Electoral College

[Sushi]

My goodness you're dense. We're a representative democracy. Or at least we claim to be. I wonder what the hell Bush is talking about when he says we're "exporting democracy."

The more accurate term is constitutional republic.

The reason we have an electoral college so the states with a greater concentration of a population cannot boss around the states with a less dense population. Popular vote does not offer this protection from "tyranny of the majority".

Of course, you're just angry because Gore didn't win last election even though he had the popular vote. I hate both Bush and Gore, so I'm not really partial to either of them.

Seems just like a bunch of whiny Democrats who think majority rules is the best way to conduct things.

 

[toddjh]

All this nostalgia for the Founding Fathers disgusts me. One ought to be able to put forth free-standing arguments. Those white guys are dead. They can inform our opinions, but we're the ones who decide.

Likewise the knee-jerk reaction in favor of democracy. Can you tell me in plain English why determining the president by popular vote would be inherently better than the current system?

The entire point of a republic is that the people themselves should not be trusted with running the country. They are simply not informed or objective enough to be trusted with it. And, again, you only have to look as far as the polls on gay marriage and religion to see what most people consider good national policy.

Now, history has shown that a representative government is a good thing -- but because it makes the politicians responsible to the people, not because the people can necessarily be trusted to know what they're doing. Representation has to exist, but it's not the be-all, end-all of government. There need to be checks on the power of public opinion, as well as some leverage for state governments to use when attempting to reconcile federal policy with regional issues that might be beyond the short-term perspectives of their local constituents.

So, given that the government should include some representation, but not too much, what makes you think the people ought to determine the presidency in addition to the legislature? Personally, I think the individual's direct involvement in government should be kept to a relatively low level.

Edited to add: All that said, abolishing the electoral college is a virtual impossibility, anyway. Three-fourths of the states would have to ratify the amendment to change it, but small states wouldn't want to give up the extra power it gives them -- and there are a lot of small states. If the 2000 election didn't provide the impetus to get things changed, I don't think anything will.

Jeremy

 

[Sushi]

Edited to add: All that said, abolishing the electoral college is a virtual impossibility, anyway. Three-fourths of the states would have to ratify the amendment to change it, but small states wouldn't want to give up the extra power it gives them -- and there are a lot of small states. If the 2000 election didn't provide the impetus to get things changed, I don't think anything will.

These people aren't exactly the types who are strict followers of the constitution.

 

[Richard G]

Seems just like a bunch of whiny Democrats who think majority rules is the best way to conduct things.

Indeed. If it were so, the Democrats could more easily bribe the masses with their huge entitlement programs.

 

[HarryKeogh]

Indeed. If it were so, the Democrats could more easily bribe the masses with their huge entitlement programs.

Indeed. If it were so, the Republicans could more easily bribe the masses with their tax cuts.

 

[Kopji]

Ok, the biggie arguments:

Electoral College "awards outrageously disproportionate political power to rural conservative states with fewer voters than, say, the enlightened borough of Brooklyn."

That's sorta it in a nutshell? The problem from my pov is that (and please correct me if I'm wrong) for every $50 I'm taxed federally, I get $48 back in some form of government largess ("pork"). The rest I presume, goes toward...

"states enjoying higher-than-average voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in declining order):"

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois

Oddly enough, I agree that this is exactly what happens.

Their next point:

The key would be to persuade small states that losing their disproportionate clout relative to medium-sized states would be balanced out by the loss of disproportionate power enjoyed by big states. It's the big states, after all, that small states tend to perceive as the enemy.

Well, you are the enemy.

But to ensure against its happening the constitutional amendment repealing the Electoral College could state that if no presidential candidate received more than 50 percent of the popular vote there would be a runoff of the top two vote-getters.

Ok, I'm all for that idea. This would encourage more parties, which I see as a good. Seems a big caveat of eliminating the EC though: The Democrats and Republicans should be real happy to see their power and influence diminished, right?

A common argument in favor of keeping the Electoral College is that if America chose its president by popular vote, presidential candidates would no longer visit smaller states, and therefore would no longer take the trouble to familiarize themselves with those states' idiosyncratic needs. In a Nov. 2000 article in Business Week, Paula Dwyer and Paul Magnusson argued that

[F]armers and ranchers in the Nowhere Zone would get short shrift for their concerns—and rarely see a Presidential prospect. Candidates "wouldn't need to worry about putting nuclear waste in Nevada," says Steve Frank, president of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies, a conservative grass-roots group. Adds Scott Reed, who managed Bob Dole's 1996 bid for the White House: "You'd be hunting ducks where the ducks are, and leaving large swaths of the country essentially untouched."

I love colorful metaphors. Again, the persuasive argument here seems to be labeling us as the "nowhere zone". Now, there is probably some truth to this, but considering that one of these nuclear-waste-leak-proof-trucks was passing through our town a month ago LEAKING like crazy on the way to its home in Nevada... What a relief it would be for you (nuclear waste creators) to not have to worry about that at all.

...the Electoral College does not provide an incentive for candidates to be attentive to small states and take their cases directly to their citizens. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how presidential candidates could be less attentive to small states.

This terrific argument simply says that they treat us like crap now, and it would be no different under a new system. So why change?

Some people may judge this neglect of sparsely populated areas to be tragic. I'm not one of them. It seems to me that the states with the smallest populations ought to have the least clout in our political system, precisely because they represent the interests of the fewest number of people. Where better to dump nuclear waste than in an isolated area? (Getting it there is a problem, but that's a story for another day.)

The gravitational pull of swing states would weaken considerably if the Electoral College were eliminated, because candidates could pick up votes almost anywhere.

This convinces me how? "My home is a perfect place for nuclear waste because there are too many people where you are who might be upset if it was stored there". You guys suck, bite me.

My simple and probably naive perspective is that I pay federal taxes just like people in New York do. The difference is that some of my taxes go to fund the New York programs, but nothing from New York taxes come here. Additionally, it upsets New York that a reason they cannot take more of my tax money is some pesky Electoral College, which imperils the president if he ignores any area of the country too much. It is not the clout of a single state that would suffer with the loss of the electoral college, but entire sectors of the country.

Hey, I've been full of crap before, and maybe am now. I had never really thought much about the Electoral College before the 2000 election, but can see some of its flaws as well as some of its intent. Maybe that comes from living in a 'nowhere zone'.

I'm looking for a better argument than "I don't matter". Call me selfish.

 

[Cain]

Likewise the knee-jerk reaction in favor of democracy. Can you tell me in plain English why determining the president by popular vote would be inherently better than the current system?

I think it's fair to say that our disposition, the default position if you will, ought to be one that treats everyone as equals. Why are residents of Wyoming ~six times more influential than Californians? The burden of explaining these arbitrary differences resides with Electoral College apologists.

The entire point of a republic is that the people themselves should not be trusted with running the country. They are simply not informed or objective enough to be trusted with it. And, again, you only have to look as far as the polls on gay marriage and religion to see what most people consider good national policy.

The Founders felt the same way about women and (to a large extent) white males who did not own property. Regardless, this paragraph does not follow from the previous one: The Electoral College is based, to some degree, on population. But it's an out-dated winner-take-all system where people indirectly choose their president.

With respect to the autocratic/guardianship argument in the above, how do we know these leaders will be enlightened? What did the Founders think of slavery? Or gay marriage, for that matter?

Now, history has shown that a representative government is a good thing -- but because it makes the politicians responsible to the people, not because the people can necessarily be trusted to know what they're doing. Representation has to exist, but it's not the be-all, end-all of government. There need to be checks on the power of public opinion, as well as some leverage for state governments to use when attempting to reconcile federal policy with regional issues that might be beyond the short-term perspectives of their local constituents.

I fail see how abolishing the federal government would obstruct lawmakers from taking these regional concerns into consideration. States themselves are almost entirely artificial constructs, and the Midwest or the South would still have significant numbers and influence.

So, given that the government should include some representation, but not too much, what makes you think the people ought to determine the presidency in addition to the legislature? Personally, I think the individual's direct involvement in government should be kept to a relatively low level.

I think you're missing the point. People are still determining the president, it's just that some votes count for more than others. We can take the same silly argument even further: Why should people have equal votes in terms of deciding their representatives in Congress*? After all, They already have state senate and local government. Or how about this: in elections for statewide office we give people residing at higher elevations more voting power than those at or below sea level. Arbitrary geographic location should not empower or disempower citizens when it comes to fashioning the institutions that affect their lives.

If I move to Wyoming or Utah my vote will count for more. Why? It makes no sense.

Edited to add: All that said, abolishing the electoral college is a virtual impossibility, anyway. Three-fourths of the states would have to ratify the amendment to change it, but small states wouldn't want to give up the extra power it gives them -- and there are a lot of small states. If the 2000 election didn't provide the impetus to get things changed, I don't think anything will.

Perhaps. But it's still possible that Bush can win the popular vote and lose the Electoral College. This would be the ideal outcome. If the process is really messy and Kerry wins after several rounds of litigation, the country may decide to get rid of the Worst College in America.

*Note: This was not always the case. The Warren system of "one person, one vote" came out of a Supreme Court case in Georgia. I believe Atlanta residents sent one Congressman and some rural town with far fewer people also sent one representative. Not fair.

 

[toddjh]

I think it's fair to say that our disposition, the default position if you will, ought to be one that treats everyone as equals. Why are residents of Wyoming ~six times more influential than Californians? The burden of explaining these arbitrary differences resides with Electoral College apologists.

This apparent paradox results from the default assumption that the presidency should be determined by popular vote. The fact that residents of Wyoming appear to be more influential than residents of California is because you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The president is not determined by residents of either Wyoming or California, so the discrepancy in apparent influence is an illusion.

The Founders felt the same way about women and (to a large extent) white males who did not own property.

Now who's obsessing about the Founders? Like you said, let's stick to straight-up arguments and leave the White Guys of the 18th Century in the past.

Regardless, this paragraph does not follow from the previous one: The Electoral College is based, to some degree, on population. But it's an out-dated winner-take-all system where people indirectly choose their president.

The electoral college is based partially on population. The influence of population has grown with time, and I agree that should be resolved. I just disagree with how.

The winner-take-all system is determined on a state-by-state basis. I agree it's dumb. But that's separate from the existence of the electoral college in general.

With respect to the autocratic/guardianship argument in the above, how do we know these leaders will be enlightened?

That's a fundamental axiom of the republic. The entire system assumes that elected officials will be more capable of governing than the general population. If you don't believe that, the electoral college is the least of your problems.

And there's nothing autocratic about it. I believe strongly in representative government. I simply don't believe it should be entirely representative -- and unless you'd argue that, say, the Supreme Court should also be elected by the people, neither do you. Our disagreement is merely about what level of representation and what level of indirect appointment is appropriate.

What did the Founders think of slavery? Or gay marriage, for that matter?

I thought you wanted to leave the Founders out of this? Please, let's take your advice.

I fail see how abolishing the federal government would obstruct lawmakers from taking these regional concerns into consideration.

Surely you are aware of the division of powers between the legislature and the executive? It seems reasonable to me that, just as state governments were originally granted additional representation in the Senate, they should likewise have some presence in the determination of the president.

You seem to be taking the position that there is never any reason to distinguish between the people of a state and the government of that state. I believe both should have some influence in the federal government -- their interests are not always identical, and both groups would doubtless have legitimate points from time to time.

I think you're missing the point. People are still determining the president, it's just that some votes count for more than others.

No, state-appointed electors are determining the president. The way those electors are appointed is determined by each state, although they are universally tied to the popular vote in some way or another. Really, so many of these apparent contradictions go away when you let go of the illusion that you personally vote for the president. It's just not the case and never has been. Anyway, this is a separate issue from the existence of the electoral college; let's not get sidetracked.

We can take the same silly argument even further: Why should people have equal votes in terms of deciding their representatives in Congress*?

Because those are direct representatives, by design. The president is not. Direct representation rests upon the assumption that every person is equal.

Arbitrary geographic location should not empower or disempower citizens when it comes to fashioning the institutions that affect their lives.

Geographic location is incidental; it's state affiliation that matters. That is not arbitrary at all.

If I move to Wyoming or Utah my vote will count for more.

No, it will count exactly the same amount: not at all. Like I keep saying, the apparent contradictions stem from your insistence that you elect the president. Your state listens to your opinion when deciding how it will vote, certainly, but you personally have no involvement in the presidential election.

Jeremy

 

[aerosolben]

Rank voting is much preferred, in my opinion.

As a scholar of voting methods, I would like to point out that while rank voting (specifically, the instant runoff voting that is being referred to here), while preferable to the standard "first past the post" system, still has a number of problems, one of the largest being that it fails to select the Condorcet winner when it exists. The Condorcet winner is the candidate that is pair-wise preferred by a majority to every other candidate.

Wikipedia.org has a number of good articles on voting methods, if anyone is interested.

 

[Kopji]

Ok, I was wrong on the tax numbers. (Arizonans must like to complain, I've heard the "50/48" return numbers more than once.)

A site with some interesting data:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html

We have a lot of people that retire here, so that makes sense. (They pay less taxes). Regardless, I don't really see an obvious tax relationship with EC votes.

The article in Slate seems to miss the point that the US Senate is far more biased toward rural states than the EC. Isuppose I support the Republic rather than wanting to abolish it. (Sue me).

There is an EC benefit to smaller states in that a president and vice president must have a wide distribution of support. In fact, the EC introduces a kind of political filter that enforces this. There are not enough EC votes from a single region of the country to win.

I can sympathize with the problem of someone not winning the EC while winning the popular vote. Splitting the EC electors like Maine may be an answer.

I am not a huge fan of the two party system, but the EC seems to promote this.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

 

[Cain]

This apparent paradox results from the default assumption that the presidency should be determined by popular vote. The fact that residents of Wyoming appear to be more influential than residents of California is because you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole. The president is not determined by residents of either Wyoming or California, so the discrepancy in apparent influence is an illusion.

I'm afraid to say you're mistaken. More on this below.

Now who's obsessing about the Founders? Like you said, let's stick to straight-up arguments and leave the White Guys of the 18th Century in the past.

At first I thought you were being facetious with this comment; ten I realized you were being thickheaded:

I thought you wanted to leave the Founders out of this? Please, let's take your advice.

On the contrary, it's a point of comparison. The system itself, the one you're defending, does not come from high-minded principle. It's quintessentially idiosyncratic, which is one reason why foreigners react to our system with dumb "huhs".

The electoral college is based partially on population. The influence of population has grown with time, and I agree that should be resolved. I just disagree with how.

OK, I'm not sure why you would emphasize the word partially after I said the EC is based, "to some degree" on population. The fact that population has become more influential over-time highlights another absurdity. Even assuming the original intention behind the EC was defensible, the institution has outlived it's usefulness. (Compare with the seventh amendment.)

The winner-take-all system is determined on a state-by-state basis. I agree it's dumb. But that's separate from the existence of the electoral college in general.

Not really. Assuming Colorado (say) moves toward splitting its electoral votes (along with other states over time) this would be an improvement within the boundaries of the existing framework. Yet the framework itself remains morally and politically suspect.

That's a fundamental axiom of the republic. The entire system assumes that elected officials will be more capable of governing than the general population. If you don't believe that, the electoral college is the least of your problems.

Sigh. This harkens back to my comments on the Founders at various intervals throughout my post. There are different degrees of guardianship.

And there's nothing autocratic about it. I believe strongly in representative government. I simply don't believe it should be entirely representative -- and unless you'd argue that, say, the Supreme Court should also be elected by the people, neither do you. Our disagreement is merely about what level of representation and what level of indirect appointment is appropriate.

Are you still serious? We don't directly elect the Sec. of State, or the Sec. of <strike>War</strike> Defense, or members of the Supreme Court. Should we? I doubt it. Comparing these roles to the presidency is specious for reasons that should be intuitive.

Let's also be clear on another matter: you're not in favor of representative government. You (apparently) believe some should be represented at the expense of others on the basis of arbitrary geographical position (call it membership to a social construct -- a state -- if you must).

Surely you are aware of the division of powers between the legislature and the executive? It seems reasonable to me that, just as state governments were originally granted additional representation in the Senate, they should likewise have some presence in the determination of the president.

No, you're lost in the antebellum period. The Senate, as I've maintained, is undemocratic, unrepresnetative, unjust body.

In reply to the following, "I think you're missing the point. People are still determining the president, it's just that some votes count for more than others", you wrote:

No, state-appointed electors are determining the president.

The actual electors today have no room to decide the presidency as they please. They're figureheads.

The way those electors are appointed is determined by each state, although they are universally tied to the popular vote in some way or another. Really, so many of these apparent contradictions go away when you let go of the illusion that you personally vote for the president. It's just not the case and never has been. Anyway, this is a separate issue from the existence of the electoral college; let's not get sidetracked.

This is symptomatic of the problem -- that some votes count for more than others. The fact that people do not (directly) vote for the president is precisely the problem.

Because those are direct representatives, by design. The president is not. Direct representation rests upon the assumption that every person is equal.

You consistently fail to explicitlty address the central concern: The assumption in favor of equality is right. Those who want to argue that votes should not be counted equally must produce a good reason.

Now I can argue, as many people did in the past, that women should not have the right to vote. One adds that just because women cannot vote does not mean they're totally unrepresented. They can still exercise influence over their husbands, brothers, and fathers. Direct representation rests upon that absurd assumption that every person is equal. Now perhaps gender is a compelling factor against females having formal representation; or maybe we can limit their voting power to half their numbers. Regardless, the assumption for equality is correct, and policies in favor of recalibrating or redistributing influence requires an argument (a pretty good one, too).

Geographic location is incidental; it's state affiliation that matters. That is not arbitrary at all.

No, it will count exactly the same amount: not at all. Like I keep saying, the apparent contradictions stem from your insistence that you elect the president. Your state listens to your opinion when deciding how it will vote, certainly, but you personally have no involvement in the presidential election.

*sigh*Are you really this foolish? Yes, strictly speaking, my vote does not count because an elector -- sometime in mid-December I believe -- actually casts the vote that decides the presidency. There's a one minute segment about it on the evening news. But as I said, these electors are essentially powerless. The citizens of Wyoming and Utah decide for their electors. The problem is the distribution of these electoral votes.

These "apparent contradictions" and "illusions" are a product of your own troubled imagination. Our weird state system, or even the current world system of nation-states, is a rather absurd and arbitrary expression of social imagination. People who view themselves as "Californians" or only slightly more silly than "Americans". The trend has been toward a nice global cosmpolitan order; citizens of the world.

 

[toddjh]

On the contrary, it's a point of comparison. The system itself, the one you're defending, does not come from high-minded principle. It's quintessentially idiosyncratic, which is one reason why foreigners react to our system with dumb "huhs".

I'm not surprised that people who are completely unfamiliar with our government would be confused by parts of it. Argument from (dubious) authority.

Not really. Assuming Colorado (say) moves toward splitting its electoral votes (along with other states over time) this would be an improvement within the boundaries of the existing framework. Yet the framework itself remains morally and politically suspect.

You seem unable to separate these issues; the electoral college can exist regardless of how the votes are cast in each state. And what do you mean by "not really?" It's explicit in the Constitution that the nature of the electors is a matter for each state. It couldn't be more clear.

Are you still serious? We don't directly elect the Sec. of State, or the Sec. of <strike>War</strike> Defense, or members of the Supreme Court. Should we? I doubt it. Comparing these roles to the presidency is specious for reasons that should be intuitive.

Spell them out for me. You have this idea that the president should be another representative of the people, like Congress. That's a popular idea these days, but popularity does not make it right. I'm still waiting to hear from you why the presidency should be determined by popular vote. Like a creationist attacking evolution, you seem to have little to say in support of your own position.

Let's also be clear on another matter: you're not in favor of representative government. You (apparently) believe some should be represented at the expense of others on the basis of arbitrary geographical position (call it membership to a social construct -- a state -- if you must).

No, I am a strict advocate of one person, one vote representation. It's called Congress. The president is not a representative of the people directly, never has been, and was never intended to be.

The actual electors today have no room to decide the presidency as they please. They're figureheads.

That's patently false. Last election, an elector from D.C. left the ballot blank in protest. This year, it's likely that a Republican elector will jump ship and vote for Kerry. There are laws in some states that specify how an elector should cast his vote, but as far as I know they've never been enforced.

And of course the vast majority of electors vote the way they're expected to -- that's why they were chosen!

This is symptomatic of the problem -- that some votes count for more than others. The fact that people do not (directly) vote for the president is precisely the problem.

You seem to have some difficulty separating the way things work from the way you think they should work. If you want to argue that the president should be determined by popular vote, go ahead -- so far, I haven't really seen you offer a substantive defense of that position. I might even agree with you, if you can convince me. But in the meantime, it shows a clear misunderstanding of how our government works to imply that the people currently elect the president in any way, shape, or form. As far as I'm aware, there's not even any dispute about it: the Constitution is crystal clear that the states elect the president, through the electoral college, and that the people have absolutely nothing to do with it directly.

That's why it's so strange that you keep talking about how "unfair" it is that one person's vote counts more than another. To continue my earlier metaphor, it's rather like a fundamentalist trying to scare an atheist into believing in God by threatening him with hell: you don't seem to understand that your arguments will convince only those who already agree with you. Since I am aware that no person's vote determines the presidency directly, I am not swayed by illusory arguments that these votes, which are really only information-gathering devices by the states, are in any way unfair.

Now, if a state tried to cast its electoral votes in a way which completely disregarded public opinion, now that I would object to. But it's never happened, of course, and it never will.

You consistently fail to explicitlty address the central concern: The assumption in favor of equality is right. Those who want to argue that votes should not be counted equally must produce a good reason.

Votes should be counted equally, if the election in question is for a direct representative. You and I are in complete, 100 percent agreement on that. We simply disagree about whether the president should be a direct representative. I think the state governments should have some influence in that process, since they are probably even more likely to be affected by the choice than the average person on the street.

Now I can argue, as many people did in the past, that women should not have the right to vote. One adds that just because women cannot vote does not mean they're totally unrepresented. They can still exercise influence over their husbands, brothers, and fathers. Direct representation rests upon that absurd assumption that every person is equal.

This paragraph is irrelevant. I am not proposing, and have never proposed, a government in which the people do not have direct, one person, one vote representation at the highest level. I simply disagree with you about whether the president should be part of that representation. I hope my position is now clear, and I won't have to respond to this argument another time.

*sigh*Are you really this foolish? Yes, strictly speaking, my vote does not count because an elector -- sometime in mid-December I believe -- actually casts the vote that decides the presidency. There's a one minute segment about it on the evening news. But as I said, these electors are essentially powerless. The citizens of Wyoming and Utah decide for their electors.

No, the legislatures of Wyoming and Utah decide for their electors. They have seen fit to consult the people in making that decision -- a wise move, of course, and yes, it has the effect of making the people responsible within each state. But the people of the United States, as a whole, do not elect the president in any manner whatsoever. All of the problems you see with unfairness are a result of your inability, or refusal, to accept that the states, not the people, elect the president.

These "apparent contradictions" and "illusions" are a product of your own troubled imagination.

There's no need to get insulting. My position is clearly spelled out in the Constitution. Whether you like it or not -- hell, whether I like it or not -- it's demonstrably not a product of my imagination. Just read the damn thing. Article II, Section 1.

Our weird state system, or even the current world system of nation-states, is a rather absurd and arbitrary expression of social imagination. People who view themselves as "Californians" or only slightly more silly than "Americans". The trend has been toward a nice global cosmpolitan order; citizens of the world.

I agree the trend has been in that direction in many ways. I think it's premature to say that that system is preferable, however. I can see many advantages in maintaining sovereign nations -- even mutually beneficial advantages.

Jeremy

 

[Benguin]

Yes, that's right.

Although 'rank' has negative connotations to me. You should say, "Preferential voting is much preferred, in my opinion" and watch peoples' eyeballs spin in their sockets.

To be fair they are electing their head of state, and you do use the same system for selecting that one that we in the UK do. Same person in fact.

No, wait, you did get a choice on the issue a while back ...

 

[Mr Manifesto]

To be fair they are electing their head of state, and you do use the same system for selecting that one that we in the UK do. Same person in fact.

No, wait, you did get a choice on the issue a while back ...

Do not get me ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ started on that.

 

[Benguin]

Do not get me (censored)ing started on that.

Chain yanking time ... maybe as you've voted to keep them and we haven't we should send them over for you lot to look after.

Better duck out and stop derailing!

 

[daenku32]

I'd be ok with EC in two conditions:

1. Electoral votes divided to canditates proportionally.
2. Electoral college votes in state based purely on population.

and of course the requirement to have no less that 50% of all electoral votes casted in order to win.


And yes, to me President is a direct representative. He speaks on behalf of ENTIRE nation and every single american individual in affairs with the rest of the world. And considering that he is the most powerfull person in the world with the powers of Executive Order, I prefer his decisions to be at least somewhat backed by a true majority rather than a simply minority.

 

[toddjh]

And yes, to me President is a direct representative. He speaks on behalf of ENTIRE nation and every single american individual in affairs with the rest of the world.

But he also speaks for the states, in addition to the people who live in them.

Do you similarly think the Supreme Court should be elected, then? After all, they decide legal issues on behalf of the ENTIRE nation and every single American individual. If you accept that the Supreme Court should be appointed, then you acknowledge that direct election is not always appropriate even when the office in question is very important and affects the lives of every person.

And considering that he is the most powerfull person in the world with the powers of Executive Order, I prefer his decisions to be at least somewhat backed by a true majority rather than a simply minority.

I'd prefer his decisions to be based on the law and what is reasonable -- majority or minority be damned. Like I've said, just look at some of the crazy things the majority believes. They can't be trusted to make policy or have an inordinate amount of control over who does. They have their say in Congress. They don't need direct control over the executive, too.

Jeremy

 

[Ladewig]

I don't see how the current system is less "mob rule" than direct voting.

If three candidates run for president in a particular state and the enough precincts vote overwhelmingly for candidate A that he receives 51% of all votes cast before the other precincts finish counting, then the election officials can say, "we're not going to waste money counting the rest of the votes to see what percentages candidates B and C earned because our electoral votes are already cast."

 

[toddjh]

I don't see how the current system is less "mob rule" than direct voting.

Well, for starters, it puts control into the hands of the states rather than the people. All the states have seen fit to tie their electoral votes to the outcome of the statewide election, which is a smart move right now. In the future, though, if things get weird, they might want to alter the way the system is set up. The electoral college is one of the only powers the state governments have left in the federal arena, now that the Senate is elected directly too.

Edited to add: the electoral college also has some unintended side benefits. The biggest one to me at the moment is that it would make it much easier to institute instant-runoff voting (or something similar). If the election were handled at the federal level, it would take a Constitutional amendment, as well as a lot of political pressure, to get a new voting system up and running, making it a virtual impossibility. By leaving the election in the hands of the states, however, it could happen with much less fuss. It could start in one or two trial states, and expand from there. The system adds flexibility.

If three candidates run for president in a particular state and the enough precincts vote overwhelmingly for candidate A that he receives 51% of all votes cast before the other precincts finish counting, then the election officials can say, "we're not going to waste money counting the rest of the votes to see what percentages candidates B and C earned because our electoral votes are already cast."

I'm no expert on how elections are handled locally, but does this ever happen?

Jeremy

 

[daenku32]

I would be open to public election of judges to SCOTUS.

And I seriously doubt that the differentiation of opinions from one state to the next matter at all to the rest of the world. To them, whatever the President says goes for all of america.

I also believe that multiple party system would be better than a simple two party system. And EC only works against that idea.