Hillary doesn't like the Electoral College...

T

tuc22

New member
Because Algore doesn't have the needed 270 votes yet he has a larger popular vote count, if this were reversed she'd affirm the Electoral College as the legitimate authority. Who is she kidding? I say we stick to the constitutional system and rely on the Electoral College. When does Algore win anyway?, when the 4th, 5th, or 6th, recount pushes his Florida total ahead by one or maybe ten votes? It's not going to happen. The Dems intend to steal this election, the EC is our system and it serves as a check and balance on the popular vote. If it didn't exsist in the first place Mr. Gore would be the outright winner. However, since it does the EC has the final say.

[This message has been edited by tuc22 (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
I don't like to sound reactionary, but if Hilary dislikes the EC then it's looking better to me all the time.
 
anyone surprised by this ?

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
It sounds like Her Imperial Worshipfulness, the freshman-to-be New York Senator from Arkansas, might have slept through Constitutional Law. She says that she doesn't like the Electoral College because it doesn't reflect the view of the people in our demoracy. Let me point out:

1. This isn't a democracy. It's a republic, based on government by elected representatives, not direct government by the people.

2. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing. The EC was designed so that the President wasn't elected by direct vote. While the Founding Fathers were not wise enough to foresee the Californication of the country, they suspected something like that might happen. They knew that direct election would lead to election of the president by the big cities. They wanted other interests, other views, other outlooks to be represented.

3. Her Highness presumes to speak for us all. Maybe the rest of us like the EC. Or most of us. Or those of us who are not bi-coastal. Her Majesty will represent New Yorkers (voters get the leadership they deserve). It is in the interests of New York to abolish the EC. It gives them more electoral power.

The rest of us can think for ourselves, Madam, thank you very much. A little remedial Constitutional Law lesson: it takes a 2/3 vote by the Senate (so you only need 66 more there) plus a 2/3 vote by the House plus approval by 3/4 of the states to get rid of the EC. In case a remedial math lesson is also needed, that means that a legislative majority in 13 states can block any attempt to get rid of the EC. Good luck.
 
They knew that direct election would lead to election of the president by the big cities. They wanted other interests, other views, other outlooks to be represented.
Does anyone have a source on the big city vs. rural thing? At the time of ratification, the largest population state was Virginia which didn't have any of the major cities. Granted, Massachussettes also had a fairly large population and a large city but....

By the way, a small number of states--including ones that have metro-area majorities--can already dominate the system. The difference is that with a popular vote and IRV, a candidate would have to get a majority of the country not just a slim majority in 11 states in order to win.

[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
Folkbabe, the Founding Fathers were well read in the Classics. I imagine they took their lesson from Rome, and probably read Cicero, etc in the original latin. Probably read up a lot on the Greeks too. At that time the educated class was schooled in Ancient History.


BTW, lets change your premise of a slim majority in 11 states to a majority in the 11 or so largest cities. Anyone have an encyclopedia handy? Can you add up the populations of the cities? What is the total and what is a reasonable estimate of a percentage of the number being Gore voters? Is there a place on the Net to get county voting percentages?

Like others on the forum I think the cities would dominate.


[This message has been edited by Bam Bam (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
You may well be correct on the urban vs. rural thing. Certainly the founders were well-read in the classics. However, I was shown a fairly convincing quote from the federalist papers http://lcweb2.loc.gov/const/fed/fed_68.html that implied the founders had distrust of the masses more in mind than states' rights.
Hamilton:
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

I was wondering if anyone had quotes or referances from the other side.

BTW, lets change your premise of a slim majority in 11 states to a majority in the 11 or so largest cities. Anyone have an encyclopedia handy? Can you add up the populations of the cities? What is the total and what is a reasonable estimate of a percentage of the number being Gore voters? Is there a place on the Net to get county voting percentages?

30.2% of the population lives in center-city areas. 50% of the population lives in non-center city metropolitian areas (ie, suburbs). 19.2% of the population lives in rural areas. (That's from the U.S. census, which may rather widely define "metropolitian region.")

I don't know why a 'slim majority' in the cities would matter since it wouldn't be by county or anything. However, a slim majority in metropolitian regions wouldn't quite be enough to win. A slim majority in urban regions isn't anywhere close. As far as the percent in urban regions who vote for Dems, in Baltimore and DC it's about 80%. It is probably considerably less in non-majority-black cities (but I don't feel like looking it up). Suburbs in Maryland tend to go slightly for Democrats but suburbs in NoVA tend to go for republicans (especially outer-ring suburbs). Of the 4 districts in Maryland I'd consider "suburban" there are two democrats, one liberal republican, and one very conservative republican.

You can usually get county voting percentages off the state board of elections web site.

[This message has been edited by folkbabe (edited November 12, 2000).]
 
Folkbabe, I chose counties as the metric because that is how the votes are tabublated. Unless you want to differentiate at the level of the precinct and that is too much work for an amatuer like me. So the city and county are close enough measures to be regarded as identical.

Anyways a quick glance shows that the cities have 1.5 times the votes of the rural. Ergo whoever bribes the urbanites with the best Bread and Circuses wins the election. Just buy off some of the suburbanites and the demagogue is in like flynn. QED
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top