Political Crossfire Forums

[theutes]

Given the possibility for a loser of the popular vote to get in office, the power it gives to states with small populations/power it takes from states with large populations, what it does to third parties, etc., I was looking for some arguments in support if the US Electoral College. It's supposed to be for states' rights from what I understand but that assumes that states are united in their interests.

[bigstick61]

Electoral College serves a couple of different purposes, as designed. The way it is used currently is a corruption of the system, as electors were never supposed to pledge their support for a certain candidate as is done now, and certainly not en masse. As designed, the people were supposed to choose electors based upon their qualities, such as success, virtue, education, intelligence, wisdom, experience, and similar things, so that way the people who actually choose the President and Vice President would be the best of the best among the voting populace, which in the system as a whole, consists of land owning citizens over 21. It is this body of people who then deliberate, discusss, and ultimately vote for the candidates for the aforementioned offices, and this is also where the focus of Presidential debates was supposed to be. It would then take a majority of the college for candidate to become President or Vice President, with the electors having to vote for at least one person who isn't from their State. If no majority is found, the top three candidates are sent to the House of Representatives and the Senate, for the offices of President and Vice President respectively. In the House, Representatives were grouped together by State, with each group having only one vote. Debate and voting would continue until a candidate recieved the majority of votes. In the case of the Vice President and the Senate, it just takes a majority of the Senate. Nowhere in the system does the populace have the say it does today in who the President will be.

The system serves three purposes. First and formost is that of removing direct popular influence from the office of the President. It is necessary for the President to have a certain degreee of isolation from public influence because of the nature of his job. Part of his job is to serve as a check on the legislature, both as an intragovernmental check, as well as to serve as a secondary check on the people should the Senate fail to do so. He is supposed to uphold the Constitution and preside over the government, and as such, he needs to make sure the government spends money wisely and also to veto unconstitutional laws and appropriations. Direct popular influence makes this difficult, as he'd have to do what the public wants in order to remain in office. He also is in charge of Federal military and naval forces, which is something the general public should have no direct influence on, as they have a very limited knowledge of such affairs; when the citizens of Athens dictated strategy, they caused Athens to be dfeated and the result was the destruction of their democracy. Also, the executive should not have direct public influence because that is highly imprudent in law enforcement. If the public is dissatisfied with a law, they should take it to their respective Representatives; the President's job is to carry out the law, as we are all subject to the rule of law. Also, when it comes to treaties and appointments of judges, the public should also not have a direct say. Secondly, it allows smaller States greater representation when it comes to the selection of the President and Vice President. Thirdly, it also helps to ensure that only the best people hold the office. By having the people who the voting populace view as the best of the best select the President, you can also ensure that candidates will be subject to considerable scrutiny and that a good selection will be made.

All of these reasons are good reasons for retaining the system, and also in reforming it to what it s supposed to be, the latter being impossible if the system is eliminated. We are not a democracy, and the electoral college is part of what ensures that we are not one and will not become one. The Electoral College is a good thing.

In Presidential elections, the "popular" vote is irrelevant, as it properly should be. In the system as designed, there is no popular vote. You only vote for electors to send to the electoral college.

[theutes]

So we want the electoral college because it prevents the people from directly electing their representatives? For me that's just another reason to get rid of it, probably the best reason.

[LostSoul3412]

theutes wrote: So we want the electoral college because it prevents the people from directly electing their representatives? For me that's just another reason to get rid of it, probably the best reason.

:tu:

The popular vote determines the legitimacy of the winner. Without a majority of the popular vote, a president does not have the legitimacy of the people.

[bigstick61]

The thing is that the President isn't and wasn't meant to be a direct representative of the people. The job he does requires a certain degree of seperation from the people, and it is also part of the series of checks and balances and the governmental system. The only reason whythe loss of the popular vote makes the President seem illegitimate in the eyes of some is because there is a popular vote, which if the Constitution were followed, would be non-existant. The people would be voting for electors to represent them, not for the President, if the law was followed. The current method is a corruption of the system.

Democratization is not a good thing, and it ultimately is what destroys most republics.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Perhaps with the advent of the new Federal ID card, coupled with Electronic voting, the Electoral college will go away?

One wouldn't even need to be in their state to vote in a Federal Election and have their voice/vote counted.

[theutes]

bigstick61 wrote: The thing is that the President isn't and wasn't meant to be a direct representative of the people. The job he does requires a certain degree of seperation from the people, and it is also part of the series of checks and balances and the governmental system. The only reason whythe loss of the popular vote makes the President seem illegitimate in the eyes of some is because there is a popular vote, which if the Constitution were followed, would be non-existant. The people would be voting for electors to represent them, not for the President, if the law was followed. The current method is a corruption of the system.

Democratization is not a good thing, and it ultimately is what destroys most republics.
I'm not saying the voting system in the US isn't corrupt, I'm saying it's corrupt in the opposite direction. The people don't have enough say, and the power of many votes are weakened by the electoral college.
In regards to separation from the people, a couple centuries ago the US was ruled by a separated power, and the US revolted against it. That separated power was known as "Britain," and people thought it was wrong that someone who wasn't a member of their society ruled their society.

[perdidochas]

theutes wrote: Given the possibility for a loser of the popular vote to get in office, the power it gives to states with small populations/power it takes from states with large populations, what it does to third parties, etc., I was looking for some arguments in support if the US Electoral College. It's supposed to be for states' rights from what I understand but that assumes that states are united in their interests.

The Electoral college was a compromise position between the small states and the large states.

Honestly, it's not that important of an issue. The popular vote and the electoral vote have only been different a handful of times.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

perdidochas wrote: theutes wrote: Given the possibility for a loser of the popular vote to get in office, the power it gives to states with small populations/power it takes from states with large populations, what it does to third parties, etc., I was looking for some arguments in support if the US Electoral College. It's supposed to be for states' rights from what I understand but that assumes that states are united in their interests.

The Electoral college was a compromise position between the small states and the large states.

Honestly, it's not that important of an issue. The popular vote and the electoral vote have only been different a handful of times.

YEAH ! And look at the trouble it brought with it each time.

[theutes]

perdidochas wrote: theutes wrote: Given the possibility for a loser of the popular vote to get in office, the power it gives to states with small populations/power it takes from states with large populations, what it does to third parties, etc., I was looking for some arguments in support if the US Electoral College. It's supposed to be for states' rights from what I understand but that assumes that states are united in their interests.

The Electoral college was a compromise position between the small states and the large states.

Honestly, it's not that important of an issue. The popular vote and the electoral vote have only been different a handful of times.
A couple of times out of 43 elections (42 presidents) is a lot.

[perdidochas]

theutes wrote: perdidochas wrote: theutes wrote: Given the possibility for a loser of the popular vote to get in office, the power it gives to states with small populations/power it takes from states with large populations, what it does to third parties, etc., I was looking for some arguments in support if the US Electoral College. It's supposed to be for states' rights from what I understand but that assumes that states are united in their interests.

The Electoral college was a compromise position between the small states and the large states.

Honestly, it's not that important of an issue. The popular vote and the electoral vote have only been different a handful of times.
A couple of times out of 43 elections (42 presidents) is a lot.

First, there have been 54 presidential elections, not 43. (216/4=54)

The cases (1888, 2004) were both fairly close elections. Also, if GW was such a bad candidate, etc., why was he clearly re-elected?

www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

[Richard Owl Mirror]

perdidochas wrote: ~snip~ Also, if GW was such a bad candidate, etc., why was he clearly re-elected?

How To Steal An Election

Ohio 2004 - The truth behind the voting machines

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=search_videos&search_query=Diebold

[bigstick61]

The President doesn't "rule" the country. If any entity could be said to do so it would be Congress. The President controls military and naval forces, serves as a diplomat and a national figurehead, enforces/executes Federal laws, manages the government, and vetos laws when he feels it is necessary, and makes sure the government is financially stable through the tool of the veto. He also commissions all officers of the U.S., and can make treaties and appointments, but the latter two are subject to Senatorial approval. He has no power to make laws, and hence cannot be said to rule the country.

His role in appointing judicial officers, in checking Congress, even if it against the will of the people but he feels it necessary, and in controlling the military and enforcing the law requires him to be semi-independent from the people, which is why an indirect method was chosen for his election. The people's recourse is impeachment, which is why only the House of Representatives has the power to impeach. Also, if the electors feel the President is doing a bad job, they can vote him out in the Electoral College. To change the method of election to direct voting would be a step in the wrong direction, and would only serve to make things worse; we've already seen the results of changing the method of election of Senators, much to our detriment. If the law were truly followed, there would be no popular Presidential vote, only popular votes for an elector to represent them in the College, who wouldn't be able to pledge his vote.

[AceKingQueenJack]

LostSoul3412 wrote: theutes wrote: So we want the electoral college because it prevents the people from directly electing their representatives? For me that's just another reason to get rid of it, probably the best reason.

:tu:

The popular vote determines the legitimacy of the winner. Without a majority of the popular vote, a president does not have the legitimacy of the people.
Bush Didnt have the popular vote in 200. A few months later he had an approoval rating of over 80%.

[LostSoul3412]

AceKingQueenJack wrote: Bush Didnt have the popular vote in 200. A few months later he had an approoval rating of over 80%.

So? He still didn't have the legitimacy of the population.

[bigstick61]

But the President doesn't need it. He was never supposed to be directly influenced by the populace, and served as one of the republican checks against the people.

[psholtz]

theutes wrote: So we want the electoral college because it prevents the people from directly electing their representatives? For me that's just another reason to get rid of it, probably the best reason.
People should not directly elect the president.

The Electoral College is (was) a good system.

[psholtz]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: perdidochas wrote: theutes wrote: Given the possibility for a loser of the popular vote to get in office, the power it gives to states with small populations/power it takes from states with large populations, what it does to third parties, etc., I was looking for some arguments in support if the US Electoral College. It's supposed to be for states' rights from what I understand but that assumes that states are united in their interests.

The Electoral college was a compromise position between the small states and the large states.

Honestly, it's not that important of an issue. The popular vote and the electoral vote have only been different a handful of times.

YEAH ! And look at the trouble it brought with it each time.
The Electoral College has no problems.

Central banking is the problem.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

psholtz wrote: theutes wrote: So we want the electoral college because it prevents the people from directly electing their representatives? For me that's just another reason to get rid of it, probably the best reason.
People should not directly elect the president.

The Electoral College is (was) a good system.

The only problem I have with it as it stands, is that the delegates are not bound to cast their vote by the majorities decision.

100% of the vote could have gone to Senator X, yet the delegate doesn't have to cast their vote for Sen. X if they don't wish.

THAT s*cks !

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION LAW ~ The Electoral College ~ Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution
Quote: When American voters go to the polls to vote for president, many believe that they are participating in a direct election of the president. Technically, this is not the case, due to the existence of the electoral college, established in Article II, Section I, of the U.S. Constitution.

The electoral college is the name given a group of "electors" who are nominated by political activists and party members within the states. On election day these electors, pledged to one or another candidate, are popularly elected. In December following the presidential vote the electors meet in their respective state capitals and cast ballots for president and vice president. To be elected, a president requires 270 electoral votes.

In recent history, the electors have never cast their ballots against the winner of the popular vote.
For all intents and purposes, the electoral college vote, which for technical reasons is weighted in favor of whoever wins the popular election, increases the apparent majority of the winning candidate and lends legitimacy to the popular choice. It is still possible, however, that in a close race or a multiparty race the electoral college might not cast 270 votes in favor of any candidate — in that event, the House of Representatives would choose the next president.

[agentkgb]

perdidochas wrote: theutes wrote: perdidochas wrote: theutes wrote: Given the possibility for a loser of the popular vote to get in office, the power it gives to states with small populations/power it takes from states with large populations, what it does to third parties, etc., I was looking for some arguments in support if the US Electoral College. It's supposed to be for states' rights from what I understand but that assumes that states are united in their interests.

The Electoral college was a compromise position between the small states and the large states.

Honestly, it's not that important of an issue. The popular vote and the electoral vote have only been different a handful of times.
A couple of times out of 43 elections (42 presidents) is a lot.

First, there have been 54 presidential elections, not 43. (216/4=54)

The cases (1888, 2004) were both fairly close elections. Also, if GW was such a bad candidate, etc., why was he clearly re-elected?

www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
It's a lot easier to be relected during a war.