Korean Job Discussion Forums

[cbclark4]

I found this in a good article found at the link provided below.
The article goes on to conclude that the EC is divine wisdom.
It gives a good history and relevant pros and cons.

"First, the distribution of Electoral votes in the College tends to
over represent people in rural States. This is because the number of
Electors for each State is determined by the number of members it has in
the House (which more or less reflects the State's population size) plus
the number of members it has in the Senate (which is always two
regardless of the State's population). The result is that in 1988, for
example, the combined voting age population (3,119,000) of the seven
least populous jurisdictions of Alaska, Delaware, the District of Columbia,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming carried the same
voting strength in the Electoral College (21 Electoral votes) as the
9,614,000 persons of voting age in the State of Florida. Each Floridian's
potential vote, then, carried about one third the weight of a potential vote
in the other States listed."


http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

[cbclark4]

Here is an argument I found that disputes the argument portrayed
in my previous post using some of the same stats and facts.
Interesting.

For example, the total combined population of the FOUR CITIES of New
York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston is the same as the total
combined population of the FIFTEEN STATES of Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii,
Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming! The
COMBINED area of these four cities is about 1,610 square miles, while
the total area of the SMALLEST state alone is 1,045 square miles! In a
direct election people in large cities will be given preferential treatment
by the candidates because it will be less expensive and more efficient for
them to spend their time there rather than travel throughout an entire
state. So dump the "unfair" Electoral College for the "fair" popular vote
system to stop candidates concentrating their efforts on a few key
states? This argument doesn't wash.


http://www.presidentelect.org/art_mythical.html

[Kuros]

To play with it some more: the electoral college system is less decisive than the decisions of states to hold their primaries.

Iowa, NH, and SC are not large states. They are getting LOTS of attention from current Presidential aspirants.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[cbclark4]

In accordance with Article 5 of the US Constitution, the above stated
changes would require a 2/3 majority of each house and then ratification
by 3/4 of the states or 38 states. A constitutional convention is not
required.


Article 5

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the
Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall
call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall
be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by
Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no
Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight
hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses
in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its
Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[Ya-ta Boy]

[keane]

[Ya-ta Boy]

It makes all the sense in the world. You must not have noticed-- one poster has already called for the abolition of the Senate.

If the one official who is elected to execute the laws should be elected by one man, one vote, what argument can you possibly muster to defend keeping the most powerful branch of the legislature that WRITES the laws under a different system and philosophy?

Again, I say we as a people should be concentrating on figuring out a way to reform the Electoral College to make it an effective body, not abolishing it.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I've noticed a resounding lack of argument FOR abolishing the Electoral College. Little more has been said than, "I favor direct election."

So far, two arguments have been advanced:

-- the one about people on the losing end may as well not have voted, but as another poster pointed out, that is the same in all elections--unless you vote for the winner, you may as well have stayed home and not voted.

-- the disproportional power of the small states, which I pointed out is equally present in the structure of the Senate. If we abolish the Electoral College, we open the door to fundamentally changing the Senate. Added together, we have a revolutionary change in the basic nature of our government.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Here is the text of Federalist Paper #68 in which Hamilton defends the Electoral College.

Read it, and then answer my question: Have you put as much thought into the consequences of altering the Constitution as the men who wrote it put into it? Thought I said, not emotion.


http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm

[keane]

[keane]

[keane]

[Ya-ta Boy]

[keane]