|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: US Electoral college and doing the right thing
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
As everyone on the planet knows, recently in the US, Trump got less votes than his opponent and yet everyone is calling him a winner. The fault is in the electoral college which is in itself a very specific kind of institution. In fact the electors in the college have full autonomy of who they vote into the office. I mean they could vote me to be the president next time they meet. Ok, maybe not me as I haven't as much as stepped onto US soil but you get the picture.
One can make a very convincing argument that legally (as any lawyer would tell you) they have a right and more importantly morally - the electors HAVE A DUTY to defy the convention and vote Hilary Clinton to be the president.
quote:
The Framers created the electoral college as a safety valve. They were not certain how the states would establish the process for selecting a president. Most assumed they’d have popular elections. But to avoid the chance that some insane passion would sweep the nation, and drive it to elect a nut, or a demagogue, they embedded an electoral college as a kind of circuit breaker. If the people go crazy, the college would be there to check it.
We can argue all day about 'Crooked Hilary' but no one can seriously argue the fact that she is extremely well-qualified to be the next president and Donald Trump is less so. Add to that the actual result of popular election - Clinton majority. Not a 0,005% majority, more like 1,5-2% majority last I checked - a solid lead. If there was ever a reason to use the power of electoral college, it is this election.
There are some writings of the founding fathers that support the idea. The bummer is that this hasn't happened yet. The electors were always nice dudes that respect democratic outcome in the country. Plus no one could ever claim that any of the previous presidents-elect were not qualified for the position. One could complain about Bush in 2000 but he used to be a governor, the race was almost a tie and the whole election ended up in the courtroom anyways. THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT, or is it?
Will they do it? Well, some of us here can pray for a major miracle. Maybe some electors will actually act as they were supposed to (let's be real, this year is exactly what founding fathers had in mind when writing the fail-safe), but chances aren't great. But hey, they are very slightly lower than what NYT thought was a chance for Trump president-elect and guess what happened...
I don't think any of us here are US electors from the college but in case I'm wrong. Should the electors reinforce the will of popular majority? Is it right? Does anyone think it will happen? Does it matter that this mechanism has never been tried before?
PS. For our gracious mods and admins. This thread clearly cannot be included in US election aftermath as it is clearly about the election itself. It could be posted in US election thread but regrettably it has closed since.
[ 15. November 2016, 02:42: Message edited by: mrWaters ]
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Over 4,000,000 million people (myself included) have signed a petition to the Electoral College. It's apparently the most popular petition of all time on [name of petition site*], and the fastest growing ever.
*I know we can't post links to petitions here, but I'm sure anyone who is interested can find it.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Thanks for starting this. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Whatever the legalities of the idea, in realpolitiik terms, were the EC to do what you want, the country would become ungovernable, with at least 50% of the electorate(and probably the population) regarding the EC's actions as a coup d'etat, and responding accordingly.
Plus, you can damn well bet that, next time a Democrat wins the EC, Republican voters will automatically assume him to be the less qualified candidate(and why not, it's an entirely subjective criteria), and demand that the Electors vote against him. And double the threat if that Democrat also loses the popular vote.
Seriously, this is soundling like the rough equivalent of pro-EU Brits demanding a rehash of the Brexit vote, because people supposedly just weren't thinking straight the first time around.
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
In many states the electors have sworn an oath to vote for the winner of the state election. Asking people to perjure themselves doesn't seem a moral imperative.
If you want a useful petition, get your state to join the compact that says that when enough states have signed, they will all vote for the winner of the popular vote.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
Will they do it? Well, some of us here can pray for a major miracle. Maybe some electors will actually act as they were supposed to (let's be real, this year is exactly what founding fathers had in mind when writing the fail-safe), but chances aren't great. But hey, they are very slightly lower than what NYT thought was a chance for Trump president-elect and guess what happened...
I don't think any of us here are US electors from the college but in case I'm wrong. Should the electors reinforce the will of popular majority? Is it right? Does anyone think it will happen? Does it matter that this mechanism has never been tried before?
Surely the obligation of each State's (and District's) electors is to honour the promise that they made to the voters who elected them: if elected, I shall vote for this candidate. To do otherwise would be as dishonest as Trump himself.
The initial problem, as here in elections to the federal Senate, is in the allocation of votes. Because the number of electors equals the number of Representatives and Senators for each State, the vote is skewed in favour of small States. States have an equal number of Senators, regardless of disparities of population That's a start.
The next problem is that just as individual electorates for the Representatives commonly have a bias for one or other major party, so do States. This results in numbers of unnecessary votes - unnecessary because all you need is the plurality of votes in that State, given FPTP. In the US, this has long favoured the Republican party, which can just get that plurality in many States, while the Democrats gain unnecessary votes with higher margins in others.
None of this changes the moral obligation of the Electors for the States, and means that alas Trump will get there.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
It seems to me that Trump can fairly be described as a fascist, albeit one that hasn't yet matched his words with actions.
But I don't think you can arbitrarily just change the rules because you didn't get the result you wanted. Everyone knew the flaws in the Electoral College system before the election, that's a done deal now.
Better to focus on the things you can do something about: press for impeachment of Trump based on the things he's said, his likely conflicts of interest, his appointment of family members to official positions, the various documented bad behaviour etc.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
... If you want a useful petition, get your state to join the compact that says that when enough states have signed, they will all vote for the winner of the popular vote.
It won't deal with the present mess, but in the long run, is that a runner? This is not the first time the Electoral College system has delivered this sort of farce - except that this time it isn't a farce.
It's illogical, and a daft system, completely indefensible unless one reverts to the original theory that they were supposed to choose the right person as a serious trust given to them by those who elected them. Either electing the president is given to 'the people' or 'the states'.
If the former, he or she should be chosen by simply counting all the votes.
If the latter, there would be arguments for either the Congress selecting by some means or the legislatures of the 50 states doing so.
But there are none for doing things the way it has been done hitherto.
The argument that the president would otherwise be chosen by the two or three biggest states and it protects the small ones, by the way, is also a nonsense. It assumes that the entire populations of those states would all vote the same way. As it is, the present system disenfranchises everyone who voted for someone other than the one who scooped the pool in their state.
[ 15. November 2016, 09:03: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Enoch, a strong argument in favour of the Hare-Clark and similar systems. The argument for a voice for smaller states has landed both us and the US with a system where both Senates have equal numbers of Senators for each State - 2 in the case of the US, 12 here. That means 12 Senators elected to represent the half million or so Tasmanians (and only 5 in the House of Representatives) and the same number of Senators for the 7.5 million in NSW (47 Representatives). There are 4 or 5 US States with the 2 Senators and only 1 Representative.
Neither chamber is elected by a first-past-the-post system. Representatives are elected by what we call preferential voting, and as noted, Senators by Hare-Clark.
[ 15. November 2016, 09:43: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
Cheesay wrote:
quote:
But I don't think you can arbitrarily just change the rules because you didn't get the result you wanted. Everyone knew the flaws in the Electoral College system before the election, that's a done deal now.
Well, technically, they wouldn't be changing the rules, since the rules of the College(except as suerseded by the law in certain states) have been written so as to allow for faithless electors.
The thing is, though, the procedure is so rarely used, and never in a way so as to determine the president, that to do it now would be pretty close to just inventing a new rule right out of thin air.
On the original election thread, someone mentioned that there was an Elector in Washington State, a Sanders-ite Democrat, who was planning to vote against Hillary even if she won, and was hoping his vote could be the one that kept her out of office. I'm pretty sure the people now demanding faithless electors would NOT have been happy with that guy if he had done that to an otherwise victorious Hillary.
[ 15. November 2016, 10:15: Message edited by: Stetson ]
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I'd just note that the online campaign to write to the Electoral College voters to encourage faithless voting (from states where it is apparently allowed) has led to at least one threat of legal action.
Even if that is a worthless threat, that's probably enough to muzzle this idea.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
I have my doubts that those who support this petition would be doing so if Trump got more votes and lost the electoral college vote.
Changing the rules mid game to match a particular political end is what a lot of people say Trump is guilty of.
i.e. This idea is hypocrisy.
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
In many states the electors have sworn an oath to vote for the winner of the state election. Asking people to perjure themselves doesn't seem a moral imperative.
Not only that, in some states, mine included, casting a vote for anyone other than who the elector was elected to vote for constitutes, by statute, resignation from office, the vote is not counted and an alternate elector is chosen. Plus there's a civil penalty.
Changing the rules after the game is over is a terrible, and in this case, potentially very dangerous idea.
quote:
If you want a useful petition, get your state to join the compact that says that when enough states have signed, they will all vote for the winner of the popular vote.
This.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
I was hoping one of our learned lawyers would take the other side, but they're sleeping so I'll try to play devils advocate.
The electoral college distributes popular support throughout the states. Take my Ohio. The big cities all wanted Hillary but the rural areas all wanted Trump. There's a danger in the 'end the electoral college,' side, of big urban areas making all the decisions. The country is probably more cohesive without a constant city slicker vs country bumpkin spilt.
Smallish groups such as the Green Party would have no chance at all.(Am I thinking that right? Don't they have more of a chance of winning the electoral vote in a few states than a large group of individual votes?)
Anyway, I'm pretty sure there's a danger that teeny tiny groups like the KKK and my own Abolish Daylight Savings Time party would actually get wasteful votes when such groups should be absorbed into the bigger parties or ignored altogether. It would be very unlikely for them to get electoral votes. Lots of little parties would cause more chaos and possibly even less chance of a reasonable, experienced person being elected.
Right now, we choose the House of Representatives from each state according to population, but two senators from each state regardless of size. That might change with a popular vote and states like Wyoming with very small populations might end up being very under represented in Congress. Presidential candidates probably wouldn't bother with them at all.
We are a Republic*, not a Democracy.
quote:
*A republic is a government in which a restricted group of citizens form a political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which directs them to elect representatives who will govern the state.
Democracy - No charter, just people. People be crazy.
All this makes me wonder. Could we have abolished slavery if we had been a democracy without the electoral college? If we abolished the electoral college would Texas have it's way about guns forever?
I don't know.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
One problem in removing the electoral college and replacing it with the outcome of the popular vote is that the U.S. does not have a uniform electoral system, because the systems are decided by the individual states moderated by Voting Rights Acts and decisions of the Supreme Court. Southern States, for example, tend to make voter registration as restrictive as possible and for polls to close early. IMO the process of registration and conduct of a presidential election by popular vote would need to become a matter for federal rather than state authorities. While that might be a desirable development it's difficult to see how it could come about.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Am I right that the electoral college votes for each state are "winner takes all"? With all those votes going to a single candidate (whoever got the most votes in that State)? Or, do some states split their electoral college votes between candidates in proportion to the vote each one received?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
No! It's a matter for individual states to decide how the college votes are to be distributed. Nearly all, however, operate on a winner takes all basis.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
One problem in removing the electoral college and replacing it with the outcome of the popular vote is that the U.S. does not have a uniform electoral system, because the systems are decided by the individual states moderated by Voting Rights Acts and decisions of the Supreme Court. Southern States, for example, tend to make voter registration as restrictive as possible and for polls to close early. IMO the process of registration and conduct of a presidential election by popular vote would need to become a matter for federal rather than state authorities. While that might be a desirable development it's difficult to see how it could come about.
Oh let's be frank, there is no way to swap electoral college for a popular vote. To do that one would have to change the constitution and you can bet that none of the small states would agree. So it happens that they are over-represented in the senate by a lot. Plus it seems like the loser of popular vote is more likely to win the US presidential election in the future than in the past (in favor of the republicans). Considering that most US states are represented by them, again no chance of constitution change.
I could only imagine such a development if a serious number of electors change sides in this election. Then both parties would be scared shitless and maybe it would force everyone to get rid of the college. But only maybe. I mean plenty of the die hard, Regan style conservatives are not thrilled with Trump. The Bush clan officially claimed to have made an invalid vote in order to avoid Trump vote. While the scenario of faithless electors choosing HRC is unlikely but far from zero because of this fact.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mrWaters
Shipmate
# 18171
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
No! It's a matter for individual states to decide how the college votes are to be distributed. Nearly all, however, operate on a winner takes all basis.
I believe there are only two states without winner-takes-all. Plus they have very little votes so they are inconsequential. I believe this election in Maine there is such situation, three electors for Clinton and one for Trump.
Posts: 80 | From: Aberdeen | Registered: Jul 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Quite, Mr Walters!
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
Oops, mrWaters! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
No! It's a matter for individual states to decide how the college votes are to be distributed. Nearly all, however, operate on a winner takes all basis.
So, the Electoral College can be reformed without amending the Constitution by simply* having all States adopt a system of distributing the electors proportionally to the vote in that State. The result should more closely match the total vote, and would also result in third parties picking up a small number of electoral college votes (which would be all but impossible under a winner takes all system).
* of course, that would be a change in the Constitution of each State, and may not be simple.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
How much crazier would it get if we have a viable third party? Three parties would be a good way to keep one party from taking over congress, the way the Republicans have been doing in recent years. I think the next election might be ready for Republican, Democrat, and BernieSanders parties.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
No! It's a matter for individual states to decide how the college votes are to be distributed. Nearly all, however, operate on a winner takes all basis.
So, the Electoral College can be reformed without amending the Constitution by simply* having all States adopt a system of distributing the electors proportionally to the vote in that State. The result should more closely match the total vote, and would also result in third parties picking up a small number of electoral college votes (which would be all but impossible under a winner takes all system).
* of course, that would be a change in the Constitution of each State, and may not be simple.
No, it would not necessarily be a state constitutional change. In my state, and I suspect in most states, the method of assigning/apportioning electors is set by statute.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I was hoping one of our learned lawyers would take the other side, but they're sleeping so I'll try to play devils advocate.
I may not be learned, but I did take the other side. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:
We are a Republic*, not a Democracy.
quote:
*A republic is a government in which a restricted group of citizens form a political unit, usually under the auspice of a charter, which directs them to elect representatives who will govern the state.
Democracy - No charter, just people. People be crazy.
This is key, as is the fact that we are a federal republic—a republic made up of states that have relinquished some of their sovereignty in order to be equal parts of that federal republic.
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
Oh let's be frank, there is no way to swap electoral college for a popular vote. To do that one would have to change the constitution and you can bet that none of the small states would agree. So it happens that they are over-represented in the senate by a lot.
No, for the reason I set out above—we are a federal republic. All states are represented equally in the Senate.
The constitutional structure is designed to reflect the federal nature of the republic by balancing popular interests and representation with state interests and representation. In Congress, this is achieved by having two houses: one where the make-up is based on population so that each representative represents more or less the same number of people, and one where each state is represented by two senators and therefore on equal footing with all other states. (Originally, senators were elected by state legislatures, not by popular vote.)
In the Electoral College as it has developed, the balance comes about by having the states elect the president, with each state having a number of electors related to (but not directly tied to) population, and by having the votes of each state tied to the popular vote in that state.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Og: Thread Killer:
I have my doubts that those who support this petition would be doing so if Trump got more votes and lost the electoral college vote.
Changing the rules mid game to match a particular political end is what a lot of people say Trump is guilty of.
i.e. This idea is hypocrisy.
I think most proponents would tell you that you are making a false equivalence. They support this because Trump is extraordinarily bad, in their view. Clinton wouldn't be deserving of this kind of effort.
I generally agree with the idea that it is bad to change the rules at the end of the game, and I have often, since 2000, warned against changing the rules to reverse one result. I've variously tacked it up as the Lazy Jack principle or good facts making bad law.
All that said, I am starting to see the point behind making a change, this having happened twice in 16 years, and looking like less of a historical anomaly and more of a common feature going forward (although prior to Tuesday, everyone who knew anything would have told you that the EC map actually gives an easier path to victory to the Democrats).
In the interest of full disclosure, I voted for Bush in 2000 and Clinton in 2016, so that might subconsciously color my changing response...
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og, King of Bashan
Ship's giant Amorite
# 9562
|
Posted
To clarify, I might support a change to how the President is elected going forward, but I think this one has to go by the rules that were set forth at the beginning of the election.
--------------------
"I like to eat crawfish and drink beer. That's despair?" ― Walker Percy
Posts: 3259 | From: Denver, Colorado, USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
There are really two issues and two petitions out there-- one to abolish the electoral college and one to urge electors to change their vote. Both, yes, have the stench of sour grapes and seem like something that could come back to bite us lefties in the butt in future elections. However, to the point of abolishing the electoral college-- the drive there is to abolish it in the future, so it's not a "changing the rules after the game"-- it's changing the rules for a future game-- with all the risk that in the next game the popular vote/EC may go the other way.
re the petition to urge electors to vote for someone other than their state's choice, I'm nervous-- it does seem more like "changing the rules after the game" and seems to set a very very dangerous precedent. However, the original intent of the framers (love how we make reading the constitution equivalent to reading Scripture) seems to be precisely that, as noted in the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by mrWaters:
One can make a very convincing argument that legally (as any lawyer would tell you) they have a right and more importantly morally - the electors HAVE A DUTY to defy the convention and vote Hilary Clinton to be the president.
quote:
The Framers created the electoral college as a safety valve. They were not certain how the states would establish the process for selecting a president. Most assumed they’d have popular elections. But to avoid the chance that some insane passion would sweep the nation, and drive it to elect a nut, or a demagogue, they embedded an electoral college as a kind of circuit breaker. If the people go crazy, the college would be there to check it.
[/QB]
Which raises another question for me: IF the electors agree that this election is different, and falls under the provisions noted above-- does that mean they vote for Clinton (the popular vote)? Because that doesn't exactly seem to fit what the framers are talking about (they seem to be worried about the reverse-- when the popular vote is wrong, therefore we need a safety valve. Or do they vote for some more moderate (but sane!) Republican? And is it fair play if they collude on this, given that it would take a considerable (and most likely impossible) consensus to pull this one off.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
No, it won't happen. The electors may vote for a different candidate than Donald Trump but it won't be Hillary Clinton. Why would Republicans in Texas care if people in California really hate Donald Trump? The fact that Donald Trump won Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Iowa, and probably Michigan not to mention making Minnesota too close to call until the next day coupled with the mass freak out by those on the left has apparently solidified support for Trump from Republicans. Best case scenario for avoiding President Trump is enough electors voting Pence for president and Trump vice president. The election would then go to the House of Representatives would have to elect Trump. There is absolutely no way in hell any Republican with the credentials to be an elector wants Hillary Clinton selecting Scalia's replacement on SCOTUS.
What about abolishing the electoral college? Not going to happen. To pass a constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress plus approval by 3/4 of the states. Democrats are the minority in both the House and the Senate. They control the state government in only 7 states. If you have the political power to pass a constitutional amendment, you aren't worried about the electoral college.
Do I think the electoral college is fair? Yes, I think the electoral college does what it is supposed to do. I wonder how many British shipmates bothered by Clinton winning the popular vote but losing in the electoral college are equally bothered by the fact that UKIP received nearly 2.5 million more votes than the SNP in 2015 yet SNP has 55 more members in parliament than UKIP.
What we need is federalism. If your world is shattered over who gets elected president, then the president has too much power. And if the main concern in voting for president is the Supreme Court then the Supreme Court has too much power as well. The US Constitution like the Constitution of Canada should contain a Notwithstanding Clause.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
The irony here is the purpose for which the Electoral Collage was created in the first place, to take control of the election of the president out of the hands of the popular vote that might be swayed by a demagogue and put it in the hands of presumably wiser and cooler heads. The Founding Fathers were not too enamored of unbridled democracy. Same thing with the original selection of senators by the governors of the states rather than popular vote.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
However, the original intent of the framers (love how we make reading the constitution equivalent to reading Scripture) seems to be precisely that, as noted in the OP....
The quote in the OP seems to me to be a very selective and skewed reading of . . . something? The Federalist Papers?
"Lessig," the as far as I can tell otherwise unidentified "law professor activist" who wrote that article, provides no citation to support the assertion that the Framers intended the Electoral College to be a "safety valve." His quotes from the Federalist Papers don't really quite back him up.
The alternative being considered was to have Congress elect the president. The Electoral College was intended, as I said earlier, to be a mix of state and popular/population decision-making.
It is true that the Framers didn't really trust the population at large to make a decision like this—which I think undercuts the claim made in the article quoted in the OP. The Framers didn't intend the Electoral College to be a "safety valve" in case the people went crazy, because the Framers didn't anticipate that there would be a popular vote for president to start with. Under the original plan, the popular vote was not for a presidential candidate, it was for a person deemed suitable to participate in choosing the president. Because they didn't intend a popular election for president, they certainly didn't anticipate the possibility a popular election where one candidate wins and an Electoral College election where the other candidate wins.
Yes, some states moved fairly early on to electing slates of electors committed to a particular candidate, which Madison and Hamilton opposed as contrary to the idea of electing competent electors and trusting them to make the decision on president.
Perhaps it seems like a subtle distinction from what the article quoted in the OP is saying, but I think it's a significant one. It simply isn't the case that the Framers intended the Electoral College to be a "safety valve" in case the popular vote was crazy, because the populace would never vote for president to start with.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Okay, I'm not convinced about the argument that the framers wanted a check on popular stupidity. This comes (if you follow the quote given in the OP) out of Hamilton, and I'd like to see more primary source evidence before committing to it. (Yes, the founders did tend toward elitism, but still.)
What hasn't come up yet is that the electoral college was a sound idea in an age when counting the popular vote and getting it to Washington meant slogging through the snow on a horse. (That's the explanation for the long period between election and inauguration, as well.) Under those circs it is much easier and more reliable to have states conduct their own election business and then forward the result to the capitol via trusted messengers (electors) who also have, perhaps, a bit more voting authority than simple messengers, given the communications difficulties with home.
Today the snow and distance is not an issue; but corruption and electoral hacking are probably even more prevalent. The electoral college now serves a different purpose--that is, it keeps disputed election results local. After pretty much every election we get someone claiming that things were rigged, or mishandled, or otherwise screwed up. In the electoral system those issues may lead to a recount, but at worst it will be of a single state--because that = an electoral vote (or more). If we went straight to the popular-vote-takes-the-presidency model, we'd be facing the specter of a complete national recount every time somebody made a semi-credible claim of screw-ups. A logistical nightmare. Particularly because the other side would promptly claim a problem with the recount...
Better to keep these things local.
The other problem with ditching the electoral college is that the influence each state gets would be even more lopsided, with consequent unfairness to certain areas and certain interests and needs. I come from California, with 55 electoral votes. Naturally I find this to be a great state of affairs (ha) but what of poor Wyoming, with only 3? Should we, because of low population, strip them of all but 1? What if that state houses a vital but unique industry which ought to have a say in how the country goes?
At this time I live in "fly-over country," and the name will give you an idea of just how many people regard the American Midwest. The population is lower here than in the coastal states which are heavy on cities. And yet, these are the farmers who feed the country and provide many of the exports our country depends on. Should they be stripped of what little influence they currently have in the electoral college? If so, what happens when we elect an idiot who fails to pay necessary attention to the needs of America's breadbasket?
Someone once compared American politics to a bunch of crabs in a bucket, with each crab crawling over the others to escape. They never do, because the crabs on the bottom promptly pull them down. Yes, this is a recipe for not getting anything done, or at least only very slowly. And yet the human tendency to screw up is so strong that I think gridlock is usually preferable to the ability to make easy sweeping changes. I know I'll be relying on it to keep a certain person in check during the next four years.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
For those interested, here is a previous thread on the electoral college and a link to Federalist #68 outlining what Alexander Hamilton saw as the main strengths of the electoral college system. Hamilton seemed to see the electors as a bulwark against popular opinion rather than a blind instrument of it, but then again the electors of Hamilton's day weren't usually selected by popular election.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
This is key, as is the fact that we are a federal republic — a republic made up of states that have relinquished some of their sovereignty in order to be equal parts of that federal republic.
Not really. The American republic is a compact of the people. It says so right there at the top of the Instruction Manual. There is a constitutional order that slips in "each State acting in its sovereign and independent character" after the bit about "We the People", but that's not the Constitution of the United States of America.
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
I think the electoral college does what it is supposed to do.
Concentrate political power in the hands of relatively affluent white Americans at the expense of everyone else? Yes, I agree that it does seem to be working according to its original design. From the EC thread from four years ago:
quote:
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
Ultimately the question about whether to keep the Electoral College is the questions of whether the U.S. has a national government or a federal government. Should we still be organized in states that have any meaning other than as administrative districts? Should Senators be elected as two per state or as 100 per nation? There may be a long-term movement toward a national system, starting with the outcome of the Civil War.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The other problem with ditching the electoral college is that the influence each state gets would be even more lopsided, with consequent unfairness to certain areas and certain interests and needs. I come from California, with 55 electoral votes. Naturally I find this to be a great state of affairs (ha) but what of poor Wyoming, with only 3? Should we, because of low population, strip them of all but 1? What if that state houses a vital but unique industry which ought to have a say in how the country goes?
If your problem is that political power is given to a faction because they're much more numerous, then your problem is with representative democracy generally rather than the particulars of any given electoral system. I'm also not buying the argument that farmers who raise food are more entitled to wield political power than, for example, workers in meat-packing plants who process that farmer's livestock or rail workers who ship it around the country.
Another fairly easily foreseeable consequence of the electoral college system is that it reduces or eliminates the electoral penalties for state-level voter suppression. Each state carries the same electoral weight regardless of how many of its voting-age citizens cast a ballot.
[ 15. November 2016, 16:01: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, it is unclear to me why a citizen of Wyoming should have greater electoral weight than a citizen of California simply because there are fewer of them.
One person, one vote.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If your problem is that political power is given to a faction because they're much more numerous, then your problem is with representative democracy generally rather than the particulars of any given electoral system.
This is precisely the reason the founders set up the Senate to give each state two votes, regardless of population. So your problem is not so much with me as it is with the founders.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also not buying the argument that farmers who raise food are more entitled to wield political power than, for example, workers in meat-packing plants who process that farmer's livestock or rail workers who ship it around the country.
Who said anything about more entitled? All I'm arguing for is that they ought to have a vote. (And lots of those meatpackers and rail workers live in flyover country too, just as the farmers do.)
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Another fairly easily foreseeable consequence of the electoral college system is that it reduces or eliminates the electoral penalties for state-level voter suppression. Each state carries the same electoral weight regardless of how many of its voting-age citizens cast a ballot.
I doubt the founders were thinking about voter suppression when they put the system together. To be sure, no system is perfect, including the electoral college system. But there are other ways to work against voter suppression than pitching the current system in favor of a straight popular vote. Obviously you and I differ in the weight we assign to the advantages and disadvantages of each system.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
Lamb Chopped, it is unclear to me why a citizen of Wyoming should have greater electoral weight than a citizen of California simply because there are fewer of them.
One person, one vote.
Because the country is made up, not just of people as unconnected individuals, but of communities located in a particular space and held together by common needs and interests. Each of these has some importance to the United States as a whole. Ensuring each of them gets a certain level of representation cuts down on the chance that a particular community could be left out in the cold, leading to decisions which are bad, not just for that community, but for the entire country.
It's a very complicated interconnected web. Try to imagine what it would be like if, say, Silicon Valley were located in Wyoming, and we went to a purely-popular vote system. That's a highly localized industry, though people are trying to make it less so. Do we want a government where a major U.S. industry is almost voiceless?
There are also areas that specialize in defense, in airplane building, in agriculture. They need a minimum level of representation, as what they do is critical to the welfare of the country, regardless of their actual population size.
The list of industries and special interests who need a level of representation for the sake of the country-as-a-whole is almost as long as the list of industries/special interests that exist. (I suppose that the U.S. scrunchy producers (if any) might not be critical.)
The other, less high-minded reason for not further disempowering the low-population areas is that we don't want to encourage civil war. There's enough resentment out there already because low population = lesser influence. Why make it worse?
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
Lamb Chopped, we do not vote by industry blocks. That is generally considered a bad thing. We vote as individuals with various interests. This given, why should any individual's vote bear more weight than mine? For that matter, I am a member of a minority industry, as a librarian, but since librarians are spread out over every state rather than concentrated in one geographic area, we don't benefit from this weighting of the vote. Why should I count less than another voter?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
What hasn't come up yet is that the electoral college was a sound idea in an age when counting the popular vote and getting it to Washington meant slogging through the snow on a horse. (That's the explanation for the long period between election and inauguration, as well.) Under those circs it is much easier and more reliable to have states conduct their own election business and then forward the result to the capitol via trusted messengers (electors) who also have, perhaps, a bit more voting authority than simple messengers, given the communications difficulties with home.
That's not really how it has ever worked, though, and not at all the intent behind the system.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
This is key, as is the fact that we are a federal republic — a republic made up of states that have relinquished some of their sovereignty in order to be equal parts of that federal republic.
Not really. The American republic is a compact of the people. It says so right there at the top of the Instruction Manual.
I think that gets a "not really" too, though. The Constitution was ratified not by vote of the people but by the states, only becoming effective when the requisite number of states ratified it. Likewise, amendments are ratified by the states through their legislatures, not by popular vote. The preamble notwithstanding, the Constitution has never been subject to popular vote. It is completely the result of action by the states.
The purpose of the Constitution is to define (and limit) the powers of the federal government, to create the basic structures of the federal government, and to define the role of the federal government vs the role of the states. Even the personal rights set forth in the Bill of Rights and elsewhere are set forth in the context of the power and limitations of the government. The Preamble may assist in understanding the intent behind other parts of the Constitution, but it does not have legal effect on its own.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm also not buying the argument that farmers who raise food are more entitled to wield political power than, for example, workers in meat-packing plants who process that farmer's livestock or rail workers who ship it around the country.
Who said anything about more entitled? All I'm arguing for is that they ought to have a vote. (And lots of those meatpackers and rail workers live in flyover country too, just as the farmers do.)
You're arguing for more than that. You seem to be arguing that a farmer's vote should count for more than a scrunchy-maker's. Of course, the electoral college doesn't really rank voters by occupational worth, as you advocate. It simply divides them up by geographic groups, weights them roughly by population, and then bloc-assigns the regional vote regardless of margin. (You get the same electoral result by winning a state 49%-48% as you do by winning it 65%-32%).
The interesting question is how these professionally-assigned vote-weightings would be calculated? Is a farmer's vote worth the votes of two students or three? How does this compare with a child care worker? Does it matter if the child care worker is paid for their work or is an uncompensated stay-at-home parent? And how does this correlate to population density, as you've indicated? Should a farmer in Wyoming get more votes than a farmer in California or a rancher in Texas, to compensate for her numerical disadvantage?
It seems like the electoral college doesn't really do any of the things you claim it's supposed to.
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Another fairly easily foreseeable consequence of the electoral college system is that it reduces or eliminates the electoral penalties for state-level voter suppression. Each state carries the same electoral weight regardless of how many of its voting-age citizens cast a ballot.
I doubt the founders were thinking about voter suppression when they put the system together.
They most certainly were! The electoral college was deliberately built to compensate the major slave-holding states for their non-voting enslaved population. If they weren't thinking about voter suppression they would never have included the three-fifths clause.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
Oh for gosh sakes. I am arguing purely and solely for not letting any geographical region have its electoral (or Congress) representation slip below 3, the current minimum. I am not saying that anybody's vote is worth more than anybody else's. That's just silly.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not really. The American republic is a compact of the people. It says so right there at the top of the Instruction Manual.
I think that gets a "not really" too, though. The Constitution was ratified not by vote of the people but by the states, only becoming effective when the requisite number of states ratified it. Likewise, amendments are ratified by the states through their legislatures, not by popular vote. The preamble notwithstanding, the Constitution has never been subject to popular vote. It is completely the result of action by the states.
Not really. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by special ratification conventions convened in each state, completely bypassing the state governments. There's a lot of analysis of what the Founders 'intended' by certain actions, but a lot of what they did was for pragmatic reasons rather than deep philosophical ones. They deliberately bypassed the state governments because they believed that the governments of the various states would never agree to cede so much power to the new federal government. Still if you're going to posit some deeper meaning to the U.S. Constitution being ratified by state legislatures, it would help your case if it actually was.
And amendments can also be ratified by state conventions. The Twenty-First Amendment was ratified in this manner, in fact.
The "compact" theory of American federalism also seems to break down when considering the admission of the later states. The Kansas Territory was under the direct control of the U.S. Congress before it became a state. In what way did they "relinquish[] some of their sovereignty" to the federal government that was already running the Kansas Territory? And if they were "sovereign while under direct federal control, why did they need to submit four different state constitutions to Congress before being admitted?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Goldfish Stew
Shipmate
# 5512
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Do we want a government where a major U.S. industry is almost voiceless?
Well if that were the arms industry, hell yes.
Industry gets most of its voice by lobby anyway. Unfortunately
--------------------
.
Posts: 2405 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
In the European Parliament, the number of MEPs a country has aren't directly proportional to the population of the country. For instance...
- Malta. 1 MEP for 70.5k people (Pop.423,000, 6 MEPs)
- Slovenia. 1 MEP for 257k people (Pop. 2.06 million, 8 MEPs)
- Czech Republic. 1 MEP for 500k people (Pop. 10.5 million, 21 MEPs)
- Italy. 1 MEP for 819k people (Pop. 59.8 million, 73 MEPs)
- Germany. 1 MEP for 840k people (Pop. 80.6 million, 96 MEPs)
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Oh for gosh sakes. I am arguing purely and solely for not letting any geographical region have its electoral (or Congress) representation slip below 3, the current minimum. I am not saying that anybody's vote is worth more than anybody else's. That's just silly.
And yet that's the argument you made about how unfair it was to treat a voter in Wyoming's ballot the same as a voter in California's. As I pointed out four years ago all of these pragmatic arguments tend to fall apart if you look at them too closely, especially if you start asking why these supposed 'advantages' of the electoral college system are never applied to any other election, either in the U.S. or abroad.
quote:
[I]f 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.
In other words, if the Wyoming farmer needs his vote boosted by the electoral college to compete electorally with farmers in Califoria, why doesn't he need a similar boost to compete against all those city-folk over in Cheyenne in state elections? And yet no one ever advocates an electoral college type system for gubernatorial elections.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
It's always been a balancing act between state rights and wishes and people's rights and wishes. You'll note the Civil War was fought between states, not people, and in fact caused a helluva lot of grief to many people with family on both sides. A lot of the pressures put on new applicant states (like Missouri) were there precisely because existing states were trying to balance their own interests in the situation. In that particular case, the slave states and free states were both concerned about which stance the incoming states would take. Note that this is an issue of states, not individual people.
My point is that those who put everything down to the people are wrong, and so are those who put everything down to the states. It's always been an uneasy balance, and opinions differ on what the ideal should be. The electoral college is a compromise between the two.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Not really. The U.S. Constitution was ratified by special ratification conventions convened in each state, completely bypassing the state governments. There's a lot of analysis of what the Founders 'intended' by certain actions, but a lot of what they did was for pragmatic reasons rather than deep philosophical ones. They deliberately bypassed the state governments because they believed that the governments of the various states would never agree to cede so much power to the new federal government. Still if you're going to posit some deeper meaning to the U.S. Constitution being ratified by state legislatures, it would help your case if it actually was.
I stand corrected on conventions. That's what I get for responding from memory, particularly about how proposed amendments have been handled here in my memory. You are quite right about that.
But my point wasn't at all about significance of action by state legislatures, it was about the significance of actions by states. That significance holds whether the state acts through its legislature or through a convention. If the US Constitution were indeed a compact of the people of the United States, then logically it would be the people of the United States who would, through whatever mechanism (popular vote, convention), ratify it or amendments to it. But that wasn't the case. It was the states/people of the states on a state-by-state basis that ratified it.
quote:
The "compact" theory of American federalism also seems to break down when considering the admission of the later states. The Kansas Territory was under the direct control of the U.S. Congress before it became a state. In what way did they "relinquish[] some of their sovereignty" to the federal government that was already running the Kansas Territory? And if they were "sovereign while under direct federal control, why did they need to submit four different state constitutions to Congress before being admitted?
There is no doubt that the original 13 states were sovereign states prior to ratifying the Constitution. As best I recall, the same can be said of some other states, such as Texas.
No, Kansas was not a sovereign state while under direct federal control. It was a federal territory. Quite likely it can be considered a legal fiction, but territories like Kansas were granted statehood (which includes sovereignty in certain spheres) by the federal government that controlled it, but that statehood was conditioned upon ratification of the Constitution and entry thereby into the Union.
Like I've said, the constitutional set-up is an attempt to blend popular and population-based decision making for the country as a whole, and decision making by the states, which remain sovereign in certain areas. The Constitution is a grant of power by the states to the federal government, not a grant of power by the federal government to the states. There are definitely tensions between the popular concerns and the state-centered concerns, as well as between the federal powers vs state powers. But none of it changes the fact that the US is a federal republic created by states which under the Constitution retain certain aspects of sovereignty.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think the right thing is a bipartisan agreement to electoral reform, of congressional district boundaries for sure and the Electoral College system probably.
But things are so polarised that "good luck with that" seems the best to be said.
And in any case, the current system means the US has got the Donald for four years, barring death or impeachment. That's the realpolitik. We've got Brexit, you've got Donald. Both may be mad decisions but that's the way it is.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
No, Kansas was not a sovereign state while under direct federal control. It was a federal territory. Quite likely it can be considered a legal fiction, but territories like Kansas were granted statehood (which includes sovereignty in certain spheres) by the federal government that controlled it, but that statehood was conditioned upon ratification of the Constitution and entry thereby into the Union.
Like I've said, the constitutional set-up is an attempt to blend popular and population-based decision making for the country as a whole, and decision making by the states, which remain sovereign in certain areas. The Constitution is a grant of power by the states to the federal government, not a grant of power by the federal government to the states.
First off, all governments are legal fictions. They're systems set up by people to handle a variety of collective action problems and exist as long as they've got a critical mass of people who believe in them.
The two assertions I've highlighted seem to be in direct contradiction with each other. You can't claim that Kansas was "granted statehood (which includes sovereignty in certain spheres) by the federal government" and then claim that it was the states (like Kansas) granting power to the federal government. The Constitution itself claims to represent the people generally (carrying over the whole "consent of the governed" from the rhetoric of the Declaration of Independence), rather than the states individually, and went to a great deal of trouble to craft a ratification process as free from existing state institutions as possible.
Getting back to the question of the electoral college, I'm not sure I see the advantages of a system that regularly (i.e. 2 out of the last 5 examples) generates anti-democratic outcomes. There are both philosophical and practical reasons to favor rule by the most numerous. (Indeed, every other electoral system in the U.S. is premised on these reasons.) I'm not sure the same can be said for rule by a less numerous faction given a structural systematic "boost".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
It is important to point out that the electoral system helps to structure voter choice and campaign tactics. For example, had Trump needed to win a majority of the popular vote it is likely his campaigning strategy would have been more intense in California and other solid blue states. Clinton, of course, might have campaigned harder in Texas etc.. To assume that Clinton would have won if the outcome had been based on the popular vote, therefore, is not the obvious assumption it might at first seem.
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
