Electoral College

[Gustaf]

The EC is more fun to predict, it makes this forum much more interesting, but a popular vote makes more sense, since the US is so much of a unit.

[Gustaf]

In a perfect world, I would agree that the direct popular election would be the best system.

However we don't live in a perfect world and the technical aspects of democracy have to be considered.  At least with the Electoral college we will always end up with a President, even if once every century or so said President's opponent may have recieved a few more votes than he/she did.

Had we had the direct popular vote in 2000, the election debacle that was confined to one state could have been extended to the entire country with each state's results challenged to squeeze votes out for one side or the other.  It would have turned a temporary mess into a nightmarish Constitutional crisis.  If you don't think that the results in Florida were right, how could you possibly think that those discrepancies multiplied across the country would be any more accurate?  Even if the entire country switched to a similar electronic voting system with the same rules and standards, there would still be challenges of voter lists and claims of fraud.

I don't like the electoral college, but I accept it as a necessity for an orderly transition of power in a nation with over a hundred million voters.

I disagree. Gore's victory margin in the country was much larger than Bush's victory margin in Florida, both in number of votes and percentage points. There would have been an obvious winner anyway. It works for a lot of other countries, though no one is as big as the US. If you can put men on the moon you should be able to organize a nationwide vote count, but that's just me.

[Gustaf]

True, but I think what Gustaf meant is that IF the results had turned out the same way as they did, then Bush would not have had much of a chance of winning the nationwide popular vote on a nationwide recount. The margin for Gore was enough that the nationwide popular vote count was not really in doubt.
Now in 1960, however, you would have had a nationwide recount most likely. However, I don't see how that would take any more time or be any more difficult to conduct than a statewide recount, just more expensive.

Thank you. That is exactly what I meant. And btw I agree that I don't really see it being that much more difficult.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

[Gustaf]

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.

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.

[Gustaf]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

[Gustaf]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

[Gustaf]

Decentralization is a different issue, giving voters living in one place more influence than others can ONLY be justified if you view it as different political units, which has the choice of being independent states.  

[Gustaf]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

Okay, I get it...
But still, Wyoming isn't going to form an independent nation.

No, that is exactly what I think. Since you are not really a union made up of Wyomingans or Rhode Islanders, or whatever you would call these people, but one nation of Americans, I think the system should be scrapped. I am just pointing out what I beleieve is the only true argument in favour of the current system. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

[Gustaf]

In 2000, a vote in Wyoming counted 3 times as much as a vote in New York.  That goes against the principles of Democracy if you ask me.

It makes perfect sense in the context of a federal system. The question is whether the US should really be one.

Again-I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Language barriers...

If you have a union, the member states are supposedly political units who have agree to join. This is obviously not beneficial to smaller states, since they will have little influence on the decisions and be subject to influence instead. So in order to convince them you have to give them an unproportional amount of power. This is logical.

Okay, I get it...
But still, Wyoming isn't going to form an independent nation.

No, that is exactly what I think. Since you are not really a union made up of Wyomingans or Rhode Islanders, or whatever you would call these people, but one nation of Americans, I think the system should be scrapped. I am just pointing out what I beleieve is the only true argument in favour of the current system. Otherwise it doesn't make sense.

Okay then...
Being from NY, a healily populated state (especially the area I live in), it bothers me when I thing I could go out to the mountain west and my vote would matter 3x as much in deciding the president.

Well, I agree! It is not as bad as in the EU, though our system is really weird. Poland and Spain together, for example, have twice the votes of Germany, but slightly smaller population.

[Gustaf]

I think that the electoral college is unfair. I don't think direct popular vote is necessarily the best option, however. There are many ways to reform the current system. One that I like is the idea of giving the popular vote winner a bonus of a certain number of electors. For example 45.

That always throws the election to the PV winner, there will never be a 45EV gap.

There could be, in theory...but most likely the winner of the popular vote will almost always win the EV, and if not, lose by a small margin.

[Gustaf]

No wait! In 1888 Grover Cleveland won the PV 48.62% v 47.82% but lost the EV 168-233. So he would still lose the election with McFarlan's system.

[Gustaf]

Look at the 2000 Election for example. Gore won the populuar vote by just winning large cities but hardly any of the heart of the country. I mean not just city limits but the cities and usually the counties that surrounded the city. For example Gore won Maryland, but the only counties he won where Montgomery, Prince Georges, Baltimore County and Baltimore City. The rest of the state went for Bush. Oh and just as a mention, I keep getting tired of mentioning at my work place that Bush was not the only president to not win the popular vote and win the election. People that keep saying that think it proves some kind of "Bush stole the election" conspiracy theory.

That's b/c more people lives there, one of the side effects of democracy is that the people elect guys like presidents....

Bush wasn't the first to win with a minority of the popular vote, I think most people on this forum knows that. On the other hand i believe that the previous instances were effect of stealing elections. (the Republican party in the late 1800s...)

[Gustaf]

The Hayes and Tilden election was an extreme case a 3% margin for Tilden and yet a loss. Why wasn't the South solidly democratic for the end of the 19th century?

Blacks voted in the beginning and then they didn't. Look at turnout numbers from the late 1860s and early 1870s and compare them to the turnout of the 1890s.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Exactly why the Electoral College is a sound system for elections.

Too prevent too much democracy?

[Gustaf]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

[Gustaf]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

A Republic involves no one inheriting positions, that's the definition. I think we'll allow the US to call itself a republic despite this definition, as an exception...

A dictature never works in the long run. Platonian Utopias may look good on paper, but never ever work. Someone once pointed out that no democracy has ever starved and no two democracies have never fought in war against each other. That's pretty much the basic argument for democracy: you get peace and prosperity from it. And they also respect individual rights to a much larger extent than dictatures. The correlation cannot be ignored. Free markets and democracy are linked, whether you like it or not.

[Gustaf]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

A Republic involves no one inheriting positions, that's the definition. I think we'll allow the US to call itself a republic despite this definition, as an exception...

A dictature never works in the long run. Platonian Utopias may look good on paper, but never ever work. Someone once pointed out that no democracy has ever starved and no two democracies have never fought in war against each other. That's pretty much the basic argument for democracy: you get peace and prosperity from it. And they also respect individual rights to a much larger extent than dictatures. The correlation cannot be ignored. Free markets and democracy are linked, whether you like it or not.

Democracies go to war all the time - France and Germany 1870, Germany vs Britain, France, US 1914/17.  Even Hitler was elected democratically.   Majority rule gaurantees nothing except that your persecutors are numerous.  I'd feel a lot more secure about my property in an oligarchy that limited the franchise (another kind of Republic).

Where do you get the idea that France and Prussia in 1870 were democracies? That Napoleon III got elected in a referendum doesn't make an imperium into a democracy. I wouldn't trust an election result from those days. And Germany wasn't a democracy until the Weimar Republic. It's true that Hitler and his various allies got a majority in parliament, but he abolished democracy for a reason. And, he was backed by your precious capitalists, so he's really your champion rather than democracy's.

[Gustaf]

Didnt Sadam Hussien get "re-elected" by a 99% vote. Yeah, that was a real democracy.

That's a bit like Napoleon III...

[Gustaf]

I still think though our form of Government is the most stable and the fairest for all the citizens. I mean yes we have rich and poor. But even the poor in this country have running water and have t.v. and usually even have a car. What's really sad is all these minority groups fought so hard to get the vote and then we only get 40% turnouts.

So does the poor in most Western countries...but I see your point.

[Gustaf]

Another group that just wasnt given the vote at the start. Yes, many I've talked to (and I fall into this group somewhat) use the same worn out generalization "all politicians are crooks". Yes, their are SOME crooks in government but they all aren't. And its across the board its not just Democrats. I think the crucifixtion of  Trafficant, Lott and others as of late has been hypocritical.

Not all, just most...

[Gustaf]

Democracy= Majority tyrany, but I've made this argueement before.

Yes, and you're still wrong...

Democracy does not necessarily have to be tyranny. Democracy can be just as respectful of individual rights and liberties as dictatures. In fact, the clear tendency is that they are more so than dictatures.

[Gustaf]

If I remember right the United States are under a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy. Democracy = Mob Rule.

Democray does not equal mob rule. Either you have democracy or you have dictature. Democracy's has its drawbacks, but is WAAAAAAY superior to all other forms of government.

NOt at all.. a Republic involves limiting access to power by the masses.  Thank god.  

A Republic involves no one inheriting positions, that's the definition. I think we'll allow the US to call itself a republic despite this definition, as an exception...

A dictature never works in the long run. Platonian Utopias may look good on paper, but never ever work. Someone once pointed out that no democracy has ever starved and no two democracies have never fought in war against each other. That's pretty much the basic argument for democracy: you get peace and prosperity from it. And they also respect individual rights to a much larger extent than dictatures. The correlation cannot be ignored. Free markets and democracy are linked, whether you like it or not.

Democracies go to war all the time - France and Germany 1870, Germany vs Britain, France, US 1914/17.  Even Hitler was elected democratically.   Majority rule gaurantees nothing except that your persecutors are numerous.  I'd feel a lot more secure about my property in an oligarchy that limited the franchise (another kind of Republic).

I'm inclined to aggree with you.

I am not, that's why I responded to Opebo's post...

[Gustaf]

If so, visit West Virginia. You'll quickly choose another state for your Avatar. I thought it was odd he has a WVA Avatar. I heard they just got computers last year.

I don't get what your point is. I mean, what's so wrong with WV, that they're poor? I thought you were making an argument against prejudices towards the poor?