homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » The Electoral College (Page 3)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Electoral College
Josephine

Orthodox Belle
# 3899

 - Posted      Profile for Josephine   Author's homepage   Email Josephine   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Here's an argument in favor of the winner-take-all system for electing electors to the electoral college.

--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!

Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

--------------------
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
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472

 - Posted      Profile for Augustine the Aleut     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815

 - Posted      Profile for Gee D     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican

Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras
Shipmate
# 11274

 - Posted      Profile for Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Email Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 7328 | From: Delaware | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754

 - Posted      Profile for IconiumBound   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823

 - Posted      Profile for Mr. Rob         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

*

Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
You Americans should keep your Electoral College. Its cute.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).

--------------------
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
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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] Twice true!

--------------------
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
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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...
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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).

--------------------
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
Mr. Rob
Shipmate
# 5823

 - Posted      Profile for Mr. Rob         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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 ]

Posts: 862 | From: USA | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772

 - Posted      Profile for Palimpsest   Email Palimpsest   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Not all rural folks are racists.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Not all rural folks are racists.

[Confused] William F. Buckley was from New York City.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Not all rural folks are racists.

[Confused] 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.

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Not all rural folks are racists.

[Confused] 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?

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bullfrog.

Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014

 - Posted      Profile for Bullfrog.   Email Bullfrog.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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. ]

--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg

Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Timothy the Obscure

Mostly Friendly
# 292

 - Posted      Profile for Timothy the Obscure   Email Timothy the Obscure   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
  - C. P. Snow

Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nick Tamen

Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164

 - Posted      Profile for Nick Tamen     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Choirboy
Shipmate
# 9659

 - Posted      Profile for Choirboy   Email Choirboy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

Posts: 2994 | From: Minneapolis, Minnesota USA | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But how, Barnabas? What would anyone here suggest that actually has a chance of passing through Congress? That's the issue to me.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Unless I am wrong there are not enough big states to get a majority of the EC assenting.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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.

--------------------
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
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
alienfromzog

Ship's Alien
# 5327

 - Posted      Profile for alienfromzog   Email alienfromzog   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
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

--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]

An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)

Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools