Elections and the Electoral College

[Imran Siddiqui]

For those who say that the candidates will ignore the farmers of america, when was the last time you saw any presidential candidate go to some rural town in Alabama?

Actually both Bush and Gore went to rural towns... I'm sure one of them was in Alabama.

It would also help end this silly State vs. State crap since we are a single nation

Actually we are a country (which is different than a nation), and futhermore the states make up the country, not the other way around.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned

But, our founding fathers intended these two extra votes to be decisive in a close election. Now, you may assume your ideology of one man one vote is preferable to the plan given us by the founding fathers, but I am reluctant to rush into change for the sake of change.

Its been 200 years. There have been at least three elections like the last one. There is no way to call this rushing into things.

Your statement that system did not work in the last election is pure crap.

Its completely true.

It worked perfectly as intended.

It was still a travesty. We are not a collection of independent states and have not been for a very long time.

Apparently, though, you disagree with the result.

I would disagree who ever won. I have disagreed with the Electoral College for decades. The latest travesty is merely one more.

But the conclusion you draw that the wrong man was elected president is simply elevating your personal choice for president or your personal preference for one man one vote into a constitutional principle.

It is a constitutional principle according to the Supreme Court. Whenever nothing else in the Constitution applies such as the Electoral College or the Senate the Supreme Court applies the principle of one man one vote.

The founding fathers deliberately set out to establish a system of checks and balances. They deliberately chose the electoral college to have two extra votes for a state's senators to assure that the election for president would be a balanced mixture of people power an state power.

They made a mistake. It wasn't a bad mistake when the US was first formed since the States involved where to some extent sovereign. It has been 200 years and we are not in the same position anymore. Change is long overdue.

This system has stood the test of time and should not be changed, IMHO.

It has failed three times that I know of. The nation has stood despite it not because of the Electoral College.

Besides, George Bush has proven to be one the greatest presidents this country has ever had. I doubt Gore would have done even half as well considering his known cowardice.

Known cowardice? He was in Viet Nam and Bush hid in the National Guard. Bush has not been a good President from what I can see. All I see is the usual war popularity. Wait a bit before you go around calling people great presidents. Especially one with a war involved.

There is no way so far that I would put either Bush over Teddy and so far Dubya has been inferior to his father who did an excellent job in forging the coalition in the Gulf War. Can't say as much for him economicly though.

In any case the specific winner is your bugaboo here not mine. I am argueing against the Electoral College and its iniquities not for or against Bush and I pointed that out allready. You seem to want to use a red herring to avoid what I really said.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by red_jon
Blue = Conservative (right-wing)
Red = Labour (supposedly neither)
Yellow = Liberal Democrats (leftist)
Green = Green
Orange = Scottish independant

I never knew Plaid Cymru was sub-ordinate to the Greens.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
The electoral college was established as a voting club. Since travel time took a long time back in the day, no candidate could reach out to everyone. (no media, no airplanes, no trains )Therefore, the Electoral College was designed to vote for the people of that state. There is no more need today of this system.

Agreed. It modelled on the Roman system. However, the addition of two extra votes for a state's senators has nothing to do with "remoteness."

[Imran Siddiqui]

There have been at least three elections like the last one.

Name the three. AFAIK, only Tiden v. Hayes in 1876 was the only other election when the person with fewer popular votes won the election.

And btw, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to in the last election. The person that won the electoral college won. The popular vote is simply a modern contrivance that the media likes.

We are not a collection of independent states and have not been for a very long time.

Our states are more independant than any other provinces in the Western world. It is one of the defining things about the United States, the states have REAL power, such as their own independant court systems and legislature that can make significant laws.

It is a constitutional principle according to the Supreme Court. Whenever nothing else in the Constitution applies such as the Electoral College or the Senate the Supreme Court applies the principle of one man one vote.

And in the Constitutional principles stated, the founders decided 'one man, one vote' was not to be forwarded, and rightly so, might I add. The states have power and the Senate and the EC are part and parcel of that power given. It is because of that, that the rights of the states have not been raped by the federal government.

[Ned]

Well, Ethelred, next you will be asking to abolish Congress because the president is all we need given that he was elected by the people, one man, one vote.

[Capt Dizle]

The electoral college system protects the rights of the people against the federal government. The people are safer from federal tyranny when the individual states are strong. Votes cast in a state are certified by the state, individuals from that state are electors, and those electors cast the final votes.

If a popular vote were held without limiting the number of votes a state could put into the national pot there would be greater opportunity for election fraud (mostly likely by federal incumbants).

For example if California has 55 votes and Colorado 3 then the people of California know that there votes are protected against voter fraud in Colorado at least insofar as the most votes that can be stolen would be 3.

If a popular vote was held, the Colorado vote could be greatly overstated and it could swing a close election. California voters would have to take the word of Colorado since none of their representatives would have the opportunity to oversee the election in Colorado.

Thus the integrity of the election is enhanced by the electoral safeguard. It ensures that the peoples vote in one state is proportional to the others. It limits the opportunity for fraud and thus is demostratably superior to a popular vote.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well, Ethelred, next you will be asking to abolish Congress because the president is all we need given that he was elected by the people, one man, one vote.

My district is 90% Democrat, I don't have the same vote as a district that is 50-50! Waaaah!

[Drake Tungsten]

Maybe we should declare the part of the Constitution that sets up the Electoral College unconstitutional...

[Capt Dizle]

The United States is a representative democracy. Congress was designed to have two houses, one of which gives each state equal votes irregardless of population. If you take the position that the electoral college is wrong, you would have to lobby for the elimination of the Senate on the same grounds.

And you will be redesigning the basics of the Republic. It would require an amendment to the constitution, which, ironically, requires a majority of votes of states, not of the people.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

Imran:

The second one was the election of 1824. IIRC, on Election Day, Jackson got more popular and EC votes than Adams. The election went to Congress, where Henry Clay threw his support to Adams.

I think the third would be 1888 (Cleveland vs. Harrison). Harrison got fewer popular votes than Cleveland, but won anyway. (I'm not sure if this one counts, since Cleveland didn't have a simple majority in the popular vote.)

[Capt Dizle]

Yes, and that brings to mind two questions? What happens when no candidate gets sufficient electoral votes and second, if D!ck Cheney dies now, who is vice president?

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The electoral college system protects the rights of the people against the federal government. The people are safer from federal tyranny when the individual states are strong. Votes cast in a state are certified by the state, individuals from that state are electors, and those electors cast the final votes.

If a popular vote were held without limiting the number of votes a state could put into the national pot there would be greater opportunity for election fraud (mostly likely by federal incumbants).

For example if California has 55 votes and Colorado 3 then the people of California know that there votes are protected against voter fraud in Colorado at least insofar as the most votes that can be stolen would be 3.

If a popular vote was held, the Colorado vote could be greatly overstated and it could swing a close election. California voters would have to take the word of Colorado since none of their representatives would have the opportunity to oversee the election in Colorado.

Thus the integrity of the election is enhanced by the electoral safeguard. It ensures that the peoples vote in one state is proportional to the others. It limits the opportunity for fraud and thus is demostratably superior to a popular vote.

Excellent point! Bravo! I knew there was a problem with a nationwide election.

[Vlad Antlerkov]

1) Election goes to Congress, as it did in 1824 and 1876.

2) Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert. Problem is, given that the House is so tight now, he might defer to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Strom Thurmond. After Thurmond, it'd be Colin Powell, the Secretary of State; Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary; Rumsfeld, the defense secretary; and then John Ashcroft, the AG. (Don't know after that.)

[Ned]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
Yes, and that brings to mind two questions? What happens when no candidate gets sufficient electoral votes and second, if D!ck Cheney dies now, who is vice president?

If Cheney dies, the Pres. nominates a replacement that is confirmed by Congress.

If no one get a majority of electors, the issue is decided by the House voting by states, one state, one vote.

Sorry Ethelred. Your one man, one vote principle shot down one more time.

[Capt Dizle]

Correct answers Ned. I am impressed.

[MBD]

Originally posted by Vlad Antlerkov
2) Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert. Problem is, given that the House is so tight now, he might defer to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, Strom Thurmond. After Thurmond, it'd be Colin Powell, the Secretary of State; Paul O'Neill, the Treasury Secretary; Rumsfeld, the defense secretary; and then John Ashcroft, the AG. (Don't know after that.)

Actually, the current President Pro Tem of the Senate is Robert Byrd.
Then the succession goes through the cabinet in the order of seniority of the departments, which is why they always send one of the cabinet members to that 'undisclosed location' when everybody gets together to listen to the State of the Union speech.
After that, if necessary, it goes through the members of Congress of either chamber in order of seniority.
Recently there was talk about changing things, so that the succession stays more within the administration before going over to members of congress.

[Capt Dizle]

Yes, you are right about Bryd, Thurman is not in the chain. But as Ned pointed out, the chain of sucession only applies to the death of the president (or impeachment, resignation).

[Capt Dizle]

So, we could have Newt Gingrich as VP if Cheney croaks.

[Capt Dizle]

Not exactly on topic but I think there is an amendment that says that if a citizen of the US accepts a title of nobility from another country that the individual is stripped of their citizenship.

I have been thinking of asking Tom Clancy about that since he had Jack Ryan knighted by the Brits and later becoming President after a terrorist attack.

Interesting of course that in Clancy's book, a Japanese pilot, angered by a loss by the Japanese in a war, crashes an airliner into Congress during a joint session wiping out most of the government. We say that truth is stranger than fiction but in this case Clancy might have actually given terrorists the idea for the 9/11 attacks.

I know that I thought about that book on 9/11. Especially since in another book Clancy has a Islamic terrorists detonating a nuke in Denver that was supposedly built from an Israeli nuke that was lost in the 1973 war. I think that book was "The sum of all fears".

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Name the three. AFAIK, only Tiden v. Hayes in 1876 was the only other election when the person with fewer popular votes won the election.

Well that is two right there.

Now for some more.

From http://www.howstuffworks.com/question472.htm

1824: John Quincy Adams received more than 38,000 fewer votes than Andrew Jackson, but neither candidate won a majority of the Electoral College. Adams was awarded the presidency when the election was thrown to the House of Representatives.

1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland, but won the electoral vote by 65

You know Imran you were right its not three,

ITS FOUR.

Thank you for this opportunity to show that its more broken than I said.

And btw, the system worked exactly as it was supposed to in the last election. The person that won the electoral college won. The popular vote is simply a modern contrivance that the media likes.

It is still a travesty.

Working like it was designed to is not always a good thing. Especially in this case.

The popular vote is not a contrivance. It is in keeping with the concept of one man one vote.

Our states are more independant than any other provinces in the Western world. It is one of the defining things about the United States, the states have REAL power, such as their own independant court systems and legislature that can make significant laws.

They are not sovereign. The President should represent the people and not the states. We have the Senate for that allready.

And in the Constitutional principles stated, the founders decided 'one man, one vote' was not to be forwarded, and rightly so, might I add.

The founders did not set up the Electoral College to avoid one man one vote. They did it because they feared a favorite son effect and a lack of national knowledge which has not been a problem for a very long time.

Few people still think of themselve as citizens of their state first and citizens of the US second.

The states have power and the Senate and the EC are part and parcel of that power given. It is because of that, that the rights of the states have not been raped by the federal government.

Just another States Rights over human rights arguement. Why should a synthetic entity have more value than real people?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Well, Ethelred, next you will be asking to abolish Congress because the president is all we need given that he was elected by the people, one man, one vote.

I guess I am not needed on this thread.

Ned is fully capable of inventing my postition for me all on his own.

Thank you Ned. I never knew I felt that way. I guess I must have made a mistake each and every time that I said on this very thread that the Senate is allready representing the States.

Watch it Ned or it won't just be Frogger quoting you in their sig.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Maybe we should declare the part of the Constitution that sets up the Electoral College unconstitutional...

I would settle for a doing something legal. A constitutional amendment. There has allready been dealing with the Electoral College. Its past time for another.

[Drake Tungsten]

a lack of national knowledge which has not been a problem for a very long time.

I'm sorry, but I found this comment hilarious. Americans are so informed!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
The United States is a representative democracy. Congress was designed to have two houses, one of which gives each state equal votes irregardless of population. If you take the position that the electoral college is wrong, you would have to lobby for the elimination of the Senate on the same grounds.

I am under no such obligation. Thank you for joining Ned in giving other their opinions for them.

And you will be redesigning the basics of the Republic. It would require an amendment to the constitution, which, ironically, requires a majority of votes of states, not of the people.

Which would certainly legitimize such an amendment.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned


If Cheney dies, the Pres. nominates a replacement that is confirmed by Congress.

Correct. That is how Gerald Ford became VP and later President.

Sorry Ethelred. Your one man, one vote principle shot down one more time.

Hardly. Its the Supreme Courts principle as well as I pointed out allready in all cases where the Constition does not say otherwise.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
So, we could have Newt Gingrich as VP if Cheney croaks.

Jimmy are you sure you want to continue posting on this thread. That was a clear indication of just how far out of your depth you are.

Bribetaker Newt hasn't been in an elected office for quite some time now. You are three years out of date.

From the Bribetakers own site.

http://newt.org/index.php?submenu=ab...k=About%20Newt

About Newt
Newt Gingrich is the CEO of The Gingrich Group, a communications, and management-consulting firm with offices in Atlanta and Washington, DC. Speaker Gingrich serves as a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC and as a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California. He is a news and political analyst for the Fox News Channel. Newt also serves as honorary Chairman of the NanoBusiness Alliance and is a member of the Advisory Board of the Museum of the Rockies.

A highly sought after public speaker and world-renowned strategist, Gingrich served as a Member of Congress for twenty years and as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995-1999.

[Capt Dizle]

There are plenty of practical reasons for not using the popular vote. We have learned that votes are never tabulated correctly. This will probably always be a problem. Dead people still vote.

The Bush/Gore popular vote was very close, within the margin of error. From the crazy goings on in Florida we have seen what can happen with votes being challenged. Multiply that by perhaps 3 or 4 states in a close election and the result would be no better than we had in the last election and possibly much worse. If some of the public is not convinced of Bush's legitimacy with recounts in Florida, how would they be assured if we had suffered recounts in every state where the vote is close, or where someone can come up with any sort of challenge.

It would be a zoo.

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Jimmy are you sure you want to continue posting on this thread. That was a clear indication of just how far out of your depth you are.

Bribetaker Newt hasn't been in an elected office for quite some time now. You are three years out of date.

Are you assuming that if Bush nominated Newt that he wouldn't be confirmed?

Isn't it comforting to build sandcastles on oceanless beaches?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Quote:

a lack of national knowledge which has not been a problem for a very long time.

I'm sorry, but I found this comment hilarious. Americans are so informed!

Well in comparison to the past when people only were incompletely ignorant about was going on in their own state and completly ignorant about the rest of the US. Now people have ample opportunity to be incompletely ignorant about the whole country.

Perhaps I should have said the information is readily available. You can lead a Right Winger to knowledge but you can't make him think.