The Electoral College Vote vs. Direct Popular vote.

M

MrBigglesworth

New member
Hey all...just my rambling again. I posted this in Ars-Technica.com and wanted to share my views over here and see what you guys think!
------------------------
I do not like the Electoral College vote in its current form.

Back in the days before Telephones and the Pony Express I can see a need for it as it would take days if not weeks to get news all the way back to Washington of election vote tallies of the popular vote of the people.

The Electoral College voting process allowed 2 Senators per state plus the number of Representatives of that state to cast a vote for the presidency. California on one hand has 54 votes available. States like Wyoming or Utah only have 3 votes available. When you add up the total number of available votes there are 538. It takes an Electoral College vote of 270 or more to determine the presidency.

This is where it is flawed. The EC vote is supposed to be "representative" of the popular vote (the actual vote of the people) What if you have a situation where your Senators and Reps are for one candiate but most of the populace votes for another? That is not justifed and has actually happened when the EC vote went opposite of the pop vote.

"The bloc tradition of voting by the electors has the potential to give candidates popular in the large states an advantage over those popular in the less populated states (as witnessed in the 1888 election when Grover Cleveland lost the Presidental election to Benjamin Harrison even though he received roughly 100,000 more popular votes)."
Source http://www.a-znet.com/capsule/cap_010799.html

In todays high communication and internet enabled world the popular vote is the only thing that should be considered. Places like California and New York which are primarily Democratically filled Electoral College place holders have an unfair advantage due to sheer number of EC votes available to them.

How can 54 votes for California represent 33 million + people? I am very sure that the popular vote would be vastly different in many states accross the U.S. than that of the EC in recent times.

I guess all I am really saying is that I want my vote to actually count instead of relying on my reps and Senators and hoping they agree with my choice of candidacy.

------------------------------

More info here...and probably better described!!!

I cant put my words down in type or on paper worth a darn!!!
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Heights/8024/electoral.htm

Following is a copy/paste of the above link and seems to say it a lot better than I ever could!


Critics of the electoral method contend that the true sentiments of the voters are distorted by the winner-take-all system, as well as by the fact that population and voter turnout are not accurately reflected. Critics point out that a candidate receiving a plurality of the popular vote in a state whether the margin is 1 vote or 1 million carries all the electoral votes of that state, and they conclude that in effect the minority is disfranchised at an intermediate stage of the electoral process. The winner-take-all system is largely responsible for the possibility of a candidate's being elected president even though he or she polls fewer popular votes than the opponent. Should a candidate receive a minority of the popular vote nationally but carry a sufficient number of states to ensure a majority of the electoral votes, the candidate would be elected, and the will of the majority would be frustrated through the legal and normal operation of the electoral college. Critics point to the dispute caused by the election of 1876 and also to the election of 1888, in which Grover Cleveland, the defeated candidate, polled 5,540,050 popular votes to 5,444,337 for Benjamin Harrison; however, Cleveland received only 168 electoral votes to Harrison's 233.

In recent decades the popular vote totals for major presidential candidates have sometimes been very close; in 1960 and 1968, for example, the victory margin was less than 1 percent. In the 1968 and 1980 presidential elections, strong third-party candidates attempted to win enough electoral votes to raise the possibility that the election would be decided when the electors met or, if necessary, in the House of Representatives. Although these moves failed, they prompted renewed demands for reform or abolition of the electoral college. Many critics point out that the only system that can ensure election of the popular choice is direct popular election.



------------------
Try to take away my gun...and you will see my 2nd Amendment Right in ACTION!!! -Me

"I am beginning to think that not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator"
George W Bush on the Oct 3rd Debate with Al Bore
 
In the electoral college system, the senators and representatives ARE NOT the same people as the electors. The constitution does not allow it. The NUMBER of electors a state appoints is equal to the number of senators and representatives that state has.
 
OK...I was a tad confused I thought it was the same people.

But it still all means the same. The popular vote can be over ridden by the EC vote in a state.

I found the following at http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives

That is what I do not appreciate about the EC.

------------------
Try to take away my gun...and you will see my 2nd Amendment Right in ACTION!!! -Me

"I am beginning to think that not only did he invent the internet, but he invented the calculator"
George W Bush on the Oct 3rd Debate with Al Bore

[This message has been edited by MrBigglesworth (edited October 06, 2000).]
 
The way I understand it the EC system had almost nothing to do with communication or lack thereof. It was/is at best a compromise of a number of ideas as to how best to establish an executive. Nowdays an executive is thought of as the top dog in an orginazation. Not so back in the days of the Founding Fathers. (I remember reading about the EC a few weeks ago,and my memory being as reliable as a Lorcin,,,I'll stand corrected on much of this). The EC won out, just barely, over the idea of the House and Senate appointing the executive position. The presidential position is supposed to be one of pretty lowly status, heck, even serving in government at all is supposed to be a thing you do as your duty, not a career position. Can you imagine being a career jurist? A lot of concepts of Tribal society were incorperated into the "Great Experiment", so you have to look at how Ameri-Indian culture selected their tribal leaders and established Tribal government. Ben Franklin drew a considerable amount of knowledege from studying many different cultures. Think in terms of the executer(sp?) of an estate, rather than an executive of a corporation. I know this rambles a bit, but unfortunatly that's how the whole role of the EC vote has been twisted. Government, at least on a federal level, was supposed to be simple and straight foreward enough for anyone to understand.
And, yes, you are correct that the EC voter is not bound by anything except moral concience to cast their EC vote for a popular candidate. Early EC votes were cast for the president and the vp seperatly. There was at one time little difference between the two (again, think in terms of a jurist and an alternate jurist) positions.

[This message has been edited by RAE (edited October 06, 2000).]
 
I agree that the EC should be abolished and replaced with the pure popular vote.

At the very least, voter turnout should weigh the results, not only population numbers.

As an example, in a national election, any Conservative or Republican voter in, say, New York, is a total non-entity. Even if several million NY'ers vote GOP, their votes mean nil to the national vote count, because NY will always give all electoral votes to the Dems. Same could be said for a lefty liberal living in avery conservative state. It becomes a matter not of one man, one vote, but your vote will or won't count, depending on where you live.
 
The EC is one of the last vestiges of states' rights. The notion is that each state will choose who it wants as the President. This leaves the power to the states. The popular vote exists within the state.

A nationwide popular vote only furthers the power of the presidency.

We need to return to the concept that the president in only the chief administartor of the functions of government and not the leader of this nation.

Remember, the leaders of this nation are the individual citizens who have the soverignity. We are getting to the point of having(may already have) an elected king, and this is wrong.
 
Our founding fathers bequeathed to us a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. In fact, they were deeply suspicious of democracy. They clearly understood a democracy could deprive a citizen of his life, liberty, or property just as easily a totalitarian regime. They fought against monarchies, we fight against despots.

The electoral college (EC) was designed to provide for popular election of the president but at the same time limit the effect of a popular vote and enhance the status of the states in national elections. Look at how congress was originally composed. The House was a popular election while the Senate was composed of people appointed by the states, not popular elections. So even with the congress you see a blend of popular election and state appointment.

I think the electoral college is a good thing. Move toward popular election and instantly the top 10 states assume all importance in the election. The EC is a serious inconvenience to demagogs. Can we have a split between the EC vote and popular vote? Yea, unlikely, but yea. And I think it a good thing.


------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

Barry Goldwater--1964
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top