Electoral College vs. Popular Vote

Herodotus · 06 Mar 08,, 21:55

Originally Posted by JAD_333

In some respects you echo Hamilton's analysis of the 2nd Continental Congress' intent in creating the electoral college. While the threat of a rogue being selected as president was greater then than now, as long as there is the slightest probability that a direct election could go awry, the college remains a viable firewall.

I don't agree entirely that the US isn't or wasn't intended to be a democracy. It depends on how you define democracy. I take it to be a political system that is structured to respond to the will of the people.

The key is the House of Reps. It has 2 primary powers and 2 organizational aspects that give the people a powerful voice in the running of the government. The fiirst 2 are the power of the purse and a veto power over legislation. The second 2 are proportionate representation based on polulation and the shortness of the members terms.

Nothing happens in government without money and no legislation can be passed without the House's approval. House members are elected by popular vote and must go before the people every 2 years for what amounts to a vote of confidence. Put all this together and you have what amounts to a democracy. If a member knows he serves at the pleasure of the people, his/her natural inclination is to please the people.

But it does all unfold within the context of a republic. I don't see any contradiction in a democratic republic.

Probably you're right. At the time of the Founding though the Founders didn't have a real long history of democracies to look at on which to base the US's government on. They looked at 5th century Athens, saw ineffective mob rule (at times), and paralysis during wartime, factions, and decided to pass on it, and modeled the government on Rome. It's Madison I am thinking of since he wrote Federalist No. 10.

Yes the House of Representatives has the power of the purse. But it didn't do much good in the early days; there was no income tax, no sales tax, no corporate taxes, no T-bills...just tariffs, and I think the federal government taxed at a lower rate than some states (Ah the good old days). I think even some state legislatures had more power than the House of Representatives.

But the seeds were there to make the US more 'democratic', since the House's power grew with the income tax, and the increase in the size of government. The Senate became more democratic, being now directly elected by the people of a state instead of the state legislature. There may be a time at some point in the future when the electoral college is done away with too. At that point someone may ask 'why do we need states', since state powers have been so weakened over time, and would be further weakened without the electoral college.

**JAD_333** · 07 Mar 08,, 04:55

Originally Posted by Herodotus

There may be a time at some point in the future when the electoral college is done away with too. At that point someone may ask 'why do we need states', since state powers have been so weakened over time, and would be further weakened without the electoral college.

I guess the short answer is, anything is possible. Citizens of the states, of course, make up the Congress. Presumably they would reject all measures to limit the powers of the states. But they have found it expedient to turn over to the federal government more and more of their perogatives. The reasons are always the same: money and uniformity. Nowhere is this more true today than in education.

Just read what Diane Ravitch, a research professor at New York University and fellow at the Brookings Institution wrote two years ago when discussing no child left behind. I used red to highlight the key sentence.

"America will not begin to meet the challenge of developing the potential of our students until we have accurate reporting about their educational progress. We will not have accurate reporting until that function is removed from the constraints of state and local politics. We will be stuck with piecemeal and ineffective reforms until we agree as a nation that education - not only in reading and mathematics, but also science, history, literature, foreign languages and the arts - must be our highest domestic priority."

Of course, she's right. But she's also seriously wrong. We may improve education by taking away state control of it, but we will weaken the states in the process. Is that a healthy tradeoff? I don't think so.