You're an American if..

[Forbidden Donut]

lets not forget that a majority of the electorial college voted for the current president. Which is really the only thing that matters, since we dont live in a democracy but in a republic. Hope you learned something boys and girls.


later,

I'm well aware of both of those things, but I think someone would be hard pressed to come up with a reason to keep the electoral college. The best argument I've heard FOR it, is that it forces (to an extent) the candidate to perhaps campaign/focus on smaller states a little more. Splitting the population of North Dakota in a pure popular vote has less impact than splitting in with the Electoral College. But then again, this is the case with the large states as well, and the effect is only larger.

I, for one, would like to see the Electoral College gone. I just can't see it doing anything useful anymore.

 

[RussSchultz]

heh, sorry...I didn't say what I meant. Let me change that to "a majority of the United States who voted, voted against our current president."

I keep on forgetting the apathy factor.

There hasn't been a president to win a majority of the votes since George Bush Sr.
2000 Bush Jr. without plurality
1996 Clinton by plurality
1992 Clinton by plurality
1988 Bush Sr. by majority
1984 Reagan by a landslide
1980 Reagan by a majority
1976 Carter (D) with a bare majority (50.06%)
1972 Nixon (R) by a landslide
1968 Nixon by a plurality
1964 Johnson (D) by a landslide
1960 Kennedy (D) by a bare plurality. 49.72% to 49.55%.

http://www.uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/frametextj.html

 

[RussSchultz]

6. If the people that get in power have a lower IQ than the difference in the number of "votes" required to get them there.

Ummm, perhaps you should rethink that. Work through the math of a landslide victory and let us know how your little joke works out.

 

[epicstruggle]

Russ, i dont like the electoral college either, but having a pure majority wins sucks too. Politicians would stop working for votes in small states and concentrate on maybe 10 states. I think the solution lies in:
keeping electoral college system, but
give 1/2 the votes to the winner of the state
the rest split it evenly amont the top finishers.
This would make even states that heavily lean in one direction or another valuable since you could still pick up a few votes.

later,

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I, for one, would like to see the Electoral College gone. I just can't see it doing anything useful anymore.

Then I presume you don't agree with the concept of the sovreignity of states?

I, for one, want to see the Electoral College remain.

 

[Kristof]

French fries do come from France. They were first popularized in America by GIs returning from France after WWI. (Although they were apparently originally invented in Belgium.)

Whoohoo, Belgium rules... (guess who is from Belgium originally )
The french just made the Belgian fries thinner and longer IIRC... yeah wow... innovation...

K-

 

[RussSchultz]

Russ, i dont like the electoral college either,

I never said I liked or disliked it. I merely pointed out that winning by a majority has not been common in recent elections.

 

[Forbidden Donut]

I, for one, would like to see the Electoral College gone. I just can't see it doing anything useful anymore.

Then I presume you don't agree with the concept of the sovreignity of states?

I, for one, want to see the Electoral College remain.

If you can explain to me how the electoral college helps the sovereignty of states, then perhaps I agree with you. If anything, I would say that it hurts it, simply due to the fact that the state's vote isn't accurately being represented (a 51/49 split ends up going all one direction instead of remaining 51/49)

 

[Forbidden Donut]

Once again, Russ, you're right. I guess I'll just say "win the popular vote" and leave it at that

 

[Joe DeFuria]

If you can explain to me how the electoral college helps the sovereignty of states, then perhaps I agree with you.

Sure.

In a system where the states would have perfectly equal sovreignity, every state would have an equal say in who becomes the President of the Federal Government.

California has no more say than Noth Dakota. They are pure equals. Just like Bill Gates is the "voting equal" of some jobless 18 year-old welfare recipient, even though it could be reasonably argued that Bill Gates "should" have more say.

In the 2000 election, Bush Won (IIRC) 31 individual states by popular vote, and Gore won 20 (including DC). So in a system where states are perfectly soverign, Bush won by a landslide. 31 "Individuals" chose Bush, and only 20 chose Gore.

In a federal government that is fundamentally built in large part as a federation of individually soverign states, that is a perfectly legitimate approach.

On the other hand, there is another perfectly legitimate approach: overall popular vote. These two approaches are both reasonable, and are also in direct contrast to one another.

The Electoral College is a comprimise to resolve the conflict, just as the bi-cameral houses in the legislature are.

Each state gets allotted so many votes based on population. Each state also gets 2 votes "just for being a state" in recognition of it's sovereignity. That means that in practice, smaller population states have higher proportion of votes to population, but less votes in in absolute sense.

The Electoral College worked fabulously, imo, in the 2000 election. Popular Votes wise, the contest was essentially a dead-heat. But Bush won a significant majority of the individual states. The fact that State Sovreignity is built into the Electoral College is exactly what pushed the electoral vote to Bush, and rightfully so.

If anything, I would say that it hurts it, simply due to the fact that the state's vote isn't accurately being represented (a 51/49 split ends up going all one direction instead of remaining 51/49)

The fact that it is NOT split up is precisely what aids the sovreignity of states. If you split up the electoral votes, you might as well just base the election on overall popular vote.

Edit: In other words, by splitting up the vote, you are aiding the soverigninty of individuals, rather than the soverignity of states.

 

[CosmoKramer]

That's nice and all Joe, but an electoral college is in no way required for such a system to work.

Also, some above seems to think that an electoral college is what makes you a republic. An electoral college is not a requirement for a republic.

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember from the 2000 election debacle that the members of the electoral college are free to vote for whomever they want, it's just that they normally follow the popular vote in their states. If that's true that's a huge disgrace to your system.

 

[Forbidden Donut]

Thanks for the explanation Joe. I guess I'm split on the issue. In a way, it helps the state sovereignty in the way you have just detailed. However, I've always felt that state sovereignty goes hand in hand with a state being adequately represented, and I don't feel that making a state go 100% one way or the other is an adequate representation. The state gets more representation (from the extra 2 electoral votes), but what is really being represented? A small majority's ideas? That just doesn't quite sit right. If there was perhaps a way to weight the popular vote slightly, and there are certainly easy ways to do this mathematically, then perhaps that would be the best of both worlds.

Another way to look at the electoral college is that, in essence, it makes some states WAY more important than others.

California has no more say than Noth Dakota. They are pure equals.

This simply isn't true. California has far more electoral votes than North Dakota, although I don't know the numbers off the top of my head.

On the other hand, I completely agree with the way congress is handled. They simply have the advantage of two bodies making the division of power between the people and the states much easier to come by.

My $.02 [/quote]

 

[Forbidden Donut]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember from the 2000 election debacle that the members of the electoral college are free to vote for whomever they want, it's just that they normally follow the popular vote in their states. If that's true that's a huge disgrace to your system.

No, you're right...and that's something I meant to mention and forgot to. The electoral vote can, in fact, be split. It just essentially never happens.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That's nice and all Joe, but an electoral college is in no way required for such a system to work.

Who said it was? The point is, the Electoral College is as good a comprimise between state and individual rights. (In practice, it has worked quite well as witnessed in the 2000 election.)

Also, some above seems to think that an electoral college is what makes you a republic. An electoral college is not a requirement for a republic.

Who above seems to think this?

There are an infinite number of ways to "configure" a Republic, just as there are an infinite number of ways to "implement" a democratic form of government.

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember from the 2000 election debacle that the members of the electoral college are free to vote for whomever they want, it's just that they normally follow the popular vote in their states. If that's true that's a huge disgrace to your system.

Interestingly, some states legislate how there electoral votes are cast, and some don't IIRC. (Another facet of the sovreignity of states and their rights.)

 

[RussSchultz]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember from the 2000 election debacle that the members of the electoral college are free to vote for whomever they want, it's just that they normally follow the popular vote in their states. If that's true that's a huge disgrace to your system.

Its only happened a few times in history.

Here's a few more details: http://www.issues2000.org/askme/electoral.htm

 

[CosmoKramer]

Who above seems to think this?

epicstruggle

Interestingly, some states legislate how there electoral votes are cast, and some don't IIRC. (Another facet of the sovreignity of states and their rights.)

Ok, that's slightly better, but not much. I get the federal approach (weight given to the fact that a state is a state), but the decision of the people should never be up for "interpretation" by anyone.

This system seems very archaic to me and it doesn't belong in any modern nation.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Its only happened a few times in history.

It doesn't really matter how many times it has happened, it is the principle of this "filter" that is a disgrace.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Who above seems to think this?

epicstruggle

That's not the impression I got at all. epicstruggle only said that in a republic, popular vote is not directly how things are done. (So the the elector college is not out of line with a republic.)

....but the decision of the people should never be up for "interpretation" by anyone.

I agree with that, though in practice no "rogue elector" has ever impacted the outcome of an election. Election 2000 was a golden opportunity for this to happen. And yet, it didn't.

This system sems very archaic to me and it doesn't belong in any modern nation.

In practice, it works very well. It would be interesting to see the legal fall-out if a rogue elector did in fact attempt to change an election by not voting for whom he was pledged to:

In 1887, Congress enacted a law that gave the states almost exclusive power to resolve all controversies regarding the selection of presidential electors and that made mandatory, except in cases in which electors vote 'irregularly', the acceptance by Congress of all certificates of election duly made by the states.

As with most things, changes tend to occur when the system is abused or fails in practice. (Witness, change of voting machines in Florida )

 

[Joe DeFuria]

It doesn't really matter how many times it has happened, it is the principle of this "filter" that is a disgrace.

It's not a disgrace.

It's the effect of giving the STATES the right to vote their electors as they see fit.

 

[CosmoKramer]

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree then.