Election process

Skip Miller said:
Ordinarily, it is a popularity contest. Today, the economy has finally gotten people's attention.....
Click to expand...
Over the years, the American public has shown a remarkable ability to choose style over substance just about every time, in politics and otherwise.
 
So then the next target is the senate? Why does each state get two? Is that far? Why don't the big states get more? The total population of Wyoming is less than Garland, TX. How much of what we do is based on the concept of maintaining a union?
smigaldi said:
No kidding Spike, you obviously did read what I wrote completely. I was talking about how a popular system could be more fair and how the argument against a popular vote being that some states would be passed over is untrue. I never said we have a national popular voting system for president.

I think it was pretty clear from what I wrote that I understand the Electoral College. What I am writing about is how that is inherently unfair to individual voters in more populated areas of this country. The apportionment of representative allows for some people in less populated states to have a vote that carries greater sway than those in dense urban areas. That is an inherently skewed election process.

The 2nd issues with the EC is how the all or none awarding of electors is unfair to the population of any state. Since, with only 2 exceptions, electors are awarded to the person how got the majority of votes in a state. This results in states that have a slim majority of one party from being in play for someone from another party.

Should that be the case? Take a state like California with 55 EVs. If 50.00000000000000000000001 people vote for one candidate that person gets all 55 EVs. Would it not be a more fair system if they only got 28 and the other candidate (presuming only 2 candidates) got 27? If all states had that system then the possibility of 3rd party candidates winning would be a far more likely possibility. So do not expect either of the two major parties to change that systems as the current system favors them.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
...

I think it was pretty clear from what I wrote that I understand the Electoral College. What I am writing about is how that is inherently unfair to individual voters in more populated areas of this country. The apportionment of representative allows for some people in less populated states to have a vote that carries greater sway than those in dense urban areas. That is an inherently skewed election process.

...
Click to expand...

Scott:

What you say is valid commentary, but since the Executive Branch (over which the President... ummm... presides), is but one of the branches of government, and does not wield supreme executive authority (hold your Monty Python comments...), the notion that the electoral process is "unfair" can only be characterized as commentary, because it is precisely in line with the constitutional mandate.

People do not elect the President; states do.

As my final comment on the topic (and I am not ragging on you, Scott, only trying to inform) is that I cannot imagine why anyone would want to promote a system of government which would vest even more power in a single office as the central authority (the President) than is already there; destruction of the electoral college process would do precisely that.
 
wabower said:
So then the next target is the senate? Why does each state get two? Is that far? Why don't the big states get more? The total population of Wyoming is less than Garland, TX. How much of what we do is based on the concept of maintaining a union?
Click to expand...
The purpose of senators WERE to represent the states and they were appointed by the states either through the legislature or the governor. That was changed after the civil war. It needs to go back that way. Hence, repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.

Here's an excellent article on the issue, albeit a few years old but well on point.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200405120748.asp
 
smigaldi said:
Should that be the case? Take a state like California with 55 EVs. If 50.00000000000000000000001 people vote for one candidate that person gets all 55 EVs. Would it not be a more fair system if they only got 28 and the other candidate (presuming only 2 candidates) got 27? If all states had that system then the possibility of 3rd party candidates winning would be a far more likely possibility. So do not expect either of the two major parties to change that systems as the current system favors them.
Click to expand...

Besides with split votes based on percentages there are rounding issues and the nit would complicate the pre-election poll process.

We would probably have to start the 2012 election process on 11/05/2008.

It probably will anyways, Sara can dig out that SNL 2012 poster.
 
SCCutler said:
The fundamental confusion we see here, among sensible, articulate and educated people, regarding how the system works, and why it works that way, is distressing; how must it be in the befuddled mind of those whose principles sources of information are MTV and the public media?
Click to expand...
I'm not confused about what was intended, I just don't agree with it. I know that it will most likely never change just like other things I disagree with, however I am entitled to an opinion.
 
Everskyward said:
I'm not confused about what was intended, I just don't agree with it. I know that it will most likely never change just like other things I disagree with, however I am entitled to an opinion.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, positively, you are entitled to an opinion, and (in my view) morally obligated to share any opinion which is a matter of moral conscience.

It is, however, unwise to propose fundamental change in one discrete element of an interlocking system, unless you effectively anticipate and allow for the resultant changes in the rest of the system, and depriving the states of the power to elect the Executive would be such a fundamental change.

Analogy:

We all know more power in an airplane is good. It is not right (not "fair") that my Bonanza can only climb at 1,000 fpm on a warm day, so I believe I will change its performance, and hang a Rolls Royce Merlin on its nose. With that added power, I must surely be able to climb much better. Is there any problem with that? :D
 
SCCutler said:
Analogy:

We all know more power in an airplane is good. It is not right (not "fair") that my Bonanza can only climb at 1,000 fpm on a warm day, so I believe I will change its performance, and hang a Rolls Royce Merlin on its nose. With that added power, I must surely be able to climb much better. Is there any problem with that? :D
Click to expand...
I think a better analogy would be that Beechcraft designed a great airplane with their King Air 200 but Raisbeck developed some mods that make it even better! ;)
 
The Electoral College also needs to be considered in light of the original fashion by which the President and Vice-President were elected. Rather like a typical elementary school election for class president, the candidate receiving the most electoral votes would be appointed President, and the candidate receiving the next-highest number of votes would be Vice-President. (This method was abandoned with the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804.)

Part of the oddity of this provision was that although they were not as prominent as they are today, political parties did exist when the Constitution was being drafted. Even odder, parties nominated candidates for both President and Vice President, even though all electoral votes were cast for the office of President. The "wise men" of the EC presumably would sort out any issues deriving from the inherent weirdness of the system.

Nonetheless, the system very quickly proved itself unworkable even despite the efforts of the wise men. In 1796, Federalist candidate John Adams won the Presidency, and opposition Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson won the Vice Presidency. Four years later, the Democratic-Republican candidates for President and Vice President, Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr, tied for President, meaning neither of them could be elected. The decision ultimately was made, ironically enough, by the opposition Federalist leader Alexander Hamilton, who disliked Jefferson less than he did Burr, and persuaded the EC to give the Presidency to Jefferson.

Another thing to consider is that aside from population differences, there were other issues that polarized the original U.S. states. Slavery, of course, was the big one; but there also were heated disagreements on issues like tariffs (and other import-export policies), qualification of voters, congressional apportionment, and so forth, which were hammered out by various compromises, of which the EC was one.

In particular, the EC piggybacked on the "Three-Fifths" compromise, by which three-fifths of slaves would be counted for both taxation and representation purposes. Because the composition of the EC was a function of congressional apportionment, the EC also allowed the three-fifths of slaves to be considered in presidential elections (even though they could not, of course, vote; nor is it likely that Southern electors had slaves' best interests at heart when casting their ballots). In effect, the EC allowed Southern states to disenfranchise slaves, while still deriving political advantage from their numbers.

Even though the Three-Fifths compromise is no longer in effect, a modern-day incarnation may have been operative in the 2000 election. Some observers have suggested that Florida's aggressive disenfranchisement of ex-felons (a disproportionate number of whom are non-white; and most of whom, some assert, would have voted Democrat) swayed the election in favor of George W. Bush. Although it's probably impossible to answer that question definitively, it's undeniable that the EC does allow states to disenfranchise members of their populations (whether explicitly, as in Florida; or via strategies to complicate or discourage voting among certain populations) while still retaining the electoral votes deriving from the enumeration of the disenfranchised voters.

The 2000 election also marked the fourth time in U.S. history in which the candidate who received fewer popular votes ultimately won the election. The first three were in 1824 (John Quincy Adams v. Andrew Jackson); 1876 (Rutherford B. Hayes v. Samuel Tilden); and 1888 (Benjamin Harrison v. Grover Cleveland). Each occasion led to calls to re-examine the system and possibly eliminate the EC, but it has thus far survived.

For my part, I have mixed feelings regarding the relevancy and usefulness of the EC in today's United States. I recognize that some of the reasons for its creation were very good, and some not-so-good; that some reasons were relevant before mass communication and fast travel methods, but are less so today; and that the EC effectively immunizes states from the effects of disenfranchisement and voting rights violations.

But on the other hand, there is an argument to be made against the possibility of a few highly urbanized states (and I happen to live in one of them) effectively disenfranchising the rest of the country. Each region and lifestyle has its own particular wisdom to contribute to the whole of what is America, and I think it would be unwise and dangerous for a few populous, urban states to dominate policy to the exclusion of the rest of the country.

-Rich
 
Rotor&Wing said:
No need to worry. One of the candidates has already stated he thinks the constitution needs to be "updated" anyway.

God help us all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because there is no process in the constitution to change the constitution. :incazzato:
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
Yeah, because there is no process in the constitution. :incazzato:
Click to expand...

Mike:

Of course there is such a process, but it is hardly likely that the first two items mentioned would be successful in ratification by two-thirds of the states.

The third is irrelevant; women are people who are inherently entitled to equal protection under the law.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SCCutler said:
As my final comment on the topic (and I am not ragging on you, Scott, only trying to inform) is that I cannot imagine why anyone would want to promote a system of government which would vest even more power in a single office as the central authority (the President) than is already there; destruction of the electoral college process would do precisely that.
Click to expand...
I am not ragging on you either. But I do not understand you logic. It seems that if it is in the US Constitution then you are arguing that it is ok? It may be the law now, but not in perpetuity.

Two things. First the Constitution states that Senators are to be selected by the states not by popular vote. But that was changed with the 17th Amendment.

Second that Constitution made reference to the 3.5 of a man for slaves. Obviously we decided that was unfair and abolished slavery. So while things can be in the Constitution they can be changed, and they are not always inherently fair.
 
SCCutler said:
The third is irrelevant; women are people who are inherently entitled to equal protection under the law.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Phyliss Shafley and all of those that fought and successfully defeated the ERA.

Furthermore please let me know when women 18 years and older have to start registering for selective service. IMHO, you want equal rights, then take equal risk.
 
As a reminder, this thread has been moved back to HT from SZ -- please keep your posts appropriate to the HT forum lest the MC be forced to move it back.
 
smigaldi said:
Tell that to Phyliss Shafley and all of those that fought and successfully defeated the ERA.
Click to expand...

ERA was surplusage- "rights" are not granted independently to men vs. women.

smigaldi said:
Furthermore please let me know when women 18 years and older have to start registering for selective service. IMHO, you want equal rights, then take equal risk.
Click to expand...

You are correct, but that is a matter of legislative policy; imposition of a burden by legislative fiat is not the same thing as denial of rights. It may be bad policy, and certainly feels like a lingering vestige of sexism. Women in service have proven themselves up to the task.
 
SCCutler said:
You are correct, but that is a matter of legislative policy; imposition of a burden by legislative fiat is not the same thing as denial of rights. It may be bad policy, and certainly feels like a lingering vestige of sexism. Women in service have proven themselves up to the task.
Click to expand...
I agree.

I would love to extrapolate further in this theme but it would really get us into politics so I will refrain from doing it here.
 
Ron Levy said:
As a reminder, this thread has been moved back to HT from SZ -- please keep your posts appropriate to the HT forum lest the MC be forced to move it back.
Click to expand...
We can contribute the cause to the same ones who messed up the FARs....

lawyers.
037.gif







:D
 
So you think that maybe, perhaps, who'd a thought it, how could this have happened, once in a lifetime, purely random hypothethical situation there might just be some unintended consequences?

SCCutler said:
Absolutely, positively, you are entitled to an opinion, and (in my view) morally obligated to share any opinion which is a matter of moral conscience.

It is, however, unwise to propose fundamental change in one discrete element of an interlocking system, unless you effectively anticipate and allow for the resultant changes in the rest of the system, and depriving the states of the power to elect the Executive would be such a fundamental change.

Analogy:

We all know more power in an airplane is good. It is not right (not "fair") that my Bonanza can only climb at 1,000 fpm on a warm day, so I believe I will change its performance, and hang a Rolls Royce Merlin on its nose. With that added power, I must surely be able to climb much better. Is there any problem with that? :D
Click to expand...
 
SCCutler said:
Do recall- "fair" is not the same as "equal"- but the system we have does work to at least attempt to balance out these competing factors.
Click to expand...

:yes:That point is underappreciated by many in society.
 
First, I don't agree with the EC being in existence anymore, but I'm not convinced that there's a better option out there right now, so it can stay. I'd like to see most states do away with giving the winning candidate in that state all of that state's votes and go more to a system like NE and ME, where it is separated by congressional district.

Second, someone asked earlier how the EC votes were apportioned - each state gets the same number of votes as their representation in congress - so one for each Representative plus two for their Senators. That brings us up to 535 - there are 538 EC votes because Washington, DC, since it is not a state, does not have any representation in Congress, so they are awarded the same number of EC votes as the lowest state, which I believe is WY.

In NE and ME, each congressional district is assigned one EC vote, and the winning candidate in that district gets that EC vote. The candidate with the most EC votes in that state will get two more EC votes (the ones the state gets for its two Senators, since they are not assigned to a district). IMHO, this seems to be the most equitable system that I've heard. The current system effectively disenfranchises too many people, while going to a strictly popular vote would effectively disenfranchise people who live in rural areas. Now, the apportionment of EC votes is a state power, so to change this, you would have to contact your state representatives.

On a slightly different topic, I find it interesting that the EC votes for President and VP separately. So, in theory, you could have a Republican President and a Democrat VP. So, the change in 1804 of no longer making the 2nd-place Presidential Candidate the VP does not protect us of a mixed-party Executive Branch... it just changes the process necessary to create one.

It will be interesting to see what the popular vote yields tomorrow, but it will be even more interesting to see what the EC yields on 1/6 when the results of their 12/15 vote is announced.
 
Ooops - I had a snarky comment but then I realized this was Hangar Talk.

Carry on.
 
smigaldi said:
I just found this graphic that has a visual representation of how much your vote is worth in the EC.
Click to expand...

That chart closely parallels the inverse of the federal tax dollars going back to the state. Whatta coincadink.
 
kevin47881 said:
What do the white numbers (100,000) on the map represent?
Click to expand...
Population per delegate to the EC.

While each state has 2 EV regardless of population form their having to have two US Senators they must have EV from their representatives to the House. Apportionment Bills passed in the house do not have a single Representative to population ratio. Thus some states have far more people per representative than other states. This skews the power of single voters in some states as shown on this graphic.
 
Last edited:
smigaldi said:
Population per delegate to the EC.

While each state has 2 EV regardless of population form their having to have two US Senators they must have EV from their representatives to the House. Apportionment Bills passed in the house do not have a single Representative to population ratio. Thus some states have far more people per representative than other states. This skews the power of single voters in some states as shown on this graphic.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I understand the math, I just wasn't sure that's what the number represents.
 
They can take our smileys, but they can't take our in depth knowledge of the arcane codes used to generate them!!!!:thumbsup:
 
Ken Ibold said:
Over the years, the American public has shown a remarkable ability to choose style over substance just about every time, in politics and otherwise.
Click to expand...

Which in and of itself is a very good reason to have an electoral college instead of elections decided on popular vote.
 
wsuffa said:
Which in and of itself is a very good reason to have an electoral college instead of elections decided on popular vote.
Click to expand...
Which would work to prevent the "ignorant public" from electing popular bozos except these days, the electors are bound to the party candidates. Back in 1789, they got together and chose the person they felt best for the job, and the second place person (nominally, the person they though next best for Pres) got the VP slot. Doesn't work like that any more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top