Thread: The Electoral College Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=024141
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Since we keep coming back to this on the election thread and because it's a bit of a tangent in its own right I decided to start a separate thread on this subject.
A good place to start is by explaining what it is, how it's supposed to work, how it actually works, and whether it's still a good way to pick the U.S. President a quarter-millennium after it was invented.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Could somebody explain something for me? It may be already covered, but this thread has now reached 70 pages and I haven't been following it. I tried to find out about it four years ago, but didn't succeed. All political cultures have things that are mystifying to foreigners.
What is the electoral college for?
Or is it just there because it's there?
I know it chooses the President, but why not just count up all the votes? That would give a more reliable result and prevent the situation where a person can become President with less votes than the loser.
It doesn't, so far as I can see, carry on doing anything the rest of the time. Isn't it the two houses of the Congress that do that? So the President doesn't have to rely on the support of his electors to carry out his policies.
Who belongs to it? Are they important people, or party nonentities, chosen because they can spare two or three days off work to fly to wherever it meets, vote for their two names and then fly home again?
Does it actually assemble, or can they send in their votes by post?
First, the easy stuff. The electoral college picks the U.S. President and Vice President. That's what they, and that's all they do. It has no other function. The actual electors are usually obscure members of political parties who hold no other elected or appointed position within the government. In the modern (meaning post-Civil War) era, the electors are chosen via popular vote on a (mostly) state-by-state level. (Nebraska and Maine subdivide their electors by Congressional District.) So each party will have a slate of electors listed and ready to go on election night.
The electors do actually meet to cast their votes, though not as a single body. They meet in their respective state capitals to vote, and the certified results are then sent to the U.S. Congress. Once they've cast and certified their votes, they cease being electors and go back to being ordinary citizens. After the Congress tabulates the certified results from each state, the President and Vice President are officially elected, provided one candidate has a majority of the electoral votes.
So that's how it works. The other question that's usually asked is why it was invented in the first place?
Part of it has to do with the Founders' distrust of the masses and popular sentiment. There's no way to force an elector to vote the way the citizens (or, in the pre-Civil War era, the state legislature) who picked him expect him to vote. So the Founders thought an elite group of wise men (and when they were designing the system they expected all the participants to be men) would be able to derail a truly disasterous choice by picking someone else.
Of course, a much larger reason the Founders didn't want to rely on the popular vote was the influence of America's Peculiar Institution. When the Constitution was being drafted there was the question of whether slaves should be counted as population for the purposes of taxation and congressional representation. The northern states, where slavery less common, argued that slaves should count as population for the purposes of assessing a state's tax obligations but not for purposes of representation. The southern states, which had much larger enslaved populations, argued the reverse: that slaves should count for representation but not for tax purposes. This was eventually hammered out in the Three-Fifths Compromise where a slave counted as 3/5 of a person for the purposes of both Congressional representation and taxation.
Of course, regardless of how they were counted for the purposes of representation or taxation slaves still didn't get to vote. This would put the slaveholding states at a disadvantage (from their perspective) in electing the President if the process were done on the basis of collecting the popular vote on a national scale. On the other hand, giving each state a say in the presidential election proportional to its Congressional representation would have those 3/5th slaves "baked in". And the system worked very well (from the perspective of southern slaveholders) for quite some time, as the first fifteen American Presidents were either southern slaveholders themselves or politically beholden to the interests of southern slaveholders.
Of course, this is not much of a concern since the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. So there's no real practical reason to retain the electoral college beyond the weight of tradition and the incredible difficulty involved in amending the U.S. Constitution.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
As an added perspective to this, it should be remembered that this system was developed by people who were emerging from British rule. The Colonists did not want a king, but recognized that, just for adminsitrative purposes, there should be a single figurehead of government.
Rather like a Prime Minister. The PM is not directly elected by the populace, but selected (as a gross oversimplification) based on the results of those who WERE elected by the people.
I believe that the original idea was that, in much the same way, the President would be selected by Congress. But then it was felt that this would tend to make the President too beholden to Congress and too likely to become even more of an "old boys network" than it is. So, instead of having Congress do the selecting, it was decided to have "Electors" who would be selected by the State--in the exact same amount as they had representation in Congress. And it was also made a rule that an Elector could not BE a member of Congress.
So I would argue that, at its heart, the creation of the Electoral College owes its inspiration to how the Prime Minister was selected.
As has been pointed out, it may well have outlived its function, but it is part of the U.S. Constitution (in Article 2, IIRC)--so we can only get rid of it by amending the Constitution. It has been tried before but has never quite made it--perhaps because the need to fix it has generally seemed more academic than practical. After all, it is a pretty rare occurrence that the Electoral College vote does not reflect the popular vote. The 2000 election, of course. And I think there was one other time. In most other cases, the winner of the College is also the winner of the popular vote (including the most recent election).
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
I have never been particularly impressed by the intelligence of Republicans. However, they'd have to be dumber than dirt to agree to changing the Constitution on this. Currently, the small states get much more say per voter than do the large states. My recollection is that each Wyoming vote is worth more than 4 California votes in terms of the electoral college. Why would the least populous states ever agree to changing this system? They whine now about being ignored.
--Tom Clune
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
I have never been particularly impressed by the intelligence of Republicans. However, they'd have to be dumber than dirt to agree to changing the Constitution on this. Currently, the small states get much more say per voter than do the large states. My recollection is that each Wyoming vote is worth more than 4 California votes in terms of the electoral college. Why would the least populous states ever agree to changing this system? They whine now about being ignored.
--Tom Clune
I once had a letter from my congressman* telling me how the EC is such a good thing for this reason - as a small state, my vote is worth so much more than people from big states!
but that's BS. I want my vote worth exactly the same as a voter from Cali or NY. and no question, states like mine will probably always support the ES exactly because it is unfair. But how can we claim real democracy** if people's votes are unequal? what's wrong with One (hu)Man, One Vote?
*I was a teen at the time. this has been pissing me off for years.
** yeah, I know, it's a stretch. but I think we do try.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
Actually it is to the advantage of the large states as well: by assigning their votes in a block rather than proportionally they force candidates to pay more attention to them than to other states. That's why you heard a lot more news about the race in Ohio than the one in New Hampshire, because if Romney couldn't win the former, the latter didn't matter.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
...My recollection is that each Wyoming vote is worth more than 4 California votes...
A Democratic vote in Wyoming has the same value as a Republican vote in California: nil.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
But how can we claim real democracy** if people's votes are unequal? what's wrong with One (hu)Man, One Vote?
Are you also in favor of eliminating the Senate (not such a bad idea, on reflection)? The POTUS is kind of half-way between the strictly representational (let's gloss over gerrymandering for now) House and the strictly federalist Senate. It's not entirely clear to me that people are more entitled to representation than states, but I'm not convinced that they aren't, either. You may be right, but I need convincing.
--Tom Clune
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hedgehog:
After all, it is a pretty rare occurrence that the Electoral College vote does not reflect the popular vote. The 2000 election, of course. And I think there was one other time. In most other cases, the winner of the College is also the winner of the popular vote (including the most recent election).
It's happened three times, actually.
In 2000 George W. Bush lost the popular vote and "won" the electoral vote via a Supreme Court decision. Given his near-invisibility in the recent presidential election, even his former party is embarassed by him now.
In 1888 Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote bot won the electoral vote. The public apparently regretted this decision since they returned Grover Cleveland, the incumbent president defeated by Harrison, to the White House four years later. This was the only time the American electorate has chosen to return a former president to office.
In 1876 Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote and the electoral vote was unclear, as three states submitted two different slates of electoral votes that year. Hayes eventually cut a deal for those electoral votes by agreeing to end Reconstruction, essentially throwing African-Americans to the wolves to attain the presidency. Since this was during the Democratic party's white supremacist days it is unlikely African-Americans would have fared any better under Samuel Tilden.
Given the track record of presidents who win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote, wouldn't going with their more popular rivals make more sense?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
Two guys in the nineteenth century plus Bush hardly constitute a record from which we can draw conclusions about whether or not a future president will be any good.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
I think that it is time to abolish the electoral college because it makes Presidential campaigns such jigsaw puzzles. Campaign strategies and reportage are all about how to get the electoral votes in the most likely combination of States.
While it is nice to know that if you live in a battleground state, your vote is important, I bet that many in Ohio are enjoying the relative peace and quiet of not being blasted with political ads for the first time in months-- peace and quiet which Californians have enjoyed all year.
Without the electoral college to complicate campaigns, perhaps they can be more about the issues, as they should be.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Yebbut.
I accept the inertia argument, but the US hasn't had slavery since the 1860s.
Also, we're all too familiar here with the notion that politicians won't change an abuse if it's working in their own team's favour.
However, it isn't like the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister isn't like the President.
We vote for individual members of Parliament who represent where we live. They also belong to a party. That party has a leader. Most people, in deciding for whom to vote, will probably take into account which party the candidate is standing for, and who the leader is of that party, but they don't have to. Some MPs will have a personal following.
The party chooses its leader. It's assumed it chooses it from among the members of the elected house, but parties can change their leaders at any time, without an election. Gordon Brown, John Major and Julia Gillard all became Prime Minister in between elections. They correspond more to party leaders in Congress, but usually have far more clout over their own followers.
The US President is much more like an elected version of George III.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Are you also in favor of eliminating the Senate (not such a bad idea, on reflection)?
Reforming the World's Worst Deliberative Body is probably a topic for another thread. I'll just note that most American states manage to operate bicameral legislatures with proportional representation in both houses.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
It's not entirely clear to me that people are more entitled to representation than states, but I'm not convinced that they aren't, either. You may be right, but I need convincing.
I guess it's largely a function of whether you see the President as leading/serving the American people or leading/serving the American states. Given the way most states tend to resist federal authority, I'd have to go with the former.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Two guys in the nineteenth century plus Bush hardly constitute a record from which we can draw conclusions about whether or not a future president will be any good.
Three cases out of the forty-six presidential elections the U.S. has had since 1832 (the first presidential election for which the popular vote is (mostly) known is a fairly good sample size.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
Without the electoral college to complicate campaigns, perhaps they can be more about the issues, as they should be.
I admire your optimism.
--Tom Clune
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
But how can we claim real democracy** if people's votes are unequal? what's wrong with One (hu)Man, One Vote?
Are you also in favor of eliminating the Senate (not such a bad idea, on reflection)?
not necessarily - our legislative branch has both the House and Senate - one for popular vote, one for states. Just because I think the executive branch should be chosen by the popular vote does not mean I support abolishing of the senate. if we only had the senate in the legislative branch, I might - honestly hadn't given it much thought.
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
While it is nice to know that if you live in a battleground state, your vote is important,
and if you live in a place like Alaska, which is staunchly right wing no matter what, a non-republican vote is worthless. I know many people who don't bother to vote for pres because of this - from both sides. why bother? And honestly, it's getting harder and harder to disagree with them. my presidential vote has never counted.
if the popular vote had any meaning at all, then at least I'd know that when it gets down to a few thousand votes or whatever in a tight race, then my vote might have made a difference. As it is now, I am assured that unless Anchorage falls into the sea or we have some mass change of heart in the AK populace, my vote for president will never be worth a damn.
Posted by Dal Segno (# 14673) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The US President is much more like an elected version of George III.
And would be even more so if George Washington had not resisted the temptation to be de facto King of America.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
Are you also in favor of eliminating the Senate (not such a bad idea, on reflection)?
Reforming the World's Worst Deliberative Body is probably a topic for another thread. I'll just note that most American states manage to operate bicameral legislatures with proportional representation in both houses.
The US system seems to be constructed so that it is very difficult for Federal Government to achieve anything. That might be a deliberate design decision on the part of the Founders. The House being biased towards the cities, the Senate towards the rural communities, the President having a veto, and the Supreme Court having the authority to overturn decisions.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
But how can we claim real democracy** if people's votes are unequal? what's wrong with One (hu)Man, One Vote?
Are you also in favor of eliminating the Senate (not such a bad idea, on reflection)?
not necessarily - our legislative branch has both the House and Senate - one for popular vote, one for states. Just because I think the executive branch should be chosen by the popular vote does not mean I support abolishing of the senate. if we only had the senate in the legislative branch, I might - honestly hadn't given it much thought.
upon further thought- I'm not sure I would support such a thing. where there are two parts, as in the legislative branch - I think it makes sense to have regional representation as well.
The Alaska house and senate are both allocated according to population - which means both sides of the legislative branch are dominated by urban interests (Anchorage, last I checked, had over half the entire state's population). This has led to some nasty conflicts over things like subsistence hunting - people in rural areas who don't have access to a lot of job opportunities think they should get hunting preference as food is a real issue; people in the urban areas want sport hunting to count as or more important than subsistence so that they can have the same crack at game as rural residents do.
this has also led to redistricting being a real nightmare. On tuesday I went in to vote on local reps, neither of whom I know anything about or who live anywhere near where I do.
If we had the house allocated according to population and the senate allocated according to region, then at least in half the legislature the rural areas would have more strength of vote.
sorry for the tangent but Tom started it! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Two guys in the nineteenth century plus Bush hardly constitute a record from which we can draw conclusions about whether or not a future president will be any good.
Or whether the system works well.
I disagree that there is no reason for the EC anymore (and Crœsos have hashed this out some in the 2012 election thread). I think the EC is valuable for reflecting the federal nature of the republic, which is fundamental to our constitutional system. I think, as currently implemented, it provides a balance between popular vote and the idea of the states electing the president.
I don't buy the argument that the EC is undemocratic because it doesn't line up perfectly with one person, one vote. Neither does the House of Representatives. There is one person, one vote within each state and each state has electoral votes based on its population. I think that's a fair balance,
And I don't buy the argument that the votes of blue voters in red states (and vice-versa) are "wasted." By that logic, anyone who votes for the losing candidate in any election has "wasted" her vote. And the vote is never worthless, since the nationwide popular vote has its own value; it may not directly elect the president, but it can and does determine the degree to which a "mandate" can be claimed, which can have an effect on a president's ability to get things done.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There's no way to force an elector to vote the way the citizens (or, in the pre-Civil War era, the state legislature) who picked him expect him to vote.
All states except South Carolina had gone to the popular vote as the means of choosing and instructing electors by 1832.
And of course there is a way to force an elector to vote the way the citizens who picked him expect him to vote, but it is up to each state to do it. 24 of the states have faithless elector laws; why all states don't have them is beyond me. In my state, a vote cast by an elector that is not a vote for the candidates of the party that nominated that elector (in other words, a vote for the candidate that didn't win the popular vote in the state) operates by law as a resignation from office, the vote is invalid and the remaining electors appoint a replacement for the faithless elector. (There is also a $500 fine.)
[ 08. November 2012, 17:50: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dal Segno:
The US system seems to be constructed so that it is very difficult for Federal Government to achieve anything. That might be a deliberate design decision on the part of the Founders. The House being biased towards the cities, the Senate towards the rural communities, the President having a veto, and the Supreme Court having the authority to overturn decisions.
I've heard the U.S. referred to as "the Frozen Republic" for this reason. American history is large stretches of the status quo, punctuated by brief periods of very rapid change (e.g. the Civil War, the New Deal). And yes, this was part of a deliberate design on behalf of the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Having a large number of veto points within the structure of government is at the root of the idea of "checks and balances".
Of course, bloviating on the internet about what changes we'd like to see and why we think they're good ideas aren't constrained in this manner.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
And the vote is never worthless, since the nationwide popular vote has its own value; it may not directly elect the president, but it can and does determine the degree to which a "mandate" can be claimed, which can have an effect on a president's ability to get things done.
and that has the legal power of exactly nothing.
if a state has, say, 9 electoral votes, and their popular vote went something in the range of 51-49, it would at least make some sense if 5 electoral votes went one way and 4 the other. but in most states that is not the case. no matter how close the race, all of a state's electoral votes will go one way or another. meaning, from a practical point of view, if I'm in the minority, my vote is essentially worthless in the grand scheme of things. it doesn't matter if it was 51-49 or 99-1, that will not be reflected in the final result. I want to know that even though I'm in the minority in my state, that my vote may still matter in the entire election. but it really doesn't.
I do still vote, always have and probably always will. because I retain some hope that someday, somehow, my one vote will push it over the edge. But I know many people - at least a dozen within my own circle - who do not bother because they feel it is futile. if they all voted, would it pop us over the edge? probably not - they are both on the liberal and conservative sides. the EC disenfranchises voters.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Reforming the World's Worst Deliberative Body is probably a topic for another thread. I'll just note that most American states manage to operate bicameral legislatures with proportional representation in both houses.
But state senates do not have the same function as the US Senate. All senates provide for bicameral legislatures with some checks and balances. But the purpose of the US Senate, as designed in the Constitution, is to give equal representation to states without regard to population.
quote:
I guess it's largely a function of whether you see the President as leading/serving the American people or leading/serving the American states. Given the way most states tend to resist federal authority, I'd have to go with the former.
Actually, I think the resistance to federal authority can just as easily cut the other way -- that the president should be chosen by and accountable (if "accountable" is the right word -- best I can come up with right now) to the states and cannot exercise authority without the consent of the states. The resistance to federal authority is based on the concept of power resting with states except as specifically conferred on the federal government.
But frankly, I think it's a distinction without much difference. The president leads and serves the nation, which is the people who are simultaneously citizens of the United States and citizens of the 50 separate and sovereign states that together comprise the United States. And "the states" means the people of the states, for that is where the state's sovereignty resides.
I think if there is real concern that the popular vote should always control, the best avenue, from a federal standpoint, is that presented by the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under that scheme, each participating state chooses to allot its electors to the winner of the national popular vote. That respects the national popular vote and also respects the rights of states to determine how to allot their electoral votes.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
the EC disenfranchises voters.
Sorry, but no. As long as they have the right to vote, they are not disenfranchised. Whether they choose to exercise that right is up to them.
And for the sake of disclsure, I'll say that I have now voted in nine presidential elections. In only one of those elections did I vote for the candidate who carried my state. Yet I have never believed that my vote was "wasted."
[ 08. November 2012, 18:12: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
the EC disenfranchises voters.
Sorry, but no. As long as they have the right to vote, they are not disenfranchised. Whether they choose to exercise that right is up to them.
how to do you figure that? I have the right to demand my dog recite "Casey At The Bat", too. Doesn't mean it will do any good. I don't just want the right, I want it to actually do something.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
the EC disenfranchises voters.
Sorry, but no. As long as they have the right to vote, they are not disenfranchised. Whether they choose to exercise that right is up to them.
how to do you figure that? I have the right to demand my dog recite "Casey At The Bat", too. Doesn't mean it will do any good. I don't just want the right, I want it to actually do something.
I figure it because "disenfranchise" means to deprive someone of the right to vote (or of some other right of citizenship). The Electoral College does not deprive anyone of the right to vote. I'll take your word for it that it may cause some to feel that their vote doesn't matter, but the right to vote has not been taken away.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But frankly, I think it's a distinction without much difference. The president leads and serves the nation, which is the people who are simultaneously citizens of the United States and citizens of the 50 separate and sovereign states that together comprise the United States. And "the states" means the people of the states, for that is where the state's sovereignty resides.
If we accept this argument (that the people and the states are interchangable), doesn't it follow that the electoral college is an unnecessarily complicated, Rube Goldberg-esque apparatus inserted into the election process?
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I figure it because "disenfranchise" means to deprive someone of the right to vote (or of some other right of citizenship). The Electoral College does not deprive anyone of the right to vote. I'll take your word for it that it may cause some to feel that their vote doesn't matter, but the right to vote has not been taken away.
fair enough - I knew it wasn't the best choice of words but I was struggling to find a better choice. yes, we officially have the right to tick a mark on a piece of paper (or screen, I suppose) but we do not retain our right to have it make a real difference in the outcome unless we remain in the majority for our given state.
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
However, it isn't like the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister isn't like the President.
[edit]
The US President is much more like an elected version of George III.
I was discussing the concept when the EC was created. At that time, the President was not like the President, either. The presidential powers set forth in Art. II of the U.S. Constititution are amazingly sparse.
Art. II, Sec. 1: "The executive Power shall be vested in the President of the United States of America." The rest of the section deals with setting up the EC, discussing the age/country of birth requirements for the office; what to do if there is a vacancy during a term in office; etc.
Art. II, Sec. 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy . . . and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States." He can "require the Opinion, in writing" of the principle officers of the executive departments. He can grant reprieves and pardons. With the advice and consent of the Senate, he can make treaties and appoint people like ambassadors and judges. And he can temporarily fill vacancies that may happen while the Senate is in recess.
Art. II, Sec. 3: The President is permitted to give a State of the Union speech to Congress. He can suggest legislation to Congress. "On extraordinary Occasions" he can convene both houses of Congress and adjourn them if there is a disagreement between them concerning adjournment. He can meet ambassadors of other countries. And "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
Art. II, Sec. 4: He can be impeached.
That's it. That's the powers of the President as contained in the Article of the Constitution creating the office. It was intended as almost a purely administrative position. All real power was in Congress. The President was never meant to be an elected version of George III.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
(crossposted with Hedgehog)
and in all reality, doesn't it just give a huge impact from those few swing states? for my vote to make any difference at all, I'd have to move to a swing state. it really would make no difference if I was in a firm majority, either. only swing state voters get to really know their vote is going to matter one whit.
I don't expect my state will ever go the other way - and those who call elections agree with me. my state doesn't make a difference in elections. if it was a popular vote, those of us swimming about in the pacific could have a real impact on a close race. but (aside from 2000) races have always been called before the polls even close here. how do you convince someone who feels disenfranchised to exercise their right to vote when they could have the race finalized before they even get to the voting booth?
[ 08. November 2012, 18:36: Message edited by: comet ]
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I think if there is real concern that the popular vote should always control, the best avenue, from a federal standpoint, is that presented by the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under that scheme, each participating state chooses to allot its electors to the winner of the national popular vote. That respects the national popular vote and also respects the rights of states to determine how to allot their electoral votes.
So the thing to do is to be the big state that holds out from this system. Let a bunch of other states agree to divide their electors according to the popular vote, and then California and New York will throw all of ours to the Democrat. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Actually, California and New York have already signed up. But the point holds. Texas and Florida haven't signed up.
The focus of campaigns would switch to major urban areas. Presidential candidates currently go to LA and NYC for money only, never to court our votes. The metropolitan areas of LA and NYC together have over 30 million people in them, about 10% of the population, more than the population of the 20 smallest states combined. This would fix that.
However, if all states allotted their electors according to the national popular vote, wouldn't the race be thrown to the House of Reps to decide rather frequently? If it was really close or there was a strong showing by a third-party candidate, the chances that no candidate would get the majority required by the Constitution seem rather high.
If we're going to have some kind of proportional division, to me it makes more sense to for each state to divide its electors according to how the voting went in the state -- Florida would divide its electors down the middle this year, California would send some Republican electors but more Democrats, etc.
[ 08. November 2012, 18:40: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If we accept this argument (that the people and the states are interchangable), doesn't it follow that the electoral college is an unnecessarily complicated, Rube Goldberg-esque apparatus inserted into the election process?
Not really, because the people of each state and the people of the United States, while the same people, are not quite the same thing. The sovereignty of each state resides in the people of that state. This is seen most clearly in the reality that it is the people of the state who can adopt or amend that state's constitution, whether by referenda, convention or other method they approve.
The US is a federation of those states. Compare how the US Constitution is amended: through votes of the states, acting either through their legislatures or through convention, not by vote of the people.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
fair enough - I knew it wasn't the best choice of words but I was struggling to find a better choice. yes, we officially have the right to tick a mark on a piece of paper (or screen, I suppose) but we do not retain our right to have it make a real difference in the outcome unless we remain in the majority for our given state.
I really couldn't think of a better word, but please know that my disagreement over the word disenfranchise wasn't meant to convey that I didn't understand the point you're making.
But here's where I have a hard time. How is the idea that one voting blue for president in a very red state (for example) feels his vote is wasted any different logically from one wanting to vote blue for governor in a very red state? Either way, it seems to me, the vote "doesn't make a difference" the way you have laid it out.
[ 08. November 2012, 18:44: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I think if there is real concern that the popular vote should always control, the best avenue, from a federal standpoint, is that presented by the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under that scheme, each participating state chooses to allot its electors to the winner of the national popular vote. That respects the national popular vote and also respects the rights of states to determine how to allot their electoral votes.
So the thing to do is to be the big state that holds out from this system. Let a bunch of other states agree to divide their electors according to the popular vote, and then California and New York will throw all of ours to the Democrat. Actually, California and New York have already signed up. But the point holds. Texas and Florida haven't signed up.
LOL. But under the compact, no one participates until a sufficient number of states to provide a majority of electors. So all California and New York have done is say that if enough other states agree to participate, they will too.
And I think your point about how the focus of campaigns would move from swing states to more populated areas is a valid one. Campaigns would go where the most votes are.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
How is the idea that one voting blue for president in a very red state (for example) feels his vote is wasted any different logically from one wanting to vote blue for governor in a very red state? Either way, it seems to me, the vote "doesn't make a difference" the way you have laid it out.
not true - in my gubernatorial election it can conceivably come down to a few votes. in the presidential election, my state will always go 100% one way or another. the individual voter be damned.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If we accept this argument (that the people and the states are interchangable), doesn't it follow that the electoral college is an unnecessarily complicated, Rube Goldberg-esque apparatus inserted into the election process?
Not really, because the people of each state and the people of the United States, while the same people, are not quite the same thing. The sovereignty of each state resides in the people of that state. This is seen most clearly in the reality that it is the people of the state who can adopt or amend that state's constitution, whether by referenda, convention or other method they approve.
The US is a federation of those states. Compare how the US Constitution is amended: through votes of the states, acting either through their legislatures or through convention, not by vote of the people.[/QB]
But if "[t]he sovereignty of each state resides in the people" and amending the U.S. Constitution is done through the states, how is that not also through the people?
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But here's where I have a hard time. How is the idea that one voting blue for president in a very red state (for example) feels his vote is wasted any different logically from one wanting to vote blue for governor in a very red state? Either way, it seems to me, the vote "doesn't make a difference" the way you have laid it out.
A vote cast for governor still shows up in the final tally, even if on the losing side. A vote cast for a losing presidential candidate is essentially discarded.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
How is the idea that one voting blue for president in a very red state (for example) feels his vote is wasted any different logically from one wanting to vote blue for governor in a very red state? Either way, it seems to me, the vote "doesn't make a difference" the way you have laid it out.
not true - in my gubernatorial election it can conceivably come down to a few votes. in the presidential election, my state will always go 100% one way or another. the individual voter be damned.
Not necessarily not true, though. You happen to be in a state with a relatively small electorate, so the idea that a few votes there could make the difference isn't that crazy.
But lets say you're in the bigger and even more red state of Utah. It's been decades since a Democrat was elected governor there and it's not likely to happen anytime soon. Does that mean there's no point in voting blue for governor there, that any such votes there are wasted?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But if "[t]he sovereignty of each state resides in the people" and amending the U.S. Constitution is done through the states, how is that not also through the people?
It's the difference between directly (through, say, referendum for state constitution) and indirectly (through the state legislature). The EC is a form of indirect representation -- the people of the states decide who will be ther state's electors and how they will cast the state's electoral votes.
quote:
A vote cast for governor still shows up in the final tally, even if on the losing side. A vote cast for a losing presidential candidate is essentially discarded.
No it's not. It's still counted up and reported in the final tally. It's just that determinative tallies are at state level, not the national level.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
A vote cast for governor still shows up in the final tally, even if on the losing side. A vote cast for a losing presidential candidate is essentially discarded.
yes, but beyond that - a vote cast for president in a popular vote still counts towards the total even if the rest of my state went the other way.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
RuthW, you seem to be arguing from the impressions that the National Popular Vote Compact is an agreement among states to divide their electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote. That is not how I understand it. AIUI, the states in the compact agree to deliver all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. That is why part of the agreement is for it to take effect when states representing 270 electoral votes have signed on. At that point, at least 270 votes will go to the winner of the popular vote, the electoral college will therefore go to the winner of the electoral college, and it doesn't matter how the rest of the states assign their electors.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
RuthW, you seem to be arguing from the impressions that the National Popular Vote Compact is an agreement among states to divide their electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote. That is not how I understand it. AIUI, the states in the compact agree to deliver all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. That is why part of the agreement is for it to take effect when states representing 270 electoral votes have signed on. At that point, at least 270 votes will go to the winner of the popular vote, the electoral college will therefore go to the winner of the electoral college, and it doesn't matter how the rest of the states assign their electors.
what would be the point of having the EC at all, then?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Nick Tamen writes:
quote:
The EC is a form of indirect representation -- the people of the states decide who will be ther state's electors and how they will cast the state's electoral votes.
Only in half of the states: in 26 of them, the elector can do pretty well what they please with their vote.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But if "[t]he sovereignty of each state resides in the people" and amending the U.S. Constitution is done through the states, how is that not also through the people?
It's the difference between directly (through, say, referendum for state constitution) and indirectly (through the state legislature). The EC is a form of indirect representation -- the people of the states decide who will be ther state's electors and how they will cast the state's electoral votes.
Please make up your mind. Either the distinction between the people and their states matters or it doesn't. You don't get to switch back and forth for the sake of convenience.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
A vote cast for governor still shows up in the final tally, even if on the losing side. A vote cast for a losing presidential candidate is essentially discarded.
No it's not. It's still counted up and reported in the final tally. It's just that determinative tallies are at state level, not the national level.
No, it's not. There's no official addendum to the electoral vote of each states saying "this represents X% of our popular vote".
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
what would be the point of having the EC at all, then?
Well, as I said upstream, it preserves the federalism component inherent in the EC by honoring a state's right to determine how its electoral votes would be alloted. A state chooses to participate in the Compact and tie its electoral votes to the national popular vote.
But beyond that, it's a much simpler solution to the kinds of problems you've raised. Getting rid of the EC requires a constitutional amendment -- meaning a 2/3 approval in each house of Congress, and then approval by legislatures of 3/4 of the states.
Implementation of the Compact, on the other hand, only requires approval by a simple majority in enough state legislatures to account for 270 electoral votes. The states (and DC) that have already adopted it represent 132 electoral votes, so that's already about half-way to the necessary 270.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
RuthW, you seem to be arguing from the impressions that the National Popular Vote Compact is an agreement among states to divide their electoral votes proportionately to the popular vote. That is not how I understand it. AIUI, the states in the compact agree to deliver all of their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. That is why part of the agreement is for it to take effect when states representing 270 electoral votes have signed on. At that point, at least 270 votes will go to the winner of the popular vote, the electoral college will therefore go to the winner of the electoral college, and it doesn't matter how the rest of the states assign their electors.
Oh. Well then. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Thanks for setting me straight!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Well, as I said upstream, it preserves the federalism component inherent in the EC by honoring a state's right to determine how its electoral votes would be alloted.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If a state's sovereignty rests with its people, wouldn't counting the actual votes of these people be a much more straightforward way of gauging how these sovereigns want their votes distributed?
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
Even the Founding Fathers weren't above wanting to make certain that sovereignty remained with the right kind of people.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Autenrieth Road:
At that point, at least 270 votes will go to the winner of the popular vote, the electoral college will therefore go to the winner of the electoral college, and it doesn't matter how the rest of the states assign their electors.
The quoted sentence brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department, True Tautologies division. I meant to say "...the electoral college will therefore go to the winner of the popular vote..."
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
what would be the point of having the EC at all, then?
Well, as I said upstream, it preserves the federalism component inherent in the EC by honoring a state's right to determine how its electoral votes would be alloted.
I might be being too binary here - but I fail to see why either a) we pretend it's a state decision or b) we pretend it's a populace decision. if it's up to the states, stop holding this huge (and expensive) national popular vote that really means little to nothing, when we can just allot our electors in some other election (or just let the state government do it); or, if it really is up to the People, make it a real popular vote. this smacks of impotent symbolism.
quote:
But beyond that, it's a much simpler solution to the kinds of problems you've raised. Getting rid of the EC requires a constitutional amendment -- meaning a 2/3 approval in each house of Congress, and then approval by legislatures of 3/4 of the states.
Implementation of the Compact, on the other hand, only requires approval by a simple majority in enough state legislatures to account for 270 electoral votes. The states (and DC) that have already adopted it represent 132 electoral votes, so that's already about half-way to the necessary 270.
Fair enough, but that sounds so bloody complicated. Why does everything have to be so complicated? (rhetorical question, obviously)
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Nick Tamen writes:
quote:
The EC is a form of indirect representation -- the people of the states decide who will be ther state's electors and how they will cast the state's electoral votes.
Only in half of the states: in 26 of them, the elector can do pretty well what they please with their vote.
Which as I said upstream those states can (and should) prohibit.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Please make up your mind. Either the distinction between the people and their states matters or it doesn't. You don't get to switch back and forth for the sake of convenience.
I'm not switching back and forth at all. I'm simply noting, as I have before, the implications of the 50 states being united in a federal republic, and how that can affect the ways people relate to their state governments and the federal government. Seems pretty basic to me -- people relate to the US not only as citizens of the US but also as 50 distinct groups of people organized as 50 sovereign states.
quote:
No, it's not. There's no official addendum to the electoral vote of each states saying "this represents X% of our popular vote".
I confess I don't understand what you're saying. So far as I know, every state certifies its election results by stating that Candidate A received x% of the vote and Candidate B received y% of the vote. That means that all votes are counted up and reported in the final tally with a winner declared. The fact that Candidate A won doesn't mean the votes for Candidate B are not counted and reported in the final tally. It means B didn't win.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Even the Founding Fathers weren't above wanting to make certain that sovereignty remained with the right kind of people.
them and the rest of us. the problem is, my right kind of people aren't always your right kind of people and certainly aren't the other guy's right kind of people. the days of state leadership being the educated business elite are long gone, at least in my state. my (now former, thanks to redistricting) House representative is one of the dumbest, lowest educated adults I've ever met.
I'm actually kind of fond of him. everytime he opens his mouth he says something cute. he was elected because his opponent was educated and a successful businessman. many of the people in the south part of our former district fear education. and initiative. in his 6(?) years in office, he has introduced one bill - to allow a non-profit to hold a little gambling thingie as a fundraiser. bless him.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
If the election went to the winner of the popular vote (whether by eliminating the electoral college, or by the National Popular Vote Compact going into effect), when would it have been possible to call the election? (I ask this as a real question, not as a rhetorical question.)
Would elections be susceptible to getting called before the Western states had finished voting? Probably not for the West Coast states since California is so big, but quite possible ISTM for small-in-population Alaska and Hawaii. Or maybe not so possible, given that the absolute numbers for a state couldn't be called until much later in the counting process (unlike the current calling of percentages) and by then Alaska and Hawaii would be finished voting.
Would it be possible for the hanging-chad-type battle in Florida, or other demands for recounts, to be fought in polling places all over the nation? Currently the demands are limited because they are limited to states where the electoral votes are in doubt. If it's a matter of "piece together enough challenges, and eke out a win", will these challenges multiply? There was some other big voting problem in 2000 AIUI (Missouri, maybe?) but it was ignored because it wasn't big enough to cast the electoral votes of that state into question. On the one hand, sure, every vote should be counted accurately. On the other hand, are we ready for challenges to mount all over the country?
If we want every vote to count equally, should we also be campaigning for more uniformity in voting arrangements? I was in and out voting in 12 minutes; the way my day was arranged on Tuesday I'm glad I didn't have to try to make the choice about ditching work and other obligations to spend 4 hours waiting to vote as other people around the nation had to do.
Currently candidates campaign mostly in swing states. If the winner were determined by popular vote, would we see evenly distributed 50-state campaigns? Or would the candidates still make decisions about where to concentrate their campaign resources, and result in certain areas or regions still being ignored? For example, would campaigning move to the largest cities, as being the densest place to reach voters? Or to the places with the largest numbers of undecided or weakly committed voters (since the election is won at the margin by how many of these voters you can persuade to your side, presuming that the strongly committed don't need additional wooing)? Would this be a problem; or maybe it doesn't matter if campaigning is not evenly distributed?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If a state's sovereignty rests with its people, wouldn't counting the actual votes of these people be a much more straightforward way of gauging how these sovereigns want their votes distributed?
But that is what's done now. The relevant phrase is "a state's sovereignty rests with its people," meaning the people of the state have the foundational authority in the government of the state. The people of the state, either directly or through their elected representatives in their legislatures, decide how their electors will be chosen and then, through popular vote, decide how they want their state's electoral votes to be cast.
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
I might be being too binary here - but I fail to see why either a) we pretend it's a state decision or b) we pretend it's a populace decision.
What I'm trying to say is that's a balance of the two, or at least intended to be. Each state has the power to decide how it will choose its electors, and originally, most state legislatures chose their electors. But since 1832 (with the exception of South Carolina until after the Civil War), popular election has been the method states use to choose their electors.
quote:
Fair enough, but that sounds so bloody complicated. Why does everything have to be so complicated? (rhetorical question, obviously)
LOL. But not nearly as complicated as trying to get a constitutional amendment through.
[ 08. November 2012, 19:56: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I did note that Nick Tamen already mentioned this and perhaps states should abolish electors' independence of action, but they haven't and, until they do, it does rather poke a serious hole into the theory (perhaps a bit like praising a high school class for the example of pureity and virginity when half of them have already done it).
While I understand the theory of the electoral college and how at the time there was a certain logic, it now appears to me to warp the electoral process, and give a handful of swing states an undue importance in campaigning. Only a combination of invincible ignorance or laudable civic duty seems to save elections in non-swing states from a drastic fall in voter participation.
It now seems to primarily serve to freeze in time a certain interpretation of US constitutional theory. I suppose it does provide a possible solution to the death of a presidential or VP candidate between election day and the meeting of the new congress.
In the meantime, the Nebraskan and Mainois approaches seem to offer a reasonable compromise (each congressional district chooses its own elector, and the overall winner in the state gets a bonus two), without needing a constitutional amendment or violating the aforementioned particular interpretation of the US constitution.
As an irrelevant tangent, a friend of mine was a Michigan elector (she was with child at time so we called her The Grand Electress) in the 1990s and quite enjoyed it, including the limo drive to Lansing and the official dinner.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
No, it's not. There's no official addendum to the electoral vote of each states saying "this represents X% of our popular vote".
I confess I don't understand what you're saying. So far as I know, every state certifies its election results by stating that Candidate A received x% of the vote and Candidate B received y% of the vote. That means that all votes are counted up and reported in the final tally with a winner declared. The fact that Candidate A won doesn't mean the votes for Candidate B are not counted and reported in the final tally. It means B didn't win.
Nope, you're describing an intermediate tally, not a final tally. The state's final tally consists of a certification that 'state X casts its Y electoral votes for candidate Z'.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Nope, you're describing an intermediate tally, not a final tally. The state's final tally consists of a certification that 'state X casts its Y electoral votes for candidate Z'.
That's not correct. Each state's electors must send to Washington two documents: the Certificate of Vote, which shows who got electoral votes and how many, and the Certificate of Ascertainment, which must show the names of all electors and the popular vote they received, as well as the names of all other candidates for elector and the popular vote they received.
So, every state's Certificate of Ascertainment will show the popular vote for Obama/Democratic electors and for Romney/Republican electors, as well as the the votes for electors for any other candidates/parties on the ballot. You can see the Certificates of Ascertainment for all states in the 2008 election here. (Certificates of vote for each state in that election can be seen here.)
[ 08. November 2012, 20:23: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
One other thing I don't fully understand with the timing.
If, say, Obama seriously managed to piss off California('s electors) could Romney still have won even now?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Each state's electors must send to Washington two documents: the Certificate of Vote . . . and the Certificate of Ascertainment
Didn't catch the mistake until too late for the edit window. The governor of each state prepares and sends these documents. The electors must sign the Certificate of Vote.
No matter how many times I preview post, I always catch something afterward.
[ 08. November 2012, 20:27: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Hedgehog (# 14125) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
One other thing I don't fully understand with the timing.
If, say, Obama seriously managed to piss off California('s electors) could Romney still have won even now?
Yes. Especially if we ask the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on the issue. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
That's not correct. Each state's electors must send to Washington two documents: the Certificate of Vote, which shows who got electoral votes and how many, and the Certificate of Ascertainment, which must show the names of all electors and the popular vote they received, as well as the names of all other candidates for elector and the popular vote they received.
But the popular vote is just a meaningless addendum. It has no influence over the electoral vote for president. In other words it "counts" the same way the District of Columbia's non-voting Congressional representative counts as a Congresswoman.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
Interestingly enough the Constitutionality of penalizing faithless electors has never been ruled on. (It's a rare enough occurence in the first place.) The Supreme Court has ruled that it is Constitutional for states to require electors to pledge how they'll vote, but there's been no ruling on the Constitutionality of the penalties associated with breaking that pledge.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
But the popular vote is just a meaningless addendum. It has no influence over the electoral vote for president. In other words it "counts" the same way the District of Columbia's non-voting Congressional representative counts as a Congresswoman.
I was responding to your statement that the non-prevailing votes are not counted and included in the final tally, not to whether or not such inclusion has any meaning beyond information.
As for the earlier posts about states and the like, I did some looking around at the Federalist Papers. As I'm sure you know, these were essays written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay to explain the proposed Constitution are argue for is ratification. I found the following in Federalist # 39 by Madison; perhaps it explains better what I was trying to say:
quote:
On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States. . . .
First. In order to ascertain the real character of the government, it may be considered in relation to the foundation on which it is to be established; to the sources from which its ordinary powers are to be drawn; to the operation of those powers; to the extent of them; and to the authority by which future changes in the government are to be introduced.
On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose; but, on the other, that this assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the several States, derived from the supreme authority in each State, the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a federal act.
That it will be a federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary assent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves. Were the people regarded in this transaction as forming one nation, the will of the majority of the whole people of the United States would bind the minority, in the same manner as the majority in each State must bind the minority; and the will of the majority must be determined either by a comparison of the individual votes, or by considering the will of the majority of the States as evidence of the will of a majority of the people of the United States. Neither of these rules have been adopted. Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national constitution.
The next relation is, to the sources from which the ordinary powers of government are to be derived. The House of Representatives will derive its powers from the people of America; and the people will be represented in the same proportion, and on the same principle, as they are in the legislature of a particular State. So far the government is national, not federal. The Senate, on the other hand, will derive its powers from the States, as political and coequal societies; and these will be represented on the principle of equality in the Senate, as they now are in the existing Congress. So far the government is federal, not national. The executive power will be derived from a very compound source. The immediate election of the President is to be made by the States in their political characters. The votes allotted to them are in a compound ratio, which considers them partly as distinct and coequal societies, partly as unequal members of the same society. The eventual election, again, is to be made by that branch of the legislature which consists of the national representatives; but in this particular act they are to be thrown into the form of individual delegations, from so many distinct and coequal bodies politic. From this aspect of the government it appears to be of a mixed character, presenting at least as many federal as national features.
Big block of quote, I know, but it all seemed relevant.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
I'm aware of one case of an elector not voting as pledged: IIRC someone (Roosevelt?) won every state, but one elector changed his vote so it wouldn't be unanimous - saving that honor for George Washington alone.
I remember ballots marked with the phrase, "Electors pledged to...", but now I think they just list the candidate names.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
What do OTHER countries do with Presidential elections or equivalent, then?
Particularly republics, and particularly federal republics.
I think that's highly relevant, and I'm genuinely not sure whether it's simply a question of national popular vote.
Here in Australia I'm used to a UK-style system deliberately modelled on the USA... so we have a Senate intended as a "States House", which arguably doesn't work quite so much as a States House these days (although right now it's fairly clear that South Australian Senators are likely to jointly kick up a ruckus behind the scenes if their parties don't agree to plans to save the Murray River...)
But we don't have a President, so we never had to model that bit.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
I'm aware of one case of an elector not voting as pledged: IIRC someone (Roosevelt?) won every state, but one elector changed his vote so it wouldn't be unanimous - saving that honor for George Washington alone.
James Monroe's re-election campaign in 1820. It's a popular legend, but accoring to Wikipedia "While some accounts claim incorrectly that this was to ensure that George Washington would remain the only American president unanimously chosen by the Electoral College, that was not Plumer's goal. In fact, Plumer simply thought that Monroe was a mediocre president and that [John Quincy] Adams would be a better one."
[ 08. November 2012, 21:04: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
AARGH. Guess who just lost the post where I was doing all my homework on other federal republics?
Anyway, there's quite a few with popular vote. Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Austria (latter fairly ceremonial).
Germany (where the president is mostly cermonial) has a system arguably quite similar to the USA.
Nigeria has popular vote, but with a kind of informal agreement to rotate the position between the Muslim north and the Christian south.
And Switzerland simply doesn't have a president.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
I believe the President of South Africa is elected by the lower house of parliament, the National Assembly. Not a federal republic, though.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
I was looking at federal republics because I thought that the 'elected by the states' line of thinking would have more traction there. But it may not be the case.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I was looking at federal republics because I thought that the 'elected by the states' line of thinking would have more traction there. But it may not be the case.
Right. But as you note, sometimes the office of president is really ceremonial, so maybe it is also worth looking at federal parliamentary systems where the executive power is really exercised by a prime minister or someone similar. Are there any where the PM (or chancellor, or whatever) is not the leader of the majority party?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
As the person who posed the question, and as a foreigner looking at this from outside, I have to say that Comet is the only person who seems to be talking sense.
Everybody else seems to be trying to defend an indefensible status quo. No one so far has produced an argument which, even weakly, objectively supports it.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But the purpose of the US Senate, as designed in the Constitution, is to give equal representation to states without regard to population. ...
This isn't a question about the President, but is that statement correct? Is the Senate directly elected by the electorate or does each state government nominate the senators it wants to represent it?
The Senate is only giving representation to States if it is the state governments that nominate the Senators to represent them. If the public elect, the Senators represent the electorate, not States.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Everybody else seems to be trying to defend an indefensible status quo. No one so far has produced an argument which, even weakly, objectively supports it.
I don't think it's really fair to suggest people are "defending" it. They're trying to explain its operation, and explain why it was instituted in the first place. No one has produced an objective argument for it because there isn't one.
Basically, it's an anomaly from several centuries ago, tweaked a bit to be slightly less unfair* because discarding it would require a constitutional amendment and that was made deliberately difficult by the Founders.
*(Come to think of it, I suppose one could say the same thing about the Monarchy).
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the public elect, the Senators represent the electorate, not States.
But it's not the same 'electorate' that is represented in the House of Representatives. That's the point that Nick is making. It's deliberatlely NOT population-based.
[ 08. November 2012, 22:22: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the public elect, the Senators represent the electorate, not States.
But it's not the same 'electorate' that is represented in the House of Representatives. That's the point that Nick is making. It's deliberatlely NOT population-based.
Right. Each state, whether the largest or the smallest, has two senators. Originally, senators were elected by state legislators. now they are elected by popular election. But by saying senators "represent the state," I mean they, unlike members of the House, give each state an equal voice in the Senate. Representatives represent the people of their districts. Senators represent their entire states.
And I know I'm in the minority on this thread, but I think that the federal nature of the US is sufficient reason for the Electoral College, and I think that the current system -- blending a popular election with the EC -- preserves the balance between federalism and representation of the populace as a whole that the Framers intended.
Could improvements be made? Sure. Could we decide to do away with it? Sure. But to say there are no objective reasons for it simply isn't true, in my opinion. They may not be convincing reasons to some, but they are objective reasons.
As to the suggestion it's undemocratic, how is a prime minister democratically elected?
[ 08. November 2012, 22:54: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As to the suggestion it's undemocratic, how is a prime minister democratically elected?
They're not. As large numbers of Australians with no knowledge of the Australian Constitution suddenly realised in 2010.
Various people on the 'losing' side were positively salivating that there would be an early election any second now. It took them the best part of 2 years to finally realise that the cross-benchers who made the decision to support the current Prime Minister weren't going to budge.
The realisation probably kicked in when one of the independents positively scoffed at the suggestion that just because the government had lost a particular vote on a particular piece of legislation, the government should fall. It was clear all along that the independents, not constantly thinking in party machine terms, knew perfectly well that the Prime Minister = the person who can command the confidence of a majority of the House of Representatives, and that one vote does not an overall loss of confidence make.
[ 09. November 2012, 00:27: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Sorry, for context, summary of 2010 Australian election is here.
The government did apparently win the overall popular vote by about 30,000. But that means diddly squat, really. 72-72, with 6 cross benchers.
The situation has got even more complex now, with 2 more cross-benchers, one drawn from each 'side' as people got kicked out of their parties.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
quote:
The realisation probably kicked in when one of the independents positively scoffed at the suggestion that just because the government had lost a particular vote on a particular piece of legislation, the government should fall. It was clear all along that the independents, not constantly thinking in party machine terms, knew perfectly well that the Prime Minister = the person who can command the confidence of a majority of the House of Representatives, and that one vote does not an overall loss of confidence make.
Unless it's Supply (money), in which case you must not lose. Minority Governments have been thrown out on their budgets in Canada.
Supply Bills cannot proceed without the Royal Recommendation, which comes from the Crown through the Cabinet. If the Crown cannot get Supply through, it has to get new advisors (new governments).
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I was looking at federal republics because I thought that the 'elected by the states' line of thinking would have more traction there. But it may not be the case.
Right. But as you note, sometimes the office of president is really ceremonial, so maybe it is also worth looking at federal parliamentary systems where the executive power is really exercised by a prime minister or someone similar. Are there any where the PM (or chancellor, or whatever) is not the leader of the majority party?
In Canada, it is technically possible, although it's never happened (the office of Prime Minister is a constitutional convention, and is not formally described). I imagine that it would only occur in a minority situation (which happens often enough) where the largest party's leader not be acceptable to the other parties on which the government relies. The one national Commonwealth parliament where this happened was in Ireland in 1948, when John Costello became taoiseach rather than General Mulcahy, as the general was not acceptable to the other members of the inter-party coalition. In most Commonwealth states, it is not relevant if they be federal or not.
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
It is possible for the second and third largest parties in a Westminster system to express confidence in a leader (usually the leader of the #2 party) and throw out the leader of the #1 party, if no party has a numerical majority in the House.
This can and does happen in a minority parliament is returned, it's called "Meeting the House". It happened in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in 1985, the Progressive Conservatives, under Frank Miller, lost a vote of confidence after the 1985 election and David Pearson formed a government with the support of the NDP under Bob Rae. The Ontario Tories were the largest party but short of a majority. In Canada the sitting government gets first crack a forming a government in a minority situation; Frank Miller couldn't do it and got tossed out. He was bitter about it too.
It was the death of the Big Blue Machine, the 42-year Progressive Conservative (Tory) dynasty that ruled Ontario from 1943 to 1985.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
quote:
The realisation probably kicked in when one of the independents positively scoffed at the suggestion that just because the government had lost a particular vote on a particular piece of legislation, the government should fall. It was clear all along that the independents, not constantly thinking in party machine terms, knew perfectly well that the Prime Minister = the person who can command the confidence of a majority of the House of Representatives, and that one vote does not an overall loss of confidence make.
Unless it's Supply (money), in which case you must not lose. Minority Governments have been thrown out on their budgets in Canada.
Supply Bills cannot proceed without the Royal Recommendation, which comes from the Crown through the Cabinet. If the Crown cannot get Supply through, it has to get new advisors (new governments).
Yep, exactly. I should have articulated more clearly.
The independents in question guaranteed Supply. They never guaranteed anything else, nor do I think they were asked to.
[ 09. November 2012, 01:03: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on
:
In Canada major policy items mentioned in the Speech from the Throne may be declared to be Confidence motions by the Government; if you want to engineer your own defeat it's a great excuse.
Private Member's Bills are not motions of confidence. Controversial social legislation is often sent through the Commons as a Private Member's Bill with tacit government backing as a "dark horse" bill.
Posted by comet (# 10353) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
If the public elect, the Senators represent the electorate, not States.
But it's not the same 'electorate' that is represented in the House of Representatives. That's the point that Nick is making. It's deliberatlely NOT population-based.
Right. Each state, whether the largest or the smallest, has two senators. Originally, senators were elected by state legislators. now they are elected by popular election. But by saying senators "represent the state," I mean they, unlike members of the House, give each state an equal voice in the Senate. Representatives represent the people of their districts. Senators represent their entire states.
for example, Alaska has two senators, just like California or New York do. but because we have a small population, we have one congressman (member of the House of Representatives) and technically, population-wise, we only qualify for half a congressmen - hence my jokes about my half-a-congressman. (I'm not a fan) byt the big population areas like CA or NY probably have dozens.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Re the largest party: in my local balliwick, the Australian Capital Territory, we just went through an election.
We almost always have minority government, but some damn interesting things happened this time.
There are 17 members, so you need 9 on your side to be Chief Minister.
The previous makeup of the assembly was Labor 7, Liberal 6, Greens 4. NB, Labor is our left-wing party, Liberal is our right-wing one. The Greens supported Labor in government.
On election night, it looked like the result was going to end up Labor 7, Liberals 8, Greens 2. Liberal vote went up a lot, Labor went up a bit, Greens went down.
The tone of the speech from the Liberal leader on election night was extraordinary. He simultaneously said WE WON and chucked a tantrum about how the Greens would never support him, and how unjust it was. This is despite the Greens having taken a long time to support the previous Labor government, and having made very clear that they intended to reconsider the whole question again and talk to both sides again.
The result actually ENDED UP being Labor 8, Liberals 8, Greens 1.
The Liberals, across the whole Territory, got 41 more votes than Labor. Whereas Labor won 2 of the 3 multimember electorates.
The single Green ended up supporting Labor to remain in government, and he has taken a ministerial position, being the first Green to do so. He supported a Liberal for the position of Speaker.
The Liberals are still frothing at the mouth, with lines such as this is the first time that a party has won the popular vote but not formed government.
One of the reasons it was all so bizarre is that it was so very reminiscent of the 2010 federal election. The Liberal/National coalition claimed they'd won the popular vote then (they were ahead on election night), only to eventually lose it when counting was finished. They claimed to have won the most seats, only to have Tony Crook from the WA Nationals have to explicitly state that he was not a member of the coalition, never had been, and would be sitting on the cross benches.
When things are close, politicians pull all sorts of arguments out of their hats to say "yeah, but we're REALLY the winners here and we have the right to rule". The actual laws of the land seem to be irrelevant at those moments.
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
...My recollection is that each Wyoming vote is worth more than 4 California votes...
A Democratic vote in Wyoming has the same value as a Republican vote in California: nil.
As someone who has been voting Democratic in California since the time when its electoral college votes regularly went to the Republican candidate ** ... California, the home state of two of the Republicans who have been President in my lifetime ... I couldn't disagree more. It wasn't that long ago that the tide changed, changed dramatically, and changed in a way and for reasons I'm seeing in a lot of the current crop of swing states. In the meantime, some of us just kept on plugging, if only to claim our bitching rights.
** And Clinton only got a plurality in 1992 in CA. More people voted for GHWB and Perot combined than for Bubba that time around. He got a majority in '96.
Now, if you want to make an argument that, given the current "swing state/tipping point states", ANY vote in California or Wyoming (in other words, in states currently considered "safe" for one party or another) isn't of current significance beyond the "beauty contest" of the popular vote in the Presidential race, I'd agree heartily.
As an asides (since this is a thread about the EC) even if the Prez vote looks bleak for "your side" and you don't think there's a Florida 2000 chance in your state, there are always downticket races (and, California being what it is, ballot initiatives) where your vote is likely to make a difference.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
I quite agree - I remember campaigning for McGovern in Daly City, which wasn't exactly a time of Democratic dominance.
But I have heard voters in both those two states complain (as does Comet in Alaska) that their individual vote for President makes no difference because the result is a foregone conclusion.
As a first order approximation it may seem that way, but without the dissenting votes there is no way to determine the strength of the opposition. I'm in the middle of that now, living in a Red county of a Blue state. We've been watching the margin narrow over the last 20 years. This is the first year that I haven't felt some personal fear of potential violence when putting out the yard signs, and I'm not generally a fearful person. True, none of the local Democratic candidates won, but every year it is a little bit closer. Party registration currently runs about 55% to 45% - getting to the point where a particularly good candidate on one side, or a particularly bad one on the other (we've certainly had some in the past) might just tip things the other way on occasion.
So I'm certainly not recommending that people not vote, even if the only way their vote for President will make a difference in the race when it is carried to the ballot box by winged porcines.
My guess is that there will be a significant increase in turnout, particularly in non-battleground states, if the popular vote actually made a difference. That very well might make a difference in some local races.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
As the person who posed the question, and as a foreigner looking at this from outside, I have to say that Comet is the only person who seems to be talking sense.
Everybody else seems to be trying to defend an indefensible status quo. No one so far has produced an argument which, even weakly, objectively supports it.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
... But the purpose of the US Senate, as designed in the Constitution, is to give equal representation to states without regard to population. ...
This isn't a question about the President, but is that statement correct? Is the Senate directly elected by the electorate or does each state government nominate the senators it wants to represent it?
The Senate is only giving representation to States if it is the state governments that nominate the Senators to represent them. If the public elect, the Senators represent the electorate, not States.
Originally, senators were chosen by state legislatures, so they really did represent the states rather than the people. With the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, they were directly elected by popular vote. This did somewhat undermine the original purpose of the Senate, which was to have a body less subject to the whims of popular opinion (and more subject to the whims of People Who Matter--but they've found ways to deal with that.) ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
I quite agree - I remember campaigning for McGovern in Daly City, which wasn't exactly a time of Democratic dominance.
But I have heard voters in both those two states complain (as does Comet in Alaska) that their individual vote for President makes no difference because the result is a foregone conclusion.
Well, yeah, I've heard that too. Mind you, I don't think it's right, and you break it down nicely below. With the Californians, I would probably annoy them by reminding them of electoral history.
quote:
As a first order approximation it may seem that way, but without the dissenting votes there is no way to determine the strength of the opposition. I'm in the middle of that now, living in a Red county of a Blue state. We've been watching the margin narrow over the last 20 years. This is the first year that I haven't felt some personal fear of potential violence when putting out the yard signs, and I'm not generally a fearful person. True, none of the local Democratic candidates won, but every year it is a little bit closer. Party registration currently runs about 55% to 45% - getting to the point where a particularly good candidate on one side, or a particularly bad one on the other (we've certainly had some in the past) might just tip things the other way on occasion.
Exactly. Our tipping point was a proposition race in 1994 (embraced by a governor seeking reelection).
I'll note that California had swing-state characteristics much of the time between 1960-1996 - many of the Presidential races were close, including Nixon's first two. The last was news to me, although I excuse myself by having been either not born or still fairly young.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
In principle, I think the US should abandon the Electoral College system in favour of the Popular Vote. Essentially, it strikes me as an understandable part of US democractic history. Today, it is an anachronism.
However ..
I think you would need a new means of registering, recording and tallying the Popular Vote, with standards to ensure consistency, accountability and auditability of the new electoral process across the states. That might be easier said than done. Think "Florida". Issues such as maximising new comms and technology, decoupling other electoral business for simplicity, all look obvious if you were starting with a blank sheet. But you aren't.
As well as necessary admin changes, throw in the prior Constitution, federal and state reforms, and you've got what looks like a hideously complex (and probably very expensive) project to get to the simpler end-result.
I think in an ideal world, it would be a highly desirable swamp-draining, but presently there are many alligators about. You wouldn't want to start from here. It's hardly surprising that lots of folks put it in a box marked "not to be opened just yet".
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As to the suggestion it's undemocratic, how is a prime minister democratically elected?
The prime minister isn't elected as PM. He/she isn't supposed to be. As I said earlier, the PM corresponds to having party leaders in the House of Representatives or the Senate. He/she is elected as an MP with a constituency, just like every other Member of Parliament.
We have a huge democratic deficit in this country, but neither that nor having a hereditary head of state are where it is or have anything to do with it.
The main causes of our deficit are:-
1. Parliament is not very representative. Elections habitually deliver results that bear a random relationship to the votes cast.
But we had a referendum on that a few years ago. The populace rejected doing anything about it. So I suppose one could argue that the existing system while objectively not remotely democratic, has been rendered democratic.
2. In England, local government has no effective power. It's regarded merely as delivering services. And now
3. Since devolution, nobody has done anything about addressing the fact that all the other bits have devolved assemblies with an assortment of powers and functions, but England doesn't.
Those are our democratic deficits. What, apart from the Electoral College, are yours?
From outside, the two that look strangest are:-
1. The House of Representatives doesn't seem to be responsible for anything. It can pass laws, but doesn't have to do anything about delivering them.
2. There's no President's question time. Short of impeachment, which is too drastic a remedy for anyone to dare using, the President and his ministers don't seem to be answerable to anyone for their day to day administration.
But much of the debate seems to home in on there being no limit on the amount parties can spend on campaigning. Does anyone take much notice though of their publicity? Doesn't wall to wall and screen to screen advertising just cause people to switch off?
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Second post
As a matter of curiosity:-
1. If the electorate in each State elects two senators, does the whole state elect both, or does half the State elect one, and the other half the other?
2. Does the whole State vote a complete slate (is that the right word?) for the House of Representatives, or is the State split up into constituencies, which each vote one of them?
Why I'm asking, is that in both cases, if the whole State votes together, the winning party takes all, which is less democratic than splitting the State into constituencies.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think you would need a new means of registering, recording and tallying the Popular Vote, with standards to ensure consistency, accountability and auditability of the new electoral process across the states. That might be easier said than done. Think "Florida". Issues such as maximising new comms and technology, decoupling other electoral business for simplicity, all look obvious if you were starting with a blank sheet. But you aren't.
The last 2 ACT elections, the roll has been electronic. I've been marked off the roll by a person sitting there with something roughly equivalent to an iPad.
I understand that the next federal election might go the same way.
Actual voting is still generally paper, but there is electronic voting at selected centres now.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
An interesting article in this morning's NY Times shows that the Republicans may be shifting to a disadvantageous position in the electoral college system and another in the same issue suggests that Obama could have won the electoral college vote even with a 2% minority against Romney, so it is not impossible that there may be growing interest in changing the system.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
As a matter of curiosity:-
1. If the electorate in each State elects two senators, does the whole state elect both, or does half the State elect one, and the other half the other?
2. Does the whole State vote a complete slate (is that the right word?) for the House of Representatives, or is the State split up into constituencies, which each vote one of them.
Why I'm asking, is that in both cases, if the whole State votes together, the winning party takes all, which is less democratic than splitting the State into constituencies.
The two US Senators are elected at large by the whole state electorate. None the less, it is sometimes the case that each of these two senators will be affiliated with different political parties. The fact is, however, that the overall electorate in many states will represent an overwhelming majority of one party, e.g. the states of the Deep South presently having an overwhelmingly Republican electorate state-wide.
Members of the US House of Representatives are elected from discrete districts within each state.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
It needs to be remembered that the USA has, overall, a very weak federal system. This is often not appreciated by citizens of other countries, who tend to look at the operation of the USA outside its own borders, as a world military power. However, domestically, power within the country is highly dispersed amongst the several state governments and a federal structure so designed that much of the time the branches of government are so ideologically divided that the federal government is virtually immobilised. It helps to realise that America is actually on its second constitution and that the first - the Articles of Confederation - created an even weaker national government - so that the Constitution of 1786 looked very strong by comparison. However, in reality, the present Constitution wasn't so much a quantum leap from the Articles of Confederation, as a limited evolution from the original national charter. This is more clearly seen if one looks at state-federal relations prior to the Civil War, in comparison to the re-creation of the federal union as a result of the Civil War, partly by actual amendment of the Constitution and partly by organic accretion of greater federal power relative to the several states. Overall, however, what the national government does domestically is quite limited to this day, with a great deal of power residing at the state and local levels, and much federal power only exercised indirectly through the power of the purse.
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Second post
As a matter of curiosity:-
1. If the electorate in each State elects two senators, does the whole state elect both, or does half the State elect one, and the other half the other?
2. Does the whole State vote a complete slate (is that the right word?) for the House of Representatives, or is the State split up into constituencies, which each vote one of them.
Why I'm asking, is that in both cases, if the whole State votes together, the winning party takes all, which is less democratic than splitting the State into constituencies.
The two US Senators are elected at large by the whole state electorate. None the less, it is sometimes the case that each of these two senators will be affiliated with different political parties. The fact is, however, that the overall electorate in many states will represent an overwhelming majority of one party, e.g. the states of the Deep South presently having an overwhelmingly Republican electorate state-wide.
Members of the US House of Representatives are elected from discrete districts within each state.
Also note that the two senators are elected at different times. Since they have six-year terms, their elections are staggered such that 1/3 of them are up for election every two years. So twice in every six years, each state will elect a senator.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
Sorry for this further post, but apropos of Enoch, I just wanted to point out that the original method of electing Senators in the federal Constitution - until changed by amendment of that document in the early C20 - was via the state legislature, which elected the two senators for the particular state. Hence, in the original system, the federal upper chamber was chosen through even less democratic means, emphasising state sovereignty rather than popular sovereignty.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
The prime minister isn't elected as PM. He/she isn't supposed to be. As I said earlier, the PM corresponds to having party leaders in the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Except that unlike party leaders in the House or Senate, the PM is the head of the Executive, taking on at least some of the role filled by the president here.
My point in asking the question was not to be critical, but simply to point out that every system has its quirks, its flaws and its strengths. Sometimes these are the result simply of history, and sometimes they are the result of decisions to value one consideration over another. (And often, it's a combination of the two.)
And I really do appreciate all of the info from Australia, Canada and elsewhere. Makes for interesting and informative reading.
Enoch, to elaborate just a little more on what others have said about election of senators and representatives, you'll find here a map of Congressional (House of Representatives) districts for the 113 Congress, which will convene in January. After each census (every 10 years), the 438 seats in the House are repportioned among the states based on population, and then each state redraws the districts within the state to create districts of, as much as possible, equal population.
The states that you see in the map that are all one color are states with populations small enough that they are only entitled to one representative, so the whole state is effectively a district. There are 7 such states. California has the most districts at 53. This map shows how many seats in the House each state has, as well as showing which states gained or lost seats due to populations shifts in the last census.
To tie this back to the Electoral College, the number of electors that each state has is based on the total number of its congressional delegation -- 2 senators plus the number of representatives. So, California, with 53 seats in the House, has 55 electors in the EC, and Delaware, with 1 seat in the House, has 3 electors in the EC.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
My guess is that there will be a significant increase in turnout, particularly in non-battleground states, if the popular vote actually made a difference. That very well might make a difference in some local races.
Not just that, it would change the perverse incentives some election officials have to make it difficult to vote. Under the electoral vote system the state of Florida (for example) has the same impact on the selection of the president whether 1% of the electorate actually votes or 99% of them do. A system where getting more people to the polls increased your state's influence over the selection of the President would be a good incentive for improving the ease of voting on a general level, though perverse incentives would remain for specific precincts an election official thinks will vote the "wrong" way. Adopting a popular vote system might be just the prod needed for certain states to abandon their draconian felon disenfranchisement laws.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
repportioned
Sorry. That should have been reapportioned.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Enoch, to elaborate just a little more on what others have said about election of senators and representatives, you'll find here a map of Congressional (House of Representatives) districts for the 113 Congress, which will convene in January. After each census (every 10 years), the 438 seats in the House are repportioned among the states based on population, and then each state redraws the districts within the state to create districts of, as much as possible, equal population.
Slight quibble: there are only 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The reason the electoral college totals 538 votes is because the District of Columbia is entitled to three votes under the Twenty-Third Amendment. The District has no (voting) Congressional representation.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
To tie this back to the Electoral College, the number of electors that each state has is based on the total number of its congressional delegation -- 2 senators plus the number of representatives. So, California, with 53 seats in the House, has 55 electors in the EC, and Delaware, with 1 seat in the House, has 3 electors in the EC.
As basic math demonstrates, this is enormously advantageous to small states. Most states with three electoral votes have approximately triple the influence over the presidential election as they would if their influence were based on population alone. Large states, on the other hand, operate at a slight disadvantage. California, for example, contains about 12% of the voting age population of the U.S. and controls about 10% of the electoral vote.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Slight quibble: there are only 435 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The reason the electoral college totals 538 votes is because the District of Columbia is entitled to three votes under the Twenty-Third Amendment. The District has no (voting) Congressional representation.
Of course you're right. Thank you -- hadn't had enough caffeine yet.
As for DC, that would be a whole 'nother thread, as we say in these parts, but I'll just say I find the District's lack of voting Congressional representation very troubling.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
As basic math demonstrates, this is enormously advantageous to small states. Most states with three electoral votes have approximately triple the influence over the presidential election as they would if their influence were based on population alone. Large states, on the other hand, operate at a slight disadvantage. California, for example, contains about 12% of the voting age population of the U.S. and controls about 10% of the electoral vote.
While I might quibble with "enornously" advantagous, I won't quibble with the math. Yes, it does put the smaller states at a proportional advantage. But then, so does the Senate, where those states with the smallest populations have a voice and influence equal to states like Califonia. It is, in my view, part of the balancing of various and possibly competing considerations.
[ 09. November 2012, 15:55: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
Sorry for this further post, but apropos of Enoch, I just wanted to point out that the original method of electing Senators in the federal Constitution - until changed by amendment of that document in the early C20 - was via the state legislature, which elected the two senators for the particular state. Hence, in the original system, the federal upper chamber was chosen through even less democratic means, emphasising state sovereignty rather than popular sovereignty.
No, it's not necessarily less democratic. It depends on whether the Senate is supposed to be made up of representatives of the States (like the UN) or the people in them.
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Carex:
I'm aware of one case of an elector not voting as pledged: IIRC someone (Roosevelt?) won every state, but one elector changed his vote so it wouldn't be unanimous - saving that honor for George Washington alone.
I remember ballots marked with the phrase, "Electors pledged to...", but now I think they just list the candidate names.
In 1972, an elector pledged to Nixon voted for the Libertarian candidate.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
It has to be remembered that at the popular level the USA does not have a common electoral system. There are different electoral systems in each of the states in relation to the choosing of presidential electors, though differences in franchise provisions and registration processes have been much reduced by federal legislation and Supreme Court decisions since the 1960s. If the college was to be replaced by a system of direct popular election it would necessitate a standardisation of the system across the nation, probably through the federalisation of the electoral process. It is difficult to see such a development finding much favour with the powers that be, especially at state level.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
Timothy the Obscure quote:
I remember ballots marked with the phrase, "Electors pledged to...", but now I think they just list the candidate names.
Remember that the purpose of the November election is not technically to elect the president but to choose electors to elect the president. Each state has its own rules as to how the supporters of a particular candidate get access to the ballot. In some states it is much more difficult than in others, particularly for "third party" candidates. Consequently, the menu varies from state to state. In parts of the South Democrat "electors" have not always been pledged to support their national candidate. It is a state by state rather than a national election, so that the physical appearance of the ballot is not standard across the USA.
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on
:
Here's an argument in favor of the winner-take-all system for electing electors to the electoral college.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
I think Weigel's not exactly arguing for winner-take-all in that post, Josephine, so much as he's arguing against splitting a state's electoral vote by congressional district.
If a state allotted its electoral votes in proportion to the state-wide popular vote, it could avoid the pernicious effects of gerrymandering that would be inherited with a system that followed its congressional districts.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
It's beyond me, but can anyone calculate the result of apportioning votes on a state-wide basis between the parties, and then applying those proportions, as near as can be, to votes in an electoral college? And what result would that have given? My guess is that a college elected in that manner would give much the same result overall as the present one will.
The argument in favour of the present allocation of seats in the EC is that it gives a higher value to the votes of small states (in the same manner as the US and Aust Senates). A proportional voting system, treating each state as a multi-member constituency, would preserve that weighting and may thereby be more readily accepted across the country.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I don't much like processes which mandate delegates, either. They reduce individuals to ciphers. People get used, regardless of their opinions.
Oh, sure, the Electoral College is a "one-pupose" thing and it has a "one-off" composition every four years. Unlike the continuing purposes of elected representatives in Congress. But seeing mandating as being appropriate in the functioning of the EC is a utilitarian argument, rather than a principled one.
Popular vote gets rid of that as well. Each individual opinion counts. Maybe it's a minor point, but there is something quite weird about this residual use of mandating in an essentially representative democracy.
[ 10. November 2012, 07:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D (2 posts up):
the result of apportioning votes on a state-wide basis between the parties, and then applying those proportions, as near as can be, to votes in an electoral college?
If you could divide electors (or equivalently had more) and ignored the 3 electors rule the result would be the same as the national popular vote.
With the three electors rule then you need to scale each vote by it's 'worth'
This is about (2+435*pop%)/pop%
And this directly gives the winner. Which won't necessarily be the most popular, as votes in Wyoming&Vermont still count as 3 times votes as much as votes in California.
As an example, if the US consistent of California(to be decided) Vermont(100% Republican!) and Wyoming (100% Republican) then the Democrats would need 54% of the total vote (56% of California) to win.
In this reduced example the current system would need the Democrats to get 50% of California (potentially only 48.5% of the vote) to win.
I thought that would be an extreme example as in real life things are less polarised.
But you also have a lot more states and it's when one state isn't dominant that the interesting anomalies happen and there aren't enough of the little states.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by me on Thursday:
As the person who posed the question, and as a foreigner looking at this from outside, I have to say that Comet is the only person who seems to be talking sense.
Everybody else seems to be trying to defend an indefensible status quo. No one so far has produced an argument which, even weakly, objectively supports it.
I'm sorry, but, with the additional exception of Barnabas, who like me appears to be a foreigner, this is still the case.
We've had, 'because it's not fair to Wyoming and Vermont, where at the moment their voters' votes count as three times more than in California'. If I were a Californian, why should my vote be only worth ⅓ of what theirs is worth?
And we've had, 'because one of the alternative ways of managing the Electoral College elections would be to use the same constituencies as for other elections, but crooked politicians have rigged the boundaries in their own favour'.
That isn't a problem if you simply count all the votes.
And besides, who let the politicians decide their own constituency boundaries? That really is enabling the turkeys vote to abolish Christmas. Why not have an independent commission to do this?
Can anyone persuade me that there are any arguments in favour of the Electoral College apart from:-
a. inertia, and
b. it may be unjust but it works in our favour?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
I am another of the foreigners who has commented on this and I fear that I must agree with Enoch on his conclusions. While I always enjoy historical anomalies, this one has proven to be problematic. Enoch points out the district boundaries absurdity (disclosure-- I have been a peripheral part of the federal electoral districting revision in Canada on two occasions and found it a healthy and open process) which makes an intermediate mechanism really problematic.
I keep on wondering: why not just count the votes? Nick Tamen puts the counter-arguments quite well, but I am left feeling like a Quaker in the middle of a discussion about the use of the maniple and how a double of the second class needs to be addressed at the vespers preceding.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
I'd say that the main defense for the EC is that it's a compromise and we haven't got a better. There are many better ideas, of course, but they aren't better in enough other people's opinions. In other words, there isn't anything better that also is feasible.
Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on
:
Then do you dispute the continuation of equal numbers of senators from each state? That perhaps has not made much difference in the US where, with the exception of the La Follette Progressives, there has largely been a bi-party system. Here, with a larger number of senators from each state, third party and independents often creep in, and this gives disproportionate value to the voters in the smaller states.
The suggestion I made above about a state-wide multi-member electorate with proportional voting, is not the same as a popular vote across the Union. In a state like Vermont, and continuing the 3 member rule, you would get 2 Republican and 1 Democrat elector. Not all Florida's 29 electors would support Obama. With suitable rounding out and so forth, the division would be more like 16 Obama/13 Romney and so forth.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
The purpose of the senate (okay, one of them) is to try to keep the big population centers from dominating the country. It's intentionally not proportionate to the population of the state.
I grew up in the rural end of MD, and talking to folks back home I can understand the anger of knowing that however well you organize, you will never, ever be able to affect the laws of your state because the population of a single county at the far end of the state happens to be an order of magnitude greater than yours. The Senate is supposed to be disproportionate. It's to keep rural parts of the country from being totally ignored.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
That's certainly one aspect of it, Bullfrog, but really at the time the Constitution was being worked out, the concern of the smaller states was that they not being dominated by the more populous ones. The so-called Connecticut Compromise led to a bicameral national legislature that preserved in the upper chamber the principle that the Articles of Confederation had established (and prior to the Articles, the Continental Congresses), by which each state had equal representation in the unicameral national legislature; and coupled that existing principle with a lower chamber in which e the electorate of each of the several states was to be represented according to its population size. The more populous states had understandably favoured a unicameral legislature with representation based on population of the state; the less populous states favoured a unicameral legislature based on an equal voice for each state as was the established principle.
Posted by IconiumBound (# 754) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LSV
That's certainly one aspect of it, Bullfrog, but really at the time the Constitution was being worked out, the concern of the smaller states was that they not being dominated by the more populous ones.
And this is exactly why the EC is still relevant today. The issue then, as it is now, is about power and money. Now the money (government funds, military bases,etc) goes to those states that can deliver the electoral votes in states where there is some chances (swing states). The money doesn't need to go to large, populous states that can't be changed.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
quote:
Originally posted by LSV
That's certainly one aspect of it, Bullfrog, but really at the time the Constitution was being worked out, the concern of the smaller states was that they not being dominated by the more populous ones.
And this is exactly why the EC is still relevant today. The issue then, as it is now, is about power and money. Now the money (government funds, military bases,etc) goes to those states that can deliver the electoral votes in states where there is some chances (swing states). The money doesn't need to go to large, populous states that can't be changed.
Sorry. You'll need to explain why that is exactly relevant.
I can see the argument that having the same number of senators for small states as large ones might be a safeguard against the interests of the small states being swamped. The Senate though is a continuous body, and the senators go on exercising their power and influence on behalf of their electors, getting them goodies like government contracts, military bases, contracts etc.
I can't see why the Electoral College which meets once, not in the same place, to do one thing for which each person present has been mandated, and then goes home again, does anything to achieve that on behalf of their electors at all.
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't see why the Electoral College which meets once, not in the same place, to do one thing for which each person present has been mandated, and then goes home again, does anything to achieve that on behalf of their electors at all.
Here's what you need to see, Enoch, and it's quite simple ... The electoral system for US President and Vice President is mandated by the US Constitution, which is notoriously difficult to change.
Article II, Section I, Subsections 1-4.
Attempts have been made in the past to modify those specific mandates but they have all failed adoption. No matter what your rationale or argument might be, or that of anyone else, change of that part of the US Constitution is difficult and hardly likely.
*
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I can't see why the Electoral College which meets once, not in the same place, to do one thing for which each person present has been mandated, and then goes home again, does anything to achieve that on behalf of their electors at all.
Here's what you need to see, Enoch, and it's quite simple ... The electoral system for US President and Vice President is mandated by the US Constitution, which is notoriously difficult to change.
Article II, Section I, Subsections 1-4.
Attempts have been made in the past to modify those specific mandates but they have all failed adoption. No matter what your rationale or argument might be, or that of anyone else, change of that part of the US Constitution is difficult and hardly likely.
*
Sorry, if that is a link, it doesn't work from here.
But if the argument is 'this was laid down in the 1770s and it's too difficult to change', that's fine as an argument. That's 'inertia'. But if that is the reason, people shouldn't try and defend it on any other grounds.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
You Americans should keep your Electoral College. Its cute.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I suppose it is, ken!
But fair? Here is a part of a post of mine from another thread.
Comparison with the 2004 election is informative. (Source: Wiki article.)
Popular Vote: Bush 62,040,610(50.7%) Kerry 59,028,444 (48.3%)
Electoral College: Bush 286 Kerry 251
(2004 depended in the end on Ohio, which was a closish call, not made until the day after.)
2012 as it stands (Source: BBC News)
Popular Vote: Obama 62,088,847 (50.6%) Romney 58,783,137 (47.9%)
Electoral College: Obama 332 Romney 206
Obama's popular vote superiority is 2.7%, Bush's 2.4%. That really is a marginal difference. As are the differences on total votes.
But Bush ends up with a 35 votes advantage in the EC, and a knife edge win. Obama gets 126 and is a very comfortable winner. It does seem clear that the EC system is, currently, giving the Democratic candidate a significant advantage.
I do think the US should give some consideration to fixing that, somehow or other. Regardless of EC cuteness.
(I appreciate there is a reciprocal unfairness argument re the House of Representatives, have started another thread on that).
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But fair?
Fair? I'm British, who am I to talk about "fair"? Over here the Bishops of Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester get automatic seats in the legislature just because of their job (and other bishops get a look in too). A free ride in to Parliament. As far as I know the only other countries in the world where clerics get into Parliament without passing Go are Iran, the Vatican, and the Isle of Man.
Anyway, the Electoral College makes election nights more fun.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But fair?
Fair? I'm British, who am I to talk about "fair"?
[snip]
Anyway, the Electoral College makes election nights more fun.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Twice true!
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You Americans should keep your Electoral College. Its cute.
Yeah, and you guys should have kept your non-decimal currency for the same reason. But times change, with a bit of luck.
I think it's kind of unfortunate that Obama didn't lose the popular vote while winning the EC--that would have got the Republicans on board fast.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I grew up in the rural end of MD, and talking to folks back home I can understand the anger of knowing that however well you organize, you will never, ever be able to affect the laws of your state because the population of a single county at the far end of the state happens to be an order of magnitude greater than yours. The Senate is supposed to be disproportionate. It's to keep rural parts of the country from being totally ignored.
That's an inherent design 'flaw' in democracy. The unfairness that your agenda isn't followed, just because the other side happens to be so much more numerous than yours.
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Here's what you need to see, Enoch, and it's quite simple ... The electoral system for US President and Vice President is mandated by the US Constitution, which is notoriously difficult to change.
Article II, Section I, Subsections 1-4.
Attempts have been made in the past to modify those specific mandates but they have all failed adoption. No matter what your rationale or argument might be, or that of anyone else, change of that part of the US Constitution is difficult and hardly likely.
Not true. The electoral college system was altered by the Twelfth Amendment in 1804, largely because of the mess the original setup caused in the presidential election of 1800.
It should also be noted that "it's hard to amend the Constitution" isn't really an argument, just an excuse. The U.S. Constitution has been amended eighteen times (if you count the first ten amendments, which were passed en masse as the Bill of Rights, as one "time") since the document was ratified in 1788. That's averaging one amendment every twelve-and-a-half years over a period of more than two centuries. That's pretty frequent for something that's supposed to be a practical impossibility. The most recent amendment was ratified in 1992.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's averaging one amendment every twelve-and-a-half years over a period of more than two centuries. That's pretty frequent for something that's supposed to be a practical impossibility. The most recent amendment was ratified in 1992.
Even 20 years seems a long time to me, and that last one had been hanging fire for over 200 years; somehow it doesn't seem entirely fair to count it. And the most recent one before that was ratified more than 40 years ago...
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I do think it might be very hard to modify that part of the constitution.
But I can see a kind of quid pro quo - Democrats saying to GOP "we'll agree to go to popular vote for the President, if you'll agree to an anti-gerrymandering law with controls and teeth re District boundaries for the House of Representatives". I know that there has also been gerrymandering by Democrats, so there might be some difficulty in bringing in all the votes, but there might be a chance.
And Timothy is right too; EC reform might have had a better chance of getting a GOP initiative if Obama had lost the popular vote by 2% and still scraped the EC.
(Indeed something close to that might have happened this time but for the post-storm improvement in Obama's popular vote).
Posted by Mr. Rob (# 5823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
... The electoral system for US President and Vice President is mandated by the US Constitution, which is notoriously difficult to change.
Originally posted by Croesos
... It should also be noted that "it's hard to amend the Constitution" isn't really an argument, just an excuse ...
Well all I can say in reply is read the exerpt below from
elctoral vote.com
" ... Many criticisms have been leveled at this 18th Century system. First, why have electoral votes at all? Why not just elect the president by popular vote? The reason this system has never changed is simple: politics. States with many buffalo and few people, like Wyoming, benefit from it and are not keen on changing it. Since every state gets at least three electors, low-population states have proportionally far more political power than they would have in a direct election system. The number of voters per elector is about four times smaller in the three-elector states than in the most-populous states. The fact that nearly all the low-population states are heavily Republican adds to the difficulties of changing the system. Direct election of the president would eliminate the current bias in favor of the Republicans.
' ... Getting rid of the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment. Amending the constitution is (by design) an exceptionally difficult process requiring not only 2/3 majorities of both houses of Congress, but also by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states. Even in 1788, the Founding Fathers knew that politicians often made outrageous promises. They wanted to make sure the constitution, which most Americans regard as sacred, could only be changed when there was a massive consensus in favor of the change. To give a modern example, president George W. Bush has called for a constitutional amendment stating that a marriage shall be a union between exactly one man and one woman. The Founding Fathers well understood that political slogans like this should not find their way into the constitution too easily, so they made the process very difficult. Changing the electoral college system will not be easy ... "
*
[ 13. November 2012, 00:48: Message edited by: Mr. Rob ]
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
Here's what you need to see, Enoch, and it's quite simple ... The electoral system for US President and Vice President is mandated by the US Constitution, which is notoriously difficult to change.
Article II, Section I, Subsections 1-4.
Attempts have been made in the past to modify those specific mandates but they have all failed adoption. No matter what your rationale or argument might be, or that of anyone else, change of that part of the US Constitution is difficult and hardly likely.
That's why the National Popular Vote was invented. It depends only on getting enough states to vote for the scheme where enough states have agreed to the compact of voting the popular vote to win the election. It's about half way there. A few more elections with popular vote being trumped by the Electoral College will probably move it along.
As for the intent of the founding fathers; they had a dim view of parties and factions. None of the current setup was contemplated by them as the way to do things.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Even 20 years seems a long time to me, and that last one had been hanging fire for over 200 years; somehow it doesn't seem entirely fair to count it. And the most recent one before that was ratified more than 40 years ago...
To put the time scale in perspective, in the same timespan during which the U.S. has amended its Constitution eighteen times, the Senate has confirmed sixteen Chief Justices of the Supreme Court (and rejected the recess appointment of a seventeenth). So while neither is frequent, both are do-able.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I do think it might be very hard to modify that part of the constitution.
I think you mean "it might be very hard to modify that part of the constitution again". As I pointed out in my previous post, that part of the U.S. Constitution has already been amended once.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
As for the intent of the founding fathers; they had a dim view of parties and factions. None of the current setup was contemplated by them as the way to do things.
I feel like I keep making the same point and it keeps going completely past people, but the Twelfth Amendment (a.k.a. the electoral college as it exists today) was adopted largely as an acknowledgement of party politics on a practical level.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I grew up in the rural end of MD, and talking to folks back home I can understand the anger of knowing that however well you organize, you will never, ever be able to affect the laws of your state because the population of a single county at the far end of the state happens to be an order of magnitude greater than yours. The Senate is supposed to be disproportionate. It's to keep rural parts of the country from being totally ignored.
That's an inherent design 'flaw' in democracy. The unfairness that your agenda isn't followed, just because the other side happens to be so much more numerous than yours.
Exactly, and this is why American isn't a straight up democracy.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's an inherent design 'flaw' in democracy. The unfairness that your agenda isn't followed, just because the other side happens to be so much more numerous than yours.
Exactly, and this is why American isn't a straight up democracy.
William F. Buckley advanced the same argument fifty-five years ago:
quote:
The central question which emerges - and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalogue of the rights of American citizens, born Equal - is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes - the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.
Bold added by me. Italics in the original. The whole thing is worth a read for a fairly sobering look at how there's always some excuse as to why the votes of those other people should count for a lot less than your own.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
Not all rural folks are racists.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Not all rural folks are racists.
William F. Buckley was from New York City.
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Not all rural folks are racists.
William F. Buckley was from New York City.
The fact that racists and sophisticated conservatives defended the electoral college for bad reasons doesn't really bother me, if that's what you're trying to imply by bringing up an arch-conservative defending the "White community in the south."
I was thinking of my dad, who's probably a better good gov't liberal than I am (and that's saying something) as a county employee observing that land use policies written for in the heavily urbanized Baltimore-DC tended to look kind of ridiculous when they reached the mountains. And you wonder why all the rural folks turn into conservatives who don't like the government very much. It's not the only reason, and I'm sure there are some idiot racists and such in there, but it's worth noting.
I think that pure democracy is a problem because folks who live in remote parts of the country can be completely ignored in a simple democracy. Mind, they can be simply ignored anyway,* but it's something.
Again, there are very good reasons why America isn't a simple democracy.
*I had a friend who was amused that even though the GOP practically turned the state of Pennsylvania red, the democrats still won. I noted that one of those little blue spots (happened to be named "Philadelphia") had as many votes as more than ten of those great big red blocks.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Not all rural folks are racists.
William F. Buckley was from New York City.
The fact that racists and sophisticated conservatives defended the electoral college for bad reasons doesn't really bother me, if that's what you're trying to imply by bringing up an arch-conservative defending the "White community in the south."
Buckley wasn't defending the electoral college per se (though his arguments could apply equally well there), he was expressing his horror at the idea that the votes of certain types would be counted the same as the votes of decent people. You may have different definitions of "certain types" and "decent people" but at the root it's the same argument, mutatis mutandis.
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Again, there are very good reasons why America isn't a simple democracy.
*I had a friend who was amused that even though the GOP practically turned the state of Pennsylvania red, the democrats still won. I noted that one of those little blue spots (happened to be named "Philadelphia") had as many votes as more than ten of those great big red blocks.
And why, exactly, is it a problem when elections tabulate results on a "per voter" basis rather than a "per square mile" basis?
Posted by Bullfrog. (# 11014) on
:
People living in different geographical regions have different needs, and making their lives politically dominated by a region that's in a totally different world creates inefficiency and inappropriate legislation. Tyranny of the majority when the majority lives, functionally, in a completely different state.*
I currently live in Chicago, and there are all kinds of ongoing legal battles between us and the rest of the state, and in some of the cases I can completely understand why the rest of Illinois resents our political presence. I would be royally ticked off if the votes of people living in the hinterlands could write policy that dominated my life as a city dweller, and I'm sure the inverse is true as well.
ETA: [In short, the principle of self government often contradicts the principle of democracy once you get beyond a certain geographic or demographic scale.]
* I had a friend in college who grew up in a B-more suburb. When someone said that we grew up in the same state, he'd observe (and I'd agree) that I grew up in a completely different Maryland than he did.
[ 13. November 2012, 02:35: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on
:
Gail Collins has written about this "Empty spaces vs. crowded spaces" conundrum. People who live in crowded spaces are acutely aware of their dependence on government, and their concern is that it operate efficiently. People who live in empty spaces see government as an alien intrusion, and want it to leave them alone (this is, IMHO, because they don't notice how dependent on government they are--their self-sufficiency is a delusion).
The real point of the EC is that it allows the power structures in the states to maintain their position. It is inherently a conservative (i.e., anti-democratic) institution. As far as I'm concerned that's a Bad Thing, but YMMV.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To put the time scale in perspective, in the same timespan during which the U.S. has amended its Constitution eighteen times, the Senate has confirmed sixteen Chief Justices of the Supreme Court (and rejected the recess appointment of a seventeenth). So while neither is frequent, both are do-able.
I don't those two things are really comparable. Choosing a new Chief Justice isn't generally undertaken as a constructive act of political will - about half the time it's "do-able" because the old one died. There's no similar circumstance that compels the passage of a constitutional amendment.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
People living in different geographical regions have different needs,,,
So that's why we have local government in counties and cities and towns. Something that, on the whole, the US does better than Britain.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
This Slate article presents a pretty traditional set of arguments for the electoral college. They seem to be kind of post hoc, but there they are. FWIW
--Tom Clune
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To put the time scale in perspective, in the same timespan during which the U.S. has amended its Constitution eighteen times, the Senate has confirmed sixteen Chief Justices of the Supreme Court (and rejected the recess appointment of a seventeenth). So while neither is frequent, both are do-able.
I don't those two things are really comparable. Choosing a new Chief Justice isn't generally undertaken as a constructive act of political will - about half the time it's "do-able" because the old one died. There's no similar circumstance that compels the passage of a constitutional amendment.
Which is why it's so surprising that the U.S. has done the latter (amend the Constitution) more frequently than it's done the former.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should also be noted that "it's hard to amend the Constitution" isn't really an argument, just an excuse.
I'm not sure that either "argument" or "excuse" quite fit. It seems to me to be simply more of a pragmatic observation.
As has been noted, the EC was originally put in place as a compromise dealing with various interests. Various interests, though not necessarily the same ones, are still involved.
It seems to me that it's not so much a matter of "it's hard to amend the Constitution -- case closed," as it is that the Framers intentionally made amendment more difficult than other forms of legislation. They did this to ensure greater buy-in on amendments.
Yes, in 225 years the Constitution has been amended 18 times. Six proposed amendments in those 225 years have fallen short of ratification. A proposed amendment to abolish the EC and replace it with a national popular vote (requiring 40%, not 50%, of the popular vote) made it out of the House in 1969 and received at least some support from President Nixon. But it failed to make it out of the Senate because senators from some Southern and smaller states fillibustered, arguing that the amendment would weaken their states' political influence. (Meanwhile of course, only 13 states would have to vote against -- or decline to take up -- the amendment for it fail ratification by 38 states. According to a New York Times report at the time, 14 states were opposed to or leaning against the amendment.)
Can it be done? Maybe so. But as a practical matter, an amendment that would modify or abolish the EC would likely need to reflect a sufficient compromise of interests to enable ratification. Otherwise, it just won't get the votes it needs. And that's why the difficulty of amendment is a factor.
Posted by Choirboy (# 9659) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Obama's popular vote superiority is 2.7%, Bush's 2.4%. That really is a marginal difference. As are the differences on total votes.
But Bush ends up with a 35 votes advantage in the EC, and a knife edge win. Obama gets 126 and is a very comfortable winner. It does seem clear that the EC system is, currently, giving the Democratic candidate a significant advantage.
I'm not sure the comparison is relevant as you either win or lose under one system or another; it's not like we're apportioning a legislature here.
In fact, the electoral college and the popular vote have disagreed only 4 times. Three of those 4 times, the Republican candidate won with a minority of the popular vote (Hayes, Harrison, and George W. Bush). The 4th time was the election of John Quincy Adams in 1824; it's a bit of a stretch, but he could be called a Democrat by some.
In cases where this has made any difference at all, it has largely favored Republicans. Although most of the cases of difference were in the 19th century, the only modern case favors Republicans. So I think the Electoral College thing favors Republicans, likely through their advantage in the low population rural states of the West and Great Plains.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
To put the time scale in perspective, in the same timespan during which the U.S. has amended its Constitution eighteen times, the Senate has confirmed sixteen Chief Justices of the Supreme Court (and rejected the recess appointment of a seventeenth). So while neither is frequent, both are do-able.
I don't those two things are really comparable. Choosing a new Chief Justice isn't generally undertaken as a constructive act of political will - about half the time it's "do-able" because the old one died. There's no similar circumstance that compels the passage of a constitutional amendment.
Which is why it's so surprising that the U.S. has done the latter (amend the Constitution) more frequently than it's done the former.
I'm sorry, Croesus - perhaps you're making a point here that I'm just not getting. But I see no similarities between constitutional amendments and CJ selections that would lead me to expect any useful insight, surprising or not, to emerge from a comparison of their relative frequency. It's "global average temperature vs. number of pirates" as far as I can see.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Choirboy:
In fact, the electoral college and the popular vote have disagreed only 4 times. Three of those 4 times, the Republican candidate won with a minority of the popular vote (Hayes, Harrison, and George W. Bush). The 4th time was the election of John Quincy Adams in 1824; it's a bit of a stretch, but he could be called a Democrat by some.
Actually the popular vote (which was partial since six states chose their electors via their legislatures instead of by popular vote) and the electoral college agreed in 1824, placing John Quincy Adams in second place behind Andrew Jackson. Jackson just didn't have a majority of the electoral votes, so it was the House of Representatives that made JQA president.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It seems very odd to me not to be concerned about a built-in bias, given the degree of polarisation in US politics. Under the US constitution, a candidate has a mandate via a majority in the EC, so it doesn't really matter if the majority of the populace thought different?
It's broke and you really ought to fix it, before you get an election where the brokenness makes a difference, ratchets up the polarisation still further. This time you dodged a bullet. It doesn't take that much imagination to envision the post-election political climate if Obama had lost the popular vote by close on 2% and won the EC.
Bias in election processes adds fuel to the fires of cynicism and alienation. You really can do without providing rationalisation for the voices arguing "if not the ballot, then the bullet".
"By the way, we need to fix that" applies to more than ridiculous queue lengths.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
But how, Barnabas? What would anyone here suggest that actually has a chance of passing through Congress? That's the issue to me.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
But how, Barnabas? What would anyone here suggest that actually has a chance of passing through Congress? That's the issue to me.
There has been a movement to have the states each enact a law to direct their electors to vote for the candidate that wins the popular vote. AIUI, some states have already approved this, pending approval by enough other states to constitute an EC majority. The reason for this is to do an end-run around the amendment process, which I presume is due to small states' opposition to the change. FWIW
--Tom Clune
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
Unless I am wrong there are not enough big states to get a majority of the EC assenting.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
But how, Barnabas? What would anyone here suggest that actually has a chance of passing through Congress? That's the issue to me.
I accept that nothing will happen unless the GOP changes its mind.
But don't rule that out. Recent Opinion Polls suggest that the majority of US citizens favour the National Popular Vote. It's in GOP interests to start the ball going (once they see the light), they've got a majority in the House. It could easily be seen as a sign that the GOP has learned something out of the 2012 loss (even if only how to improve their chances of winning). The GOP is aware that Karl Rove got it wrong, Nate Silver got it right. The GOP "experts" showed an almost comic ignorance of the demographics behind both the loss (EC and popular vote) and the current 2% bias as a result of the EC composition. They will wake up fast now. They have to.
On the other side, here is Al Gore stating the case. I'm not saying that Al Gore speaks for the Democratic Party on this issue - yet. To judge by the recent Opinion Polls, the move is likely to remain popular with Democrats.
I don't know whether it's an idea whose time has come (the dodged bullet) or it will actually take a major political crisis - as I envisaged - to get this to the top of the agenda.
But there are factors in play now which suggest either a new initiative (or a continuation of the current initiative) could make this a feasible change.
The counter-argument might be that it is a waste of legislative time and action given current economic and geo-political crises (the "bigger fish to fry" line).
So far as the actual drafting of a constitutional amendment goes - that's why you've got lawyers.
As I said earlier, the biggest problem might be the administrative one of ensuring a consistent, accountable, auditable system of registration and measurement across the states.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Unless I am wrong there are not enough big states to get a majority of the EC assenting.
That depends on what you mean by big states. By my reckoning, the largest 11 states currently control the necessary 270 EC votes. It would be considerably less difficult to get an agreement among 11 states than the needed three-fourths of the states for a Constitutional amendment.
--Tom Clune
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Unless I am wrong there are not enough big states to get a majority of the EC assenting.
That depends on what you mean by big states. By my reckoning, the largest 11 states currently control the necessary 270 EC votes. It would be considerably less difficult to get an agreement among 11 states than the needed three-fourths of the states for a Constitutional amendment.
--Tom Clune
By my calculation the 11 biggest states are:
- California - 55
- Texas - 38
- New York - 29
- Florida - 29
- Illinois - 20
- Pennsylvania - 20
- Ohio - 18
- Michigan - 16
- Georgia - 16
- North Carolina - 15
- Virginia - 13
Which adds up to 269. So The 11 biggest versus the 39 others results in an electoral college tie.
Given that California and New York are generally safe Democrat states and Texas (along with many of the 'medium sized' states) are staunchly Republican, it's easy to see how Florida, Ohio etc. become the battle ground states...
And yes, whilst there may be very good arguments for getting rid of the electoral college, I can't see it happening any time soon without a major constitutional crisis.
AFZ
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
That depends on what you mean by big states. By my reckoning, the largest 11 states currently control the necessary 270 EC votes. It would be considerably less difficult to get an agreement among 11 states than the needed three-fourths of the states for a Constitutional amendment.
By my calculation the 11 biggest states are:
- California - 55
- Texas - 38
- New York - 29
- Florida - 29
- Illinois - 20
- Pennsylvania - 20
- Ohio - 18
- Michigan - 16
- Georgia - 16
- North Carolina - 15
- Virginia - 13
Which adds up to 269. So The 11 biggest versus the 39 others results in an electoral college tie.
New Jersey is more populous than Virginia and controls 14 electoral votes.
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
By my calculation the 11 biggest states are:
- California - 55
- Texas - 38
- New York - 29
- Florida - 29
- Illinois - 20
- Pennsylvania - 20
- Ohio - 18
- Michigan - 16
- Georgia - 16
- North Carolina - 15
- Virginia - 13
Which adds up to 269.
You need to substitute New Jersey, with 14 votes for Virginia with 13, and we're in agreement.
--Tom Clune
[ 14. November 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
tclune - fair, I was thinking of the number needed for a constitutional amendment, not the number needed to implement the National Popular Vote.
Barnabas, I am feeling cynical perhaps, and somewhat doubt both parties will remain in favor of any change the other is in favor of. I mean what if Obama supported it, wouldn't that prove it was eeeevil to many people? Still, that is very relevant, and you persuade me this is more likely to happen than any other objection to the EC has, in the last 250 or so years.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
...I am feeling cynical perhaps, and somewhat doubt both parties will remain in favor of any change the other is in favor of.
And even if they were will they stay that way if it seems to go agains their likely interests? You can imagine the campaign to repeal the NPV Act in this or that state already:
Its dishonest. Changing the constitution though the back door. If it was really the right thing to do, then why not try to get a constitutional amendment? Are Americans that stupid that they can't understand the amendment? Or at least try to get it through Congress! The way we did this, forcing it through the large states, over-rode the views and interests of the small states. The populous states ran arond the constitutional checks and balances that are there precisely to stop them dictating to the less populous states! There are reasons the framers wanted two senators from every state, regardless of size...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
This Slate article presents a pretty traditional set of arguments for the electoral college. They seem to be kind of post hoc, but there they are. FWIW
Thank you for that. It's interesting, though I have to say unpersuasive. I don't know who Posner is, but two of his arguments 'Everyone's President' and 'Big States' would work better as arguments for simply adding up the total vote nationwide.
So also does, 'Certainty of Outcome'. He seems to be arguing that the Electoral College is a good thing because it means the President can claim a mandate of 62% instead of the 51% that actually voted for him. So it's better that there is 'a result', preferably one that fools the electorate, rather than 'a representative result'.
I regret that 'completely stupid' is a better compliment than his 'Swing State' argument deserves. That argument would be just as good a one for disenfranchising all those who voted in primaries, on the ground that 'we already know how they are going to vote. Let just the floating voters decide'.
'Avoid Run-Off Elections' is a different argument altogether. If Nixon and Clinton both became President with only 43% of the vote, that's only a problem if someone else got more than 43%.
If you have more than two candidates, there is a case for preferential voting. However, having an Electoral College because that conceals from the public that their President got more than the other candidates but less than 50% of the poll is treating the electorate as both stupid and the legitimate object of deception.
No Mr Posner. 'Must try harder, γ-'.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Thank you for that. It's interesting, though I have to say unpersuasive. I don't know who Posner is, but two of his arguments 'Everyone's President' and 'Big States' would work better as arguments for simply adding up the total vote nationwide.
So also does, 'Certainty of Outcome'. He seems to be arguing that the Electoral College is a good thing because it means the President can claim a mandate of 62% instead of the 51% that actually voted for him. So it's better that there is 'a result', preferably one that fools the electorate, rather than 'a representative result'.
Posner is a senior (read "retired") judge and former Chief Judge of the United State Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), lecturer at the University of Chicago School of Law and author of many books and article. I think it's safe to say he is a well- and widely-respected legal scholar. At least one legal journal has claimed that he is the most cited American legal scholar of the 20th Century. Whether that gives his opinion any particular weight is, of course, up to you. But he's not just an average joe on subjects like this.
And I think you misread what he means about certainty of outcome. (And I have no idea what you mean about "fooling" the electorate. While some may be ignorant of how the EC works, I doubt anyone is fooled about it.)
What he is saying is that if the popular vote was determinative, a close election could generate the possibility of a recounts and challenges all over the country that could keep the outcome in dispute for some period of time. Under the EC, such disputes are typically limited to 1 or 2 states. The 2000 election probably can serve as a good example. That election was very close, but because of the EC numbers, the recount and challenges were limited to one state -- Florida. Gore won the popular vote 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, a difference of only 543,895 or about 00.5%. Depending on how close the vote was state-by-state, that could potentially lead to challenges and recounts all over the country to try and make up that 00.5% difference, making the process after the election much more tumultuous than it was just with the Florida situation.
Again, you may not find that persuasive, but that's the point he's trying to make, not anything about claiming the mandate or fooling the electorate.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
The 2000 election probably can serve as a good example. That election was very close, but because of the EC numbers, the recount and challenges were limited to one state -- Florida. Gore won the popular vote 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, a difference of only 543,895 or about 00.5%. Depending on how close the vote was state-by-state, that could potentially lead to challenges and recounts all over the country to try and make up that 00.5% difference, making the process after the election much more tumultuous than it was just with the Florida situation.
Wait, "ONLY" half a million votes? I find it very hard to believe that anyone would find it convincing that there were half a million uncounted votes for George W. Bush in 2000 just lying around somewhere. If you want to argue that was the case, I'd say that was the real scandal of the election, and one that went unreported.
I guess it comes down to the question of "can Americans count?" While I can see that the ongoing difficulty of states like Florida to conduct what most would be considered an honest and fair election might raise some doubts on this issue, I'm hard pressed to think of non-presidential elections (which are decided by popular vote) that regularly suffer from the problem you describe. When was the last time a Gubenatorial or Congressional race was still undecided two and a half months* after election day? I'll admit I haven't made an extensive study of the question, but an example isn't readily coming to mind. If accurately counting ballots is such a difficult proposition, wouldn't such cases be commonplace?
--------------------
*The approximate timespan between election day and the Presidential inauguration.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Wait, "ONLY" half a million votes? I find it very hard to believe that anyone would find it convincing that there were half a million uncounted votes for George W. Bush in 2000 just lying around somewhere.
I never said anything about uncounted votes. And "only" in the sense of being about 00.5% of the total vote. In my state, if the margin is smaller than 00.5% for statewide elections, a recount is required if requested by the losing candidate. I do not know off the top of my head, but I would not be surprised if other states have similar provisions, more stringent or more generous perhaps.
Then there are the matters of challenges and protests. Provisional, absentee and spoiled ballots in particular are fertile ground there. In the 2008 presidential election, 1,746,338 provisional ballots were cast, of which more than 38% (663,608) were not counted. In that same election, of 25,276,095 absentee ballots cast 407,862 were rejected.
Every presidential election, both parties have observers and legal teams all over watching for things to protest or challenge if they think it will help them. In that context, half a million votes, out of over a hundred million, could well be seen as worth making challenges wherever possible. These are the kinds of votes people make livings arguing about -- provisional or absentee ballots that shouldn't have been counted and were, or provisional, absentee or spoiled ballots that should have been counted and weren't.
Again, one certainly may not find this a persuasive reason for holding on to the EC. That's fine. But in the context of a presidential election with over 100 million votes, I have no trouble at all imagining fights aimed at whitling away a half a million vote difference.
ETA: As for when a gubernatorial election dispute has run on for more than 2 months, there was the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial election. In North Carolina, we had a race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction that garnered lawsuits and wasn't decided for about 6 months, all because of some malfunctioning machines in one county.
But I'd submit that presidential elections are a different animal, and what might not seem worth fighting about in other elections could well seem worth fighting about if the White House is involved.
[ 14. November 2012, 20:24: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Again, one certainly may not find this a persuasive reason for holding on to the EC. That's fine. But in the context of a presidential election with over 100 million votes, I have no trouble at all imagining fights aimed at whitling away a half a million vote difference.
I don't find it persuasive at all, largely because I don't see how the electoral college is supposed to protect against this. You've avoided the two main questions.
1) If it's so easy to move, find, or suppress half a million votes, how does putting those votes through the electoral college meat-grinder prevent this? It seems like the electoral college would encourage such behavior, since it allows you to shift the impact of all the votes cast in a state by shifting a relatively small number of actual ballots. Florida in 2000 is the perfect example of this principle in action.
2) If finding, moving, or suppressing votes is an easy way to shift a popular vote in the election, why do we see it so rarely in those elections that are decided by popular vote? (i.e. every elected position other than president and vice president)
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But I'd submit that presidential elections are a different animal, and what might not seem worth fighting about in other elections could well seem worth fighting about if the White House is involved.
Your edits appeared after I'd drafted my response. At any rate, I'm not sure the argument that a state political party or a gubenatorial candidate is significantly less willing to fight over ballot counts in a close election than a national party or presidential candidate holds up under scrutiny. Certainly the case you cited of Washington's 2004 gubentorial contest doesn't confirm this. If anything, Dino Rossi was probably more willing to slug it out, contested ballot by contested ballot, than Al Gore was four years earlier. It should also be noted that, despite your contention, the final count of the votes in Washington state was actually completed in about a month and half, not "more than 2 months".
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Again, one certainly may not find this a persuasive reason for holding on to the EC. That's fine. But in the context of a presidential election with over 100 million votes, I have no trouble at all imagining fights aimed at whitling away a half a million vote difference.
I don't find it persuasive at all, largely because I don't see how the electoral college is supposed to protect against this. You've avoided the two main questions.
1) If it's so easy to move, find, or suppress half a million votes, how does putting those votes through the electoral college meat-grinder prevent this? It seems like the electoral college would encourage such behavior, since it allows you to shift the impact of all the votes cast in a state by shifting a relatively small number of actual ballots. Florida in 2000 is the perfect example of this principle in action.
2) If finding, moving, or suppressing votes is an easy way to shift a popular vote in the election, why do we see it so rarely in those elections that are decided by popular vote? (i.e. every elected position other than president and vice president)
I think that the argument by people like Posner are about possibility more than probability. And that being the case, I think you're right that it falls into the category of one being able to use these scenarios to support either side of the argument. Please note that I haven't advanced this argument as my own, though I do, as I've said, see the possibility of such battles becoming reality. My response was prompted by what I think was Enoch's misreading of what Posner said. When I say that some may not find the argument persuasive, I mean that. I can see why they may not. But I think it's worth making sure that what one doesn't find persuasive is the argument someone is actually making rather than an argument they didn't make.
The EC, the theory is, creates firewalls between the states. Thus, the battles will only rage if the conditions in a particular state are ripe for it and if the result could shift the vote in the EC -- like Florida in 2000 -- and the battle won't go beyond that state, "settling" the election everywhere else. (In 2008, similar challenges could have been raised in one or two states, but as it wouldn't have affected the votes in the EC, there was no point in pursuing those challenges.)
If the vote is a popular one, the theory goes, there are no firewalls, and battles could happen in many places if the losing party believed that, between all those many places, it could garner enough votes (or have enough votes for the other party thrown out) to shift the result.
I have said I see value in the EC. But to be clear again, this particular argument is not a reason why I see value in it. I think that this argument could cut either way.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It should also be noted that, despite your contention, the final count of the votes in Washington state was actually completed in about a month and half, not "more than 2 months".
I may be remembering incorrectly, but I believe that the legal challenges went on longer than that. Those legal challenges often go beyond just the counting.
[ 14. November 2012, 21:07: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Posner is a senior (read "retired") judge and former Chief Judge of the United State Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit (Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin), lecturer at the University of Chicago School of Law and author of many books and article. I think it's safe to say he is a well- and widely-respected legal scholar. At least one legal journal has claimed that he is the most cited American legal scholar of the 20th Century. Whether that gives his opinion any particular weight is, of course, up to you. But he's not just an average joe on subjects like this.
And I think you misread what he means about certainty of outcome. (And I have no idea what you mean about "fooling" the electorate. While some may be ignorant of how the EC works, I doubt anyone is fooled about it.)
What he is saying is that if the popular vote was determinative, a close election could generate the possibility of a recounts and challenges all over the country that could keep the outcome in dispute for some period of time. Under the EC, such disputes are typically limited to 1 or 2 states. The 2000 election probably can serve as a good example. That election was very close, but because of the EC numbers, the recount and challenges were limited to one state -- Florida. Gore won the popular vote 50,999,897 to 50,456,002, a difference of only 543,895 or about 00.5%. Depending on how close the vote was state-by-state, that could potentially lead to challenges and recounts all over the country to try and make up that 00.5% difference, making the process after the election much more tumultuous than it was just with the Florida situation.
Again, you may not find that persuasive, but that's the point he's trying to make, not anything about claiming the mandate or fooling the electorate.
I'd say that my not realising that he was respected and august has protected me from being fooled by his reputation into being persuaded by the unpersuasive.
What I thought he was saying (and still suspect that in part he might be implying this) is that getting a big majority in the Electoral College gives the President more right to say 'I have a mandate' than he/she actually has.
What he's actually saying, is that, better that the person who got less votes than the other become President than that there should be scope for arguments about recounts. What sort of mandate does that give anyone?
And this man is a retired judge?
As a matter of curiosity, are state governors elected by electoral colleges of county representatives?
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
What I thought he was saying (and still suspect that in part he might be implying this) is that getting a big majority in the Electoral College gives the President more right to say 'I have a mandate' than he/she actually has.
While I'll readily admit that some winning candidates might try that tack -- indeed, Obama did just that last week to try and bolster his bargaining position with the House -- I don't see that at all in what Posner said.
quote:
As a matter of curiosity, are state governors elected by electoral colleges of county representatives?
No, because states are not federations of counties. Counties are political subdivisions of the states, but states are not political subdivisions of the USA; they are separate political entities, having their own constitutions and governments, that participate in a federal union. It is that federal nature of the US that is fundamental to understanding the context for why the Electoral College was created to begin with, and why James Madison (speaking of the original EC system, pre-12th Amendment to the federal Constitution) described the system as a mix of national (meaning all the people of the country) and federal features.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
You are being facetious Enoch, right? Or ironic. State governors are in all cases elected by direct popular vote.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Croesos
My view (expressed earlier) is that decoupling the vote for President from all the other stuff would provide opportunities for
a) more rapid voting
b) use of modern technology
and reduce reasons for delay. It would not eliminate them.
Registration of voters and counting would still require safeguards. A state by state count of vote seems the only practical solution - so it would be necessary to create a central reporting point to total and declare the result. That might not be such a trivial role e.g. over the significance of absentee ballots arriving late, or state administrative delays, or state result queries by candidates, or close calls in a number of states.
All of the above is clearly manageable, but it needs thinking through and the enactment of new/revised state legislation in accordance with any constitutional change.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
As a matter of curiosity, are state governors elected by electoral colleges of county representatives?
No, because states are not federations of counties. Counties are political subdivisions of the states, but states are not political subdivisions of the USA; they are separate political entities, having their own constitutions and governments, that participate in a federal union. It is that federal nature of the US that is fundamental to understanding the context for why the Electoral College was created to begin with, and why James Madison (speaking of the original EC system, pre-12th Amendment to the federal Constitution) described the system as a mix of national (meaning all the people of the country) and federal features.
Outdated symbolism and theories about state supremacy aside, if all the pragmatic arguments being advanced to support the electoral college (less ambiguous outcomes, "firewall" between jurisdictions, protecting the interests of electoral minorities, etc.) are valid, why not apply a similar system to other elections? Instead of voting directly divide the electorate by county, district, cell, or other some other grouping, and tabulate the vote on a per group, rather than per voter, basis? The fact that no one ever advocates for something like this is a pretty good indication that the pragmatic arguments offered for the electoral college system are just so many post hoc rationalizations.
[ 15. November 2012, 00:03: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Outdated symbolism and theories about state supremacy aside . . . .
And i can only hope that this a facetious comment. Otherwise it is hard to consider any opinion you have on the subject an informed one, as you would have to be talking about a country other than the United States.
Surely you know that federalism and "state supremacy" are not the same thing. Surely you know that the United States Constitution creates a federal republic, not a unitary nation. The idea that states bear a relationship to the US fundamentally different from the relationship counties or towns bear to states is hardly a radical or novel one. It's all there in the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Framers, as well as the Constitution itself.
Nor is it difficult to figure out that president and VP are the only offices in the country elected by the country rather than by states or portions of states. POTUS and the VP are sui generis, so it's not a leap of logic to think that different considerations should come into play in electing them. Apples and oranges.
Off course, the easy answer as to why it isn't done for any other elections is that it would violate the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. And that's the argument to make against the EC -- not that it violates one person, one vote, because something that is constitutionally required can't violate the Constitution -- but that the Constitution shouldn't require anything inconsistent with the principle of one person, one vote. And then the discussion is about what it should be about: Which do we as a nation think is more important in the election of the president, principles of federalism or principles of one person, one vote. Or do we decide that some compromise must be made between the two principles.
But to suggest that federalism (not "state supremacy") is symbolic, outdated or has nothing to do wth the question ignores the fundamental nature of how this country is structured and operates.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Outdated symbolism and theories about state supremacy aside . . . .
And i can only hope that this a facetious comment.
Only in part, since apparently you can't leave those arguments aside and address whether the pragmatic arguments advanced make sense. I was trying to ironically point this out.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Nor is it difficult to figure out that president and VP are the only offices in the country elected by the country rather than by states or portions of states. POTUS and the VP are sui generis, so it's not a leap of logic to think that different considerations should come into play in electing them. Apples and oranges.
Technically speaking, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected nationally as well. The position and its selection process are Constitutionally mandated and if election by the House of Representatives doesn't count as a national election, I'm not sure election by the electoral college would count either.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Off course, the easy answer as to why it isn't done for any other elections is that it would violate the constitutional requirement of one person, one vote. And that's the argument to make against the EC -- not that it violates one person, one vote, because something that is constitutionally required can't violate the Constitution -- but that the Constitution shouldn't require anything inconsistent with the principle of one person, one vote.
That's always been the argument against the electoral college. Virtually all the arguments against come down to its non-representative nature and the numerous easily-foreseeable ways in which it won't necessarily line up with the will of the electorate. But instead of addressing this directly we get arguments about "firewalls" and how North and South Dakota are so different that they need to have their votes tabulated separately but northern and southern California are so homogenous that they can be effectively lumped together.
Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on
:
Some small states have also already passed the National Popular Vote
The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted into law in states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate the legislation.
•Maryland - 10 votes
•Massachusetts - 11
•Washington - 12 votes
•Vermont - 3 votes
•DC - 3 votes
•Hawaii - 4 votes
•New Jersey - 14 votes
•Illinois - 20 votes
•California - 55 votes
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
You need to substitute New Jersey, with 14 votes for Virginia with 13, and we're in agreement.
--Tom Clune
D'oh
Should have known you were right.
Hey-ho.
AFZ
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Barnabas, I am feeling cynical perhaps, and somewhat doubt both parties will remain in favor of any change the other is in favor of. I mean what if Obama supported it, wouldn't that prove it was eeeevil to many people? Still, that is very relevant, and you persuade me this is more likely to happen than any other objection to the EC has, in the last 250 or so years.
Well, after the signs of "business as usual" yesterday i.e implacable GOP opposition to Susan Rice being announced publicly even before a nomination (rather than choosing the option of a private signal) you may well be right, rather than cynical.
But it occurs to me that Obama might take the high ground. Offer Electoral reform as a radical means of shortening queue length at ballots and as a way of taking out a bias which is unfair to the GOP. BUT also seek some reciprocal goodwill say on the budget. If the GOP turned that down, they could end up alienating a whole lot of electors, not just Democrats. It's also a kind of long term Presidential legacy move.
So far as the GOP is concerned, the duty of the opposition is to oppose, but not to be stupid about it.
[ 15. November 2012, 06:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Outdated symbolism and theories about state supremacy aside . . . .
And i can only hope that this a facetious comment.
Only in part, since apparently you can't leave those arguments aside and address whether the pragmatic arguments advanced make sense. I was trying to ironically point this out.
I have said:
quote:
I think that the argument by people like Posner are about possibility more than probability. And that being the case, I think you're right that it falls into the category of one being able to use these scenarios to support either side of the argument. Please note that I haven't advanced this argument as my own, though I do, as I've said, see the possibility of such battles becoming reality. . . .
I have said I see value in the EC. But to be clear again, this particular [pragmatic] argument is not a reason why I see value in it. I think that this argument could cut either way.
I think that pretty well covers that the "pragmatic" arguments don't persuade me one way or the other. I don't see any need to address them further.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
Nor is it difficult to figure out that president and VP are the only offices in the country elected by the country rather than by states or portions of states. POTUS and the VP are sui generis, so it's not a leap of logic to think that different considerations should come into play in electing them. Apples and oranges.
Technically speaking, the Speaker of the House of Representatives is elected nationally as well. The position and its selection process are Constitutionally mandated and if election by the House of Representatives doesn't count as a national election, I'm not sure election by the electoral college would count either.
Fair point. The Speaker is, in that sense, elected nationally. Both are indirect national* elections.
* When I have been using the word "national," I have used it in the sense that James Madison uses it in Federalist 39, which I quoted upthread -- meaning pertaining to the people of the United States as a whole, rather than "federal," which refers to "the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong."
Posted by tclune (# 7959) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as the GOP is concerned, the duty of the opposition is to oppose, but not to be stupid about it.
Being stupid about it may not be their duty, but it is their pleasure...
--Tom Clune
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So far as the GOP is concerned, the duty of the opposition is to oppose, but not to be stupid about it.
Being stupid about it may not be their duty, but it is their pleasure...
--Tom Clune
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
In my case, Tom, the reaction was
A one-liner to cherish.
Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on
:
Precisely
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
You are being facetious Enoch, right? Or ironic. State governors are in all cases elected by direct popular vote.
No. Why should I be? I'm a foreigner in a far away country. I don't know about these things.
Your answer though confirms me in my opinion.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0