Electoral College

[dazzleman]

I would stick with the electoral college for several reasons, both theoretical and practical.

The electoral college creates political stability by narrowing the terms of debate and strenghtening the 2-party system.  The "winner take all" feature denies political strength to splinter groups, and forces them to "play nice" with the major parties.  

Some people think that's a bad thing, but overall I think it's a good thing.  It's harder for unhappy people to just take their ball and go home.  But if the two major parties get too far from what the people want, there is always the threat of a strong third party that can alter election results without winning any states.

I also think that the electoral college guarantees a voice to all sections of the country, and limits the influence of states that would otherwise threaten to dominate.  I like the fact that no matter how many New York City wackos and nincompoops the Democrats drag out of the woodwork, the state only gets 31 electoral votes.  Some people complain that one problem with the electoral college is that a vote in one place is not worth the same as a vote in another, but that is the whole point.  It was designed so that a candidate could not win by focusing only on major population centers, and I think that is a good thing.  I don't want a president who's elected by the residents of New York, Illinois and California.  In order to have stability, everybody must have a voice in proportion to their congressional representation.

Practically speaking, I don't see a good way to arrange a reliable national vote count.  The process is administered by 50 different states, with 50 different sets of rules for registration, etc. and I just don't see that changing any time soon.  Nor should it.  I don't fully trust computers because they can be hacked into and the results of that would be devastating.  I think it's good to keep the results on a more manageable state-by-state level.  The vote count is not my major reason for favoring the electoral college; the other two are more important.  But it is an issue.

The only change I would make is to take power away from individual electors, and have each state make automatic allocation rules.  Practically speaking, most states would probably stick with the "winner take all" because to change it, without other states changing their methodology, would dilute the power of the state.  Of course, I would love to see states like New York adopt proportional allocation.

I don't see the point of getting into a whole bunch of complicated schemes to reform the electoral college.  It has worked well for over 200 years, and in any case almost always produces the same winner as the popular vote in any case.  Realistically, anything that requires a constitutional amendment is not going to pass; the smaller states will block it, and they should.

[dazzleman]

You sound suspicously close to saying that it is good not to make the system too democratic b/c then the wrong people would get too much influence.

What it comes down to is how you view the United States. If you truly believes it to be a union between different states with considerable autonomy then the EC does have it's points. I am a little sceptical to this, I think of the US as a nation with one people, not 50, and thus I am inclined against the EC.

As far as giving the "wrong" people too much influence, the EC cuts both ways, because it limits the influence of all regions and groups of people, including those who some would consider the "right" people.  Seriously, though, there are really no wrong or right people, just people with different points of view, and the EC is designed to give everybody a voice, not just by person but by state and, effectively, region.  I must admit that I do find myself seriously at odds with the prevailing political views in most cities, but that is not really why I support the EC.

To the extent that the EC is designed to limit the influence of any one group or region, which it is, the concern there belonged to the founding fathers.  I share their concern, as do many others who support the EC.

One thing about the US, which is probably not the case in Europe, is a bias against cities, and I guess I reflect that to some degree.  I think the EC was designed to somewhat limit the power of urban centers, and prevent them from totally dominating those in less populated areas.  The US was never meant to be a pure democracy, as evidenced by the creation of the Senate, which gives each state 2 Senators regardless of population.  Each state is also given at least one House of Representatives seat, regardless of population, so the constitution takes the division among the states seriously.

In 2000, the EC worked as intended in that in a very close election, which was basically a tie, it awarded the victory to the person with the greatest geographical appeal.  Bush clearly won across a much larger, albeit less populated area, than Gore.

The US is also meant to be a collection of states, not a single unit, under the constitution.  The constitution calls for a very limited federal government, with all remaining power reserved for the states.  States make their own laws on a number of issues.  So the states really were meant to have a lot more power than you advocate, although the federal government has become much more powerful in the last 70 years.  But the states were not meant to administrative units of the federal government.

We have become a lot more democratic over time than the founding fathers intended.  The vote has been extended to all citizens, rather than just land-owning males, and Senators are now popularly elected rather than appointed by state legislatures.  It is also interesting to note that nothing requires that a state's presidential electors be chosen in a direct election; they could theoretically be appointed by state legislatures.

My basic position is that the EC has not failed us yet, so there is no real reason to change it.  I agree with the founding fathers in having some reservations about total democracy; I think democracy in a diverse society requires some safeguards, to ensure that it doesn't degenerate into the biggest and most powerful group simply taking all the spoils.  I believe that the authors of our constitution, despite some of their failings, were way ahead of their time in crafting that document, and that it should not be changed lightly.

[dazzleman]

I like the fact that no matter how many New York City wackos and nincompoops the Democrats drag out of the woodwork, the state only gets 31 electoral votes.    I don't want a president who's elected by the residents of New York, Illinois and California.  In order to have stability, everybody must have a voice in proportion to their congressional representation.

The above sentences was what I was referring to. It does give the impression that you are arguing that it is good that people with "wrong" opinions don't get too much influence. I know that the constitution wasn't devised to be democratic, that, in my view, is the problem and you deserve better. The rights and the protection of the minority is fundamental in a democracy, I agree with you there. But these should be protected by clauses in an almost unchageable constitution (ahem...I am beginning to feel slightly hypocritical here...), not by giving some groups more influence than others. Basically it is about reducing the power of politicians to prevent minorities from getting disfavoured, but that is the liberal in me talking.

I can understand why you would arrive at the interpretation you arrived at from those sentences.  But it could just as easily be said "no matter how many wacko nincompoop Christian coalition voters the Republicans drag out of the woodwork..."

The EC acts to limit the influence of all groups and regions, not just the ones you don't like, or I don't like.  It is pretty impartial in that respect.

I think the founding fathers were right to have reservations about pure democracy in a pluralistic society.  Representative government itself is a compromise on pure democracy, because citizens don't get to vote on every law.  I think pure democracy would work best in a heterogenous, highly educated and informed society, such as Switzerland or maybe Sweden.  But the US is quite different, and I don't think it would work well here.

[dazzleman]

Well, I can't criticize you after you saying such nice things about Sweden! You're right of course, in saying that the EC limits all groups. It does seem to favour small and rural states though, and these are mostly heavily republican and will likely be so for the foreseeable future (the west-midwest states and so on). Maybe you're right about plurality making the difference, I feel uncomfortable passing judgement, since I don't feel I know enough about the US to do so.

The whole federal system favors small states, particularly the granting of 2 senators to every state regardless of population.

And there is definitely an anti-urban strain that is deeply ingrained in American thinking, which effectively leads the constitution and the political system to favor rural areas.

The practical issue is that in order to change the constitution, approval is needed by the independent legislatures of 3/4 of the states.  This process in itself favors the small, rural states, who effectively have the same voice in changing the constitution as states like New York and California.  Of course, they'll never agree to a change that takes away their power.

So for that reason I don't see the point in getting too much into designing a new electoral system that will never come to fruition.  Because the favoritism to small states is so deeply ingrained in our system, a change to the EC would actually be something far more fundamentally, and would call the whole constitutional system into question.

[dazzleman]

The point is that every state gets certain benefits in the union just because of being a state, without regard to population.

Each state gets 2 senators and therefore 2 electoral votes, regardless of population.  Therefore, small states get more of a voice in terms of population than larger ones.

Each state has an equal say in changing the constitution, with ratification from 3/4 of the state legislatures required.  Therefore, Utah or Wyoming has the same amount of say as New York or California in determining whether a constitutional amendment is ratified, once it passes through congress, during which the bigger states will have more say because they have more representatives in the House.

These are the hallmarks of a federal system, in which each state is considered a separate unit within the system.  Without a federal system, these benefits allocated on the basis of just being a state would go away, and everything would presumably be strictly proportional.

The US was designed to be a federal system, although it has become less so during the past 70 years.  But I see no chance that the smaller states will voluntarily give up the advantages that the constitution has given them, so I think the US will continue to be a federal system.

Should it be?  I would say yes, for a number of reasons.  I don't think we should change our whole constitution, which would be required to drop the federal system.  I fear giving greater power over local affairs to the federal government, because in my experience the federal government is far away, difficult to influence, and can generally only mess things up.  Local government, close to the people, is most responsive to the people's needs in most cases, and the states need to have a degree of independence to make this work.

It's true that some of the state borders have become somewhat arbitrary, and there is less of a sense than in the past of being a resident of a certain state, rather than of the nation as a whole.  But I see no crying need to upset the apple cart to the extent that would be necessary in order to change the federal system.

[dazzleman]

The average lower class White Southerner does strike me as not valuing education at all. I'm sorry if my stereotype bothered you.

The North is not diverse at all. At my suburban middle school (my high school is far more diverse, but still very white) we had 3 or 4 asians, 1 half black kid, and maybe 1 hispanic out of a class of 300.

And you don't think we have any of these types up north?  New York City alone has large numbers of people who don't value education, not to mention certain rural areas of New York state, as well as many other parts of the north.

I don't subscribe to the idea that there are regional differences in levels of intelligence.  The north, particulary the New York and Boston areas, has far more elites who believe they're superior to everybody else than any other region, but uneducated people exist in all regions of the country, in roughly equal proportions.

I would also add the the most highly educated people are not always the wisest, and do not always have the best instincts about what is good for the country.

You are right to say that the north is not diverse at all.  This is another thing that we northerners should stop patting ourselves on the back about, our presumed superiority over southerners in our "tolerance" and "diversity."  Northerners preach these things, but live mostly in lily-white environments.  

There is no significant difference in racial climate of areas based upon dominant political affiliation.  Largely Democratic areas are no more tolerant of blacks than Republican areas, and some of our worst racial violence has been in largely Democratic northern cities, such as Boston.  So much for the "tolerance" of northern Democrats.  The "tolerant" ones live in lily-white suburbs far from any significant black population.

People who preach tolerance today remind me of something Mao Zedong said to Pres. Gerald Ford during his visit to China in 1975.  Referring to the Soviet Union, he said that "today, it is the country that most zealously preaches peace that is the most dangerous source of war."  There are few more intolerant than those who preach tolerance and diversity, while showing intolerance and prejudice toward all who don't fully agree with them.

As far as the NASCAR dads go, I guess they are branded intolerant because they may believe in something other than "tolerance."  Also, because they are largely white males, and therefore responsible for all the world's problems, that makes it OK to attack them wholesale, while to say the same thing about another demographic group (such as blacks) would bring howls of protest.  But I guess it's OK to stereotype "perpetrator" groups of people, but not "victim" groups.

[dazzleman]

I don't like all groups of people. I don't like pure partisans- people who will agree with the parties no matter how they change. I don't like white southerners who often do not value education or religious tolerance.

Does this dislike of southerners who don't value education or religious tolerance only extend to whites?  Or is it equal opportunity?

[dazzleman]

I don't like all groups of people. I don't like pure partisans- people who will agree with the parties no matter how they change. I don't like white southerners who often do not value education or religious tolerance.

Yes, Southerners dont value education. Fine schools such as Vanderbilt, University of Tennesse, University of Virginia, V.P.I., Citadel, VMI, U of Miami, U of Florida, Florida State and the list goes on and on. Ya us inbreed hick rednecks dont value edgeecatin our chillun. We have Churches, Synagogues all kinds of religions are in the south. Did you know that before the Civil War more Jews lived in the SOUTH then the North? Oh yeah but to you it's : "If day aint Christian lets git the white hoods and hangum." Just because a person doesn't go to college doesnt mean they are any less of a person compared to someone who did. I know plenty of people with no degree who have common sense and plenty who have a degree with NO common sense. If you can afford college, great! Go for it. If you can't and you have to work a blue collar job their is nothing wrong with that. Hard work doesnt equal ignorance.

Sorry for spouting folks. This kind of young ignorance Zachman displays aggravates me.

Well said.  Being a northeasterner myself, I would probably never vote for one for president.  I hate the arrogance that many people in this part of the country display toward the south.  I don't blame southerners for disliking us, with some of the comments I've seen.

It's funny how liberals are so critical of everybody else's prejudices, but make excuses for their own.

[dazzleman]

Liberal northerners certainly wouldn't vote for a conservative southerner.  And conservative southerners wouldn't vote for a northern liberal.

That's not really bias -- it's voting against people who don't reflect your views.

But I have seen southerners vote for people from the region who don't reflect their views, and that could be considered an example of regional prejudice.  I think northerners would be less likely to do that.

[dazzleman]

Liberal northerners certainly wouldn't vote for a conservative southerner.  And conservative southerners wouldn't vote for a northern liberal.

That's not really bias -- it's voting against people who don't reflect your views.

But I have seen southerners vote for people from the region who don't reflect their views, and that could be considered an example of regional prejudice.  I think northerners would be less likely to do that.

Exactly, and I think that was the point, at least that's what a lot of people been saying here.

There's some truth to it, but many people here have been claiming that all the regional prejudice flows one way -- southerners against northerners -- while at the same time making blatantly prejudiced comments about southerners.

That is what I was arguing against.  I never suggested that there is no regional prejudice down south.  I know very well that there is.