Classical Music & Opera Forums

mogliettina wrote:I'm confused. How could you get to vote for a President BEFORE the presidential election?
I never heard of going into a booth even to vote for an electoral official.
Is that a Washington or Virginia thing?
What am I missing here?

It is a state thing. I have already voted in Florida, where anybody who wants to can vote by mail, and where they have early voting polling stations (not very many, and none in precincts that vote democratic).

nyoka:

We still have the electoral procedure around (remember 2000 when Gore won the general election but the electoral college defeated him, along with the Supreme Court). I voted to an electoral delegate to cast my vote for my candidate. I voted directly for senator and congressman. It is infuriating and outrageous in this day and age to still have the electoral college. This is not the 18th century anymore (although sometimes I wonder).

Early voting

Many states are now offering early voting; here in California, I received an application form in case I want to register as a permanently-by-mail voter.

Electoral College

The electoral college is intended to filter the effect of a direct popular vote -- and despite the 2000 fiasco, I think it's a good idea. The know-nothing howls that resounded around the recent economic stabilization package have reinforced my conviction that direct mass participatory democracy, which is within easy technological reach now, would be the death knell for civilization. So count me as a vote in favor of the electoral college. Undoubtedly I represent the view of a small minority in this matter.

I agree. The electoral college is absolutely necessary in a country with disparate population sizes varying wildly from state to state. The 2000 fiasco had nothing to do with the electoral college.

Add me to those who regard the Electoral College as a good thing. It ensures that the big population states don't overwhelm and render irrelevant the less-populated ones. And far from eliminating electoral messes like 2000, abolishing the Electoral College would guarantee the same kind of mess on a national scale, every single election.

Ours is not and never has been a direct democracy, proportional by population, as demonstrated by the U.S. Senate. Hawaii and Rhode Island having the same number of Senators as California and Texas? But that is a good thing; again, it ensures that the small, less populated states remain important factors in the national mix.

The Founding Fathers were much smarter than we are. We tinker with their handiwork at our peril. It is particularly unwise to advocate a radical change in 232 years of electoral history simply because one's preferred candidate lost an election.

Fortunately, the usual chatter about abolishing the Electoral College that arises like clockwork every four years around October is likely to remain just that - chatter. It would take a Constitutional amendment to change the EC, and that will never happen. (The FFs also knew what they were doing when they made it tough to amend the Constitution, thus ensuring that unwise passing fancies not control the fundamentals of our national organization.)

Yes -- but it's a pity the Founding Fathers were unable to foresee Executive Orders, signing statements, and other folderol with which politicians have tried to mess with the mechanism.

Well, all it will take will be one election in which the Democrat candidate wins the electoral vote but loses the popular. Then the new-found reverence for the Electoral College amongst todays critics will be wondrous to see.

Me, I don't believe in tinkering with the Constitutional fundamentals of our governmental structure simply because it seems expedient to do so in order to attain a short-term political end. The proper remedy for the ingenuity of scoundrels is legislative action. Congress can override any Executive Order, if it has the votes (or the balls) to do so. Or better yet, get rid of the scoundrels. There are plenty to go around, on both sides. If neither of these can be done, the fault lies with the electorate, and they deserve the government they get.

The Framers did not forsee the filibuster, either, certainly not as it has come to be used (and abused). But again, the remedy for that lies at the ballot box. (Personally, I think the filibuster is an invaluable check on pure majority rule, whichever party is in the majority.)

As someone once said, our government was designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots.

Well, all it will take will be one election in which the Democrat candidate wins the electoral vote but loses the popular. Then the new-found reverence for the Electoral College amongst todays critics will be wondrous to see.

Me, I don't believe in tinkering with the Constitutional fundamentals of our governmental structure simply because it seems expedient to do so in order to attain a short-term political end. The proper remedy for the ingenuity of scoundrels is legislative action. Congress can override any Executive Order, if it has the votes (or the balls) to do so. Or better yet, get rid of the scoundrels. There are plenty to go around, on both sides. If neither of these can be done, the fault lies with the electorate, and they deserve the government they get.

The Framers did not forsee the filibuster, either, certainly not as it has come to be used (and abused). But again, the remedy for that lies at the ballot box. (Personally, I think the filibuster is an invaluable check on pure majority rule, whichever party is in the majority.)

As someone once said, our government was designed by geniuses so that it could be run by idiots.

Sorry about the repetition. My internet connection got dodgy, and of course like an idiot I kept hitting the "submit" button.

Can one of you guys explain to me how the electoral college system protetcs the states with smaller populations? Don't they get less votes anyway? I'm not being argumentative because I actually believe in systems that protect smaller populations.

What I object to in the current system is the all-or-nothing end results. Why should a state that votes in favour of one candidate by a margin of two or three percent give all its electoral college votes to that one candidate? Why can't the electoral college votes be distributed based on the popular vote?

kashania wrote:Can one of you guys explain to me how the electoral college system protetcs the states with smaller populations? Don't they get less votes anyway? I'm not being argumentative because I actually believe in systems that protect smaller populations.

What I object to in the current system is the all-or-nothing end results. Why should a state that votes in favour of one candidate by a margin of two or three percent give all its electoral college votes to that one candidate? Why can't the electoral college votes be distributed based on the popular vote?

Ali, the US Senate has 100 members, two from each state. The smaller states, then, have Senators who represent a smaller number of citizens. The House of Representatives, on the other hand, has members representing a roughly equal number of citizens no matter which state they come from.

As for the latter question, I have no answer. Anyone?

kashania wrote:What I object to in the current system is the all-or-nothing end results. Why should a state that votes in favour of one candidate by a margin of two or three percent give all its electoral college votes to that one candidate? Why can't the electoral college votes be distributed based on the popular vote?

The U.S. Constitution leaves the selection of electors and method of allocation of electoral votes entirely up to the individual states. Most of the states have a winner-take-all system. However, two states (I don't remember which ones, but they are not any of the electoral vote powerhouses) do have some kind of proportional allocation of electors. The fact that most states, including all the large ones, have a winner-take-all system reflects the fact that this is by far the best system and the one least likely to produce chaos in close elections.

Direct proportional election is not the only consideration in the method by which we select our chief executive. There are also practical considerations of workability and avoidance of questionable or disputable outcomes. There is virtue in the simplicity and certainty of winner-take-all, which avoids district-by-district challenges that in a close election and applied on a national scale could plunge the country into chaos that could take months or more to resolve. Just imagine ten or twenty Florida 2000s in one presidential election to get some idea of the potential scope of the problem. This is not in the national interest, even if it means that a candidate could receive a majority of the popular vote and yet lose the election. Certainty and quick resolution of election outcomes is as important to our Presidential elections as "making sure that every vote counts."

Part of the problem that people have with the Electoral College arises from the fact that most people are fundamentally ignorant of our Federal system and how it actually works. Basically, it is the States that elect the President, not the people. (At least, not directly.) Similarly, it is the States that ratify any proposed amendment to the Constitution, not a national plebescite. This means that Rhode Island's decision on a Constitutional amendment is just as important as California's.

BTW, this does not even get us into the arcane set of rules if the Elecoral College does not provide a definitive outcome in a Presidential election. Believe me, you dont' want to go there.

Our system is not perfect. But that is no excuse for making it even worse. Besides, it has worked just fine, for hte most part, for 230 years. That's a pretty good track record.

Ali:

Re-reading what I just wrote, I see that I did not directly answer your question about how the Electoral College protects states with smaller populations. The United States is a patchwork of 50 different states with different kinds of populations, interests, values and priorities. Because a democrat candidate (for example) cannot get elected just by appealing to a few big electoral vote states like California, New York and Illinois with huge urban/ethnic populations, that candidate also has to appeal to states with different sorts of populations and interests, like the farm states or the southern states. This ensures that a candidate is, as much as is possible, a "consensus" candidate among the different states, and that as many states' interests are taken into account and appealed to as possible. This would not be the case if elections were determined strictly on the basis of popular vote, where a candidate could be elected just by appealing to the big population/urban states and largely ignoring the western (other than California) and mid-western states.

Thanks, Cal. So, I take it that the smaller states, though they have fewer electoral college votes, still have a larger representation relative to their population?

As I've said, I agree with this principal. It's similar in Canada where the members of the House of Commons represent far larger populations if they are from a riding in a big city than if they are respresenting a rural riding. This, as you said, helps to ensure that the interests of the less populated regions of the country are still represented.

I just don't agree with the winner-takes-all format. You make a reasoned case for the mayhem that could ensue if there were a lot of close races. But just because it's difficult to manage doesn't mean it's not worth doing. I will bring out the same tired (and valid) argument that the Democrat in Texas or the Repulican in California will ultimately feel cut out of the process because his/her vote will never really count (in a manner of speaking).

speak reason all you like, the electoral college is outdated and really undemocratic. As for smaller states, they already control who the candidates are. After one or two primaries in NE, the candidates are decided upon (usually by the press) and all other candidates fold up their tents and go home. So much for my opinion of the smaller states and electoral votes.

A pox on them.

As for changing the Constitution, well this administration has just about torn it and the bill of rights apart, instead of taking vows to uphold it.

lulu wrote:speak reason all you like...

I do try to. Thanks for recognizing that mine is the rational argument.<g>

kashania wrote:Thanks, Cal. So, I take it that the smaller states, though they have fewer electoral college votes, still have a larger representation relative to their population?

Exactly. And as I pointed out, our Senate works exactly the same way. The most populous state, California, has the same number of Senators as the least populous (I think), Rhode Island. (RI is small any way you cut it!) The House of Representatives, on the other hand, does reflect population, and so California has the largest number of Congressional districts, and consequently Congressmen, in the House.

The United States is not, and never has been, a strict "majority rule" system. And again, it is important to remember that our government is a representative democracy within a Federal system, not a direct democracy. The people don't rule; their elected representatives do. Or I suppose you could say, the people do rule, but at one remove. The Electoral College is just one more manifestation of this.

Speaking of the Electoral College, The Economist has set up a global electoral college (for fun) and invited people to vote. You can see the results (so far) here: http://www.economist.com/vote2008/index.cfm?mode=leadershipboard. So far, two countries are strongly in the McCain camp: Andorra and Georgia. That gives McCain 16 electoral college votes ... to 8,455 for Obama.

pczipott wrote:So far, two countries are strongly in the McCain camp: Andorra and Georgia. That gives McCain 16 electoral college votes ... to 8,455 for Obama.

Sounds like a proper proportioning to me.

ACD