Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

agentkgb wrote: 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.
It's a lot easier to be relelected during a war.

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.

perdidochas, changing your name to agentkgb :roll:

[perdidochas]

LostSoul3412 wrote: 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.

And in constitutional terms, what is legitimacy?

[psholtz]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: 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 fine.

The majority should not be deciding everything.

If the majority is deciding everything, then you have a democracy... something the Founders were extremely careful to avoid.

This way, the people are forced to focus more of the attention on those parts of government where they can have a real influence, like at their Congressional representive and at the local/County level. Generally speaking, any private citizen who tries to talk w/ President is generally going to get ignored - for somewhat obvious - even if the guy in the Oval Office a "good guy" President.

So in other words, if you have no influence over his policies, then why should you bother voting for him in the first? You shouldn't..

[LostSoul3412]

perdidochas wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: 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.

And in constitutional terms, what is legitimacy?

You want to talk about what the government tells us legitimacy is, or what actual legitimacy is?

If you want to follow the government, than the electoral college (a government establishment) over-rules the people at every turn. If it's a tie, it goes to the Senate (more government). The Constitution establishes an autonomous government, with no need for the people to even bother to vote. If you want to follow the government, you have no power. If you want to follow the government, then "democracy" is just a word on a piece of paper that describes what the government wants to tell you.

If you want to think for yourself, leaders receive legitimacy from the people they govern; in a democratic republic, that legitimacy comes from the people voice in elections.

[bigstick61]

Electors aren't supposed to pledge their votes for anybody; to do so goes completely against the intent of the system. They are not chosen because of who they vote for, but based upon their qulaifications; they are delegates of the people, and it is up to them who the President will be. The Electoral College does not overrule the people, since the people don't have a say in who the President will be, legally speaking. The President cannot serve as a check upon the people when the Senate fails to be one if he is p[opularly elected; it is also improper for someone to be able to be thrown out of office for enforcing the law, since the President is the executive. Such things should never be subject to the whims of the majority of the people.

[agentkgb]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: agentkgb wrote: 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.
It's a lot easier to be relelected during a war.

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.

perdidochas, changing your name to agentkgb :roll:
Sorry, my computer froze up while I was posting that. I'm not sure what happened exactly.

[theutes]

The founders weren't all-knowing and good. I was asking if there is a good non-founders'-intentions-related reason to support the electoral college. The interests of everyone else were extremely different from the founders' interests own, so it would not surprise me if they didn't want to form a democracy (or republic). How can a government not chosen by the people be a legitimate one?

[perdidochas]

theutes wrote: The founders weren't all-knowing and good. I was asking if there is a good non-founders'-intentions-related reason to support the electoral college. The interests of everyone else were extremely different from the founders' interests own, so it would not surprise me if they didn't want to form a democracy (or republic). How can a government not chosen by the people be a legitimate one?

Well, the electors are chosen by the people, or in the case of some of the early cases (pre-1804) by the people's representatives (i.e. the state legislatures). Historically, democracies fail. The Greeks learned that early on. Republics have a pretty good chance.

[bigstick61]

A republic is formed by the people, usually indirectly, and established with popular consent through delegates or representatives, to use modern examples. Also, just as there are checks on the people, there are popular checks on the government, and one branch of the legislature must be directly elected, and thereby represent the will of the people. The people often have a indirect say in other areas. Democracy is a terrible form of government, and much of that is due to a lack of checks on the people, and the fact that there are many checks on the people is generally, although not entirely, what seperate a republic from a democracy.

[Doctor_Gonzo]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: 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.

Absolutely, as the crooked scheisters are now able to throw elections by directly REPROGRAMMING the voting machines, the whole Electoral College gig has become passe . . .lol

[psholtz]

theutes wrote: The founders weren't all-knowing and good.
The Founders were far more "knowing" than most people today are (including, especially, those in government posts).

[leftneckredwing]

psholtz wrote: theutes wrote: The founders weren't all-knowing and good.
The Founders were far more "knowing" than most people today are (including, especially, those in government posts).

If it were possible to give IQ tests to the Fathers and the lamos in power today, the scores would like a perfect game for an entire season in favor of the Founding Fathers. The morons in power today wouldn't get out of the batter's box.

A debate between the Fathers and the current washington mob on principles would see the current washington mob look like the losers they are.

[psholtz]

leftneckredwing wrote: psholtz wrote: theutes wrote: The founders weren't all-knowing and good.
The Founders were far more "knowing" than most people today are (including, especially, those in government posts).

If it were possible to give IQ tests to the Fathers and the lamos in power today, the scores would like a perfect game for an entire season in favor of the Founding Fathers. The morons in power today wouldn't get out of the batter's box.

A debate between the Fathers and the current washington mob on principles would see the current washington mob look like the losers they are.
Don't even have to have a real debate..

Just open up the Federal Papers (or Anti-Federalist Papers, for that matter .. or the Jefferson-Adams letters, etc), and start reading.. The wisdom and foresight and breadth of knowledge of these men is just stunning and mind-boggling.

Of course, most Americans wouldn't even be able to do that much today.

Too many big words and long sentences in the Federalist Papers.. I daresay most Americans today would not even be able to understand the English used in those documents, much less the frequent (and sometimes subtle) allusions made in the Federalist Papers to the Bible, to Shakespeare, to classical (Greek/Roman) literature and civilizations, etc. For instance, the author(s) of the Federalist Papers used the pen name "Publius" .. Publius was one of the founders of the Roman Republic who killed and drove out the last Kings of Rome back circa 500 BC or so. Most Americans today would not even recognize that allusion, much less the countless others .. much less would they comprehend the political theory expounded in those papers..

Back in 1788, the Federalist Papers were aimed at convincing the "common man" to join the Union and adopt the new Constitution, and so were written to a level that common men everywhere were expected to understand.

Really, really stunning .. and gives you just some idea of how pathetically far we've fallen.. :-|

[leftneckredwing]

psholtz wrote: leftneckredwing wrote: psholtz wrote: theutes wrote: The founders weren't all-knowing and good.
The Founders were far more "knowing" than most people today are (including, especially, those in government posts).

If it were possible to give IQ tests to the Fathers and the lamos in power today, the scores would like a perfect game for an entire season in favor of the Founding Fathers. The morons in power today wouldn't get out of the batter's box.

A debate between the Fathers and the current washington mob on principles would see the current washington mob look like the losers they are.
Don't even have to have a real debate..

Just open up the Federal Papers (or Anti-Federalist Papers, for that matter .. or the Jefferson-Adams letters, etc), and start reading.. The wisdom and foresight and breadth of knowledge of these men is just stunning and mind-boggling.

Of course, most Americans wouldn't even be able to do that much today.

Too many big words and long sentences in the Federalist Papers.. I daresay most Americans today would not even be able to understand the English used in those documents, much less the frequent (and sometimes subtle) allusions made in the Federalist Papers to the Bible, to Shakespeare, to classical (Greek/Roman) literature and civilizations, etc. For instance, the author(s) of the Federalist Papers used the pen name "Publius" .. Publius was one of the founders of the Roman Republic who killed and drove out the last Kings of Rome back circa 500 BC or so. Most Americans today would not even recognize that allusion, much less the countless others .. much less would they comprehend the political theory expounded in those papers..

Back in 1788, the Federalist Papers were aimed at convincing the "common man" to join the Union and adopt the new Constitution, and so were written to a level that common men everywhere were expected to understand.

Really, really stunning .. and gives you just some idea of how pathetically far we've fallen.. :-|

Amen to that. The lexicon and vocabulary they used with extreme precision and the timelessness of their words far, far exceeds nearly any of the authors I've read before or since.

It boggles the mind that in the shadows of these men, we even refer to the present washington mob as leaders. They couldn't lead a thirsty duck to water.

Whereas, those men led a very small nation to Liberty against the World's Super Power. And at the same time, they wrote the unequalled, before or since, documents they left us.

[John Galt]

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.

Agreed!

The electoral college was genius. It first and foremose makes certian the President of the United States is the President of the United States (and not a regional President). It increases the influence of smaller states upon the executive branch, of which otherwise it would have zero influence upon, and removes the democratic element. And democracy, my dear freinds, has newver once been desirable by anyone who knows what it is.

[agentkgb]

leftneckredwing wrote: psholtz wrote: theutes wrote: The founders weren't all-knowing and good.
The Founders were far more "knowing" than most people today are (including, especially, those in government posts).

If it were possible to give IQ tests to the Fathers and the lamos in power today, the scores would like a perfect game for an entire season in favor of the Founding Fathers. The morons in power today wouldn't get out of the batter's box.

A debate between the Fathers and the current washington mob on principles would see the current washington mob look like the losers they are.
Sure they were educated but they didn't seem to want to use their knowledge to benefit the country. They were rich and they wanted to do stuff that would benefit themselves. The electoral college was also used to give power to slave states that didn't deserve the electoral power they got with it.

[LostSoul3412]

John Galt wrote: psholtz wrote: People should not directly elect the president.

The Electoral College is (was) a good system.

Agreed!

The electoral college was genius. It first and foremose makes certian the President of the United States is the President of the United States (and not a regional President). It increases the influence of smaller states upon the executive branch, of which otherwise it would have zero influence upon, and removes the democratic element. And democracy, my dear freinds, has newver once been desirable by anyone who knows what it is.

:tu:

The electoral college is one of the best systems that we have, and one of the few last bastions of state's rights.

[Harbinger]

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

www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
Because he was the only practical candidate running for office.

300 million people in America and GWB was the only presidential candidate!

It's like someone asking you to "pick a card, any card" while holding up only one card. :roll:

[Harbinger]

John Galt wrote:
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.

Agreed!

The electoral college was genius. It first and foremost makes certain the President of the United States is the President of the United States (and not a regional President). It increases the influence of smaller states upon the executive branch, of which otherwise it would have zero influence upon, and removes the democratic element. And democracy, my dear friends, has never once been desirable by anyone who knows what it is.
Why bother with an electoral college at all? Seems redundant to me. Senators are representatives of the states. They are elected into office by the people of the states. Why not give the Senate the exclusive power to elect the President? That ought to give equal influence to the states while keeping the people fairly seperated from the process.

[LostSoul3412]

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

www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf
Because he was the only practical candidate running for office.

300 million people in America and GWB was the only presidential candidate!

It's like someone asking you to "pick a card, any card" while holding up only one card. :roll:

Really? I could of sworn John Kerry was on the ballot... :think: