dalem

The EC is "better" than a popular vote because we already HAVE a branch of government completely determined by popular vote and that's the House of Representatives.

[pedantry]
I've said it a million times but some folks don't seem to grasp the simple reality that our system was DESIGNED, it wasn't stumbled upon.[/pedantry]

Legislative Branch

The House, the PEOPLES' House, is strictly proportional to population - the more you have, the more representin' you get. And its members are elected by direct and popular vote and serve 2 year terms. Bob Jones gets 85,000 votes and Jane Smith gets 85,001 votes? Say hello to Representative Jane.

The Senate is not propotional, it is uniform and "fair" - 2 Senators per state, 6 year terms, no matter how big or small your state is. Senators were originally appointed by the individual state Senates until the 17th Amendment. Now they are directly elected like Representatives.

Executive Branch

The President is elected to a 4 year term via a weighted system whereby appointed and elected Electors cast their votes as determined by popular vote within their states. The total number of electoral votes in a state is based on the sum of its Senators and Congressmen. Most states are "winner take all" states for their Electoral votes. The Legislative branch breaks ties.

Judicial Branch

Nine Supreme Court justices, appointed by the executive, serving life appointments.

If you take various parts of this system and make it based on popular vote where it wasn't designed to be such, it throws off the concepts of "checks and balances" that were originally set up with multiple branches subject to various and separate forces and fads for different lengths of time.

It's just a bad idea.

-dale

JAD_333

Hell, I included the dems.


Of course not. You didn't ask if it was better. I had said:

Then you asked...

I then explained to you the formula for apportioning delegates to the electoral college showing that 100 of 536 delegates, are divided equally between the 50 states regardless of size.



I know that. But the question is, is it a good idea? Consider the background. Start with the reasons the founding fathers didn't want a direct election for president. It was thorougly explained in the Federalist papers. See essay # 68. http://www.foundingfathers.info/fede...dex.htmtwofold.

Back then, each state had strong sense of individual identity, a legacy of their colonial semi-autonomy. The smaller ones were understandably worried about being dominated by the bigger ones. Only after they were assured that they would have some say in running the national government did they sign on. One leveling device was the Senate; each state would have two seats regardess of its size. That was a strong incentive since the Senate could kill legislation passed by the House, ratify treaties, block senior political appointments and approve Supreme Court nominees.

The electoral college was another leveler, although more sublte. It guaranteed each state would have 2 delegates (votes) for president regardless of its size, one for each Senator. But the college was still weighted toward population in that each state would get one delegate for each seat it had in the House of Reps.

Over the years we have become so enamoured with the concept that a majority of people should decide every question, that in the case of choosing a president, we're willing to scrap the constitutional guarantee that a majority of the states should choose the president. Of course, many people don't see the college as a guarantee, but as a anachronism. I am not sure they have thought it through.

IMHO, a national (direct) election for president would diminish the strength of our federal structure. For one, the dynamics of state politics in the smaller states would change, since courting voters in smaller states would become less important. Local and state politicians in those states would lose their bargaining clout. Instead, politicians in the larger states would see an increase in theirs as presidential candidates focus more on their states. Thus, the fears the smaller states expressed in 1789 of being marginalized by the larger states would become reality.

As if that wasn't enough, a national election would create a nationwide common denominator, since surely it would come under the aegis of the central government. It follows that the rules and requirements to vote will become the same everywhere. Out of that control may come all sorts of obnoxious requirements, such a national ID card. Also, recounts would have to national...

It seems to me we ought to keep the current constitutional formula. It comes close to being a popular election since the states mandate or strongly urge their electors to vote as the state votes.

Only a constitutional convention can abolish the electoral college. I doubt more than a small handful of states would vote for it. You don't turn off a smoke alarm just because you haven't had a fire so far.

__________________
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education. (Plato)

JAD_333

Hear, hear. An excellent way to approach the question. I especially like your comment that we didn't stumble on our constitutional formulas.

Ironduke

Their is no constitutional requirement that electors cast their vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. State legislatures are free to decide how their electoral votes are cast, they can do it proportionally, they can short the winner of their state and hand their electors to the winner of the popular vote, and so on.

__________________
The Buck Stops Here

JAD_333

Precisely so, and a good thing it is too. However, Dale is right and so are you. The constitutional freedom of the electoral college to vote anyway it wishes is fundamental. However, exercising this freedom depends on the will of the states. The format they have adopted, whereby their delegates are required or instructed to vote as the majority of people of the state vote is perfectly in tune with the intent of the framers. Draw.

Tibbetts

So, what the hell does that have to do with the price of cheese in Siberia?

The President should be elected by the entire nation, since he/she is suppose to lead that nation. Not elected by 530 odd people that could just ignore the people and vote however they want. A President should be elected by everyone, since he/she is the one leading, and representing us, in the world

"Designed"? Of course it was designed. So is the government of every nation on the planet. It's an organization. All organizations are "designed".

Not for me. More I think on it, the more I believe that the Popular Vote is the better way to go when electing a President.

LOL... Yeah, so? What did that have to do with my comment. It's still bigotted of you to lump everyone under your belief system.

And that matters, how? 100 out of the millions that are old enough to vote? LOL... Hell no. I want my vote to count in any election. With our present system, my vote is worthless.

It's an out of date structure, and it needs to go. It's from an era when the Foundations of the United States as an entity, were fragile. That is no longer the case. More and more citizens of the nation are fed up with the Electoral College. It's use has become void. Half the States' already require that their electors go with what the majority of their citizens vote. Not much of a stretch to assume that an Amendment to the Constitution to Abolish the Electoral College, would pass.

It's time for the "free-est" nation on Earth, allow each citizen a direct vote in who will lead their nation.



-Tibbetts

__________________
War is the one constant in Human history. Too deny that, is too deny our vary nature. -- Me

Bluesman

Utterly disagree with every word in that post, including each 'and' and 'the'.

__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell

dalem

My point is that you can't just look at one piece in isolation. And if you think you've got a better total system than what exists, I think you're wrong.

-dale

JAD_333

So, what is my belief system?

You asked a question and got an answer. Now you're using the answer as a strawman to argue a point that I never made.

Tibbetts

You mean my post? lol...

Still, the "piece" known as the Electoral College is useless. It serves no purpose now.

The belief that your god, and the gods of others, are the same. Most would disagree with you, I think.

Say wha...? You said that, and I'll quote you here, "I then explained to you the formula for apportioning delegates to the electoral college showing that 100 of 536 delegates, are divided equally between the 50 states regardless of size."

It seemed to me, that you were saying that, the 100 people representing each of the States' should be enough for the hundreds of millions eligable to vote. Why should we, as a people, allow only the 538 folks in the Electoral College choose the man/woman that will be our President, and Vice President? Shouldn't we have a say?

I think we should. The EC is a useless structure in our system of government. Too me, it's almost as if you, and others that support the EC, are afraid to let the people have their votes counted in a Presidential Election. From where I'm sitting it does, anyway.


-Tibbetts

dalem

Of course it serves a purpose. Just because you may not like the purpose it serves (i.e. keeping the Executive technically one step removed from a pure popular vote) does not mean it does not exist.

-dale

JAD_333

no, my friend, you asssumed I was speaking of my god...I was speaking of the god referred to in the Pledge, "under one God"... Consider that god for a moment. It's the judeo-christian god...all powerful, prime mover, etc. Now every major religion may define its god differently, but each has one, and it holds it up as the only true god. And that makes them all the same. That's the point.



There you go again. You didn't ask me if those 100 seats was "enough". You wanted to know how the electoral college was designed to help prevent large states from totally dominating small ones in selecting a president.

Of course, you are speaking of the essential constitutional mandate given the electorial college. In practice, the delegates vote as their states require, and the states require them to vote as the majority of people in the states vote. That comes close to fulfilling the objective of a direct election, although the states are really the final determinate.

If your one vote takes a candidate over the top in your state, those electoral votes go that candidate. So much for your claim that your vote doesn't count under today's system.

What you want is the elimination of the nominal contol the states have in favor of a national election, but you haven't made a cogent argument for it so far. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but not to misrepresent the effect the college has in today's national elections.

I am opposed to eliminating the college. It is part of our system of checks and balances. It is a fail-safe mechanism in the event of an abhorrent election outcome and it enhances the power of the states. And I believe if ever the cause of eliminating it is put to the test, the more people come to understand it, the less they will be willing to abolish it. The presidential election today is decided by the result of 51 separate elections. That works for me.

JAD_333

...and, Tibbets, allow me to add that in some democratic countries the effective head of government is not elected to their office by popular vote, but rather by a vote of the legislature, e.g, the prime minister of Great Britain...

If the people don't like the leader, they boot the members of the House of Commons who supported him...kind of a reverse election.

Ironduke

Off-topic... but I think there should be 150 senators... three per state. One senator per state up for re-election every three years.

JAD_333

Can't see any benefit in that.