign machine out on the road? Politicians travel from place to place and give the same handful of stump speeches that they have already used hundreds of times in hundreds of other towns. Politicians make the rounds because pandering to local pride nets them votes; that doesn’t mean that there is any benefit offered to those locations they choose to speak from, other than prestige, of course. Since I see so little benefit from “the personal touch” in campaigning I am not concerned about visits.

I also question the concept that “the more rural folk” ARE underdogs. First off, lets be honest and admit that we are talking about white people. Country folk tend to be European-Americans, especially outside the South. Do I think that whites need protection from people in cities? No. It is the urban areas where we see the concentrations of abject poverty and crime. Obviously they don’t have an overabundance of influence.

I believe a fair share of attention is an equal share of attention. I don’t believe anyone should have “special rights” when it comes to electing the president.

ITR_champion · May 16, 2003, 3:41am

Wait a minute - in the current political climate where the during the last month of the campaign most states are already decided, the exact opposite could be true. Picture this scenario: both candidates have locked down sufficient states that they are only 18 electoral votes shy of the needed majority. There are six states that are still up for grabs. One such state has 20 electoral votes, while the other five states that are undecided have only 3 votes apiece. What are the candidates to do? Spend all of their time in that big state with 20 votes while ignoring the others.

Just look at the 2000 election. Bush and Gore spent the months leading up to the election almost entirely in Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Illinois. Nobody cared about New Hampshire or Iowa when there were bigger prizes to be won elsewhere.

Gairloch · May 16, 2003, 5:33am

“I also question the concept that “the more rural folk” ARE underdogs. First off, lets be honest and admit that we are talking about white people. Country folk tend to be European-Americans, especially outside the South. Do I think that whites need protection from people in cities? No. It is the urban areas where we see the concentrations of abject poverty and crime. Obviously they don’t have an overabundance of influence.”

First and foremost, this is an appalling bit of inference and misapplied logic. Second, where did racial politics suddenly enter the issue? If the point of the proposal is to ‘fairly and democratically’ force the larger electoral states to vote against their constituencies in favor of the nationwide popular vote, wouldn’t this rather silence the larger urban areas, with their ‘concentrations of abject poverty and crime’? If the entire Bible belt decided to elect Jethro Bookthumper, and the larger States were compelled to ignore their own citizens and cast their electoral votes in favor of the overall popular vote, how would this outcome favor those in the “abject poverty” (which by the way, exists in America only in the writings of the self interested)? There are a whole lot more ‘folks,’ of every race, living outside of the cities than in them, and the disproportionate use of tax resources in addressing ‘city’ problems causes more resentment than sympathy among the average person on the street.

“I believe a fair share of attention is an equal share of attention. I don’t believe anyone should have “special rights” when it comes to electing the president.”

But, just to ask, who exactly has these ‘special rights’? Electoral votes are apportioned to each State as a function of overall population. It hardly gets more democratic than that unless your own candidate didn’t get elected. The poor souls in the States with only a few electoral votes get to pay their taxes every year and watch that money flow largely into the urbanized areas, where it is consumed to no benefit other than a call for more. They had their say, proportionately, but were outvoted. An ‘equal share of attention’ is provided by the right to cast a vote. This is a government, not a parent.

I fail to see anything other than a forwarded premise that any one group or individual has any more say than another in the election process. And to be honest, I’m not convinced that any one president has proven any better or worse than the previous or subsequent except as a function of ideological vehemence on one side or the other, so I’m not all that sure what the point is. Tossing around words like “fair,” and “equal,” make for fine editorial fodder, but in reality these words are Grade School concepts that are fully in the eyes of the beholder. My children do not hesitate to remind me that it is “fair” when they get their way, and “unfair” when they do not.

So, having tipped the ideological hand, as it were, by finally saying aloud, and unprovoked by any question, “Country folk tend to be European-Americans, especially outside the South. Do I think that whites need protection from people in cities? No,” perhaps you can expound a little on just precisely what the agenda behind this proposal really is.

Gairloch

Milum · May 16, 2003, 6:40am

**Chigger opined:**This may at first seem unrelated, but it’s not: Why isn’t there as much criticism of a two person per state Senate as there is of the electorial college? - which is at least proportioned according to population.

Therein Chigger, lies the crux. A two Senator representation from each state regardless of size or population recognizes that a consequence of territory unites individuality. A polyglot of ideas from states with their own individual innovations of government that were to be experimental models; nuances of governing that hopefully could evolve by trial and error into better methods of governing for all others, including the feds.

In other words geographical units breed individuality and therefore these people with oft times odd, but always invigorating thoughts, deserve more pronounced representation.

The Electorial College was an outgrowth of the very same thing, but with a more populist notion.

Back then, in the eary days of the representive government, people elected folk that they knew or at least thought they knew, were of high integrity and good judgement. These local folk then went to Washington and voted for a president that most closely matched the mind-set of thier respective territories.

In theory.Communication was bad in those days. The homeboy representives were trusted to elect the best man for the job even though the folks back home didn’t know that man from Adam.

Or Eve. Same as today.

Today our modern candidates for president are packaged, shrink-wraped, and double-speak double-talk through a master-mix boombox that was written by robots and nerds.

We still need the Electorial College.

Milum · May 16, 2003, 6:42am

**Chigger opined:**This may at first seem unrelated, but it’s not: Why isn’t there as much criticism of a two person per state Senate as there is of the electorial college? - which is at least proportioned according to population.

Therein Chigger, lies the crux. A two Senator representation from each state regardless of size or population recognizes that the consequence of territory unites individuality. A polyglot of ideas from states with their own individual innovations of government that were to be experimental models; nuances of governing that hopefully could evolve by trial and error into better methods of governing for all others, including the feds.