Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - The NEW Electoral College Reform Discussion Thread

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

The NEW Electoral College Reform Discussion Thread
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 1:54 pm Post subject: ...

Quote:

Right now, candidates must visit most of the States in the primary/caucus system and try to win in each State. In direct election, any smart candidate would go where the people are, basically California and New York.

Retaining the federal structure is important.

That's the argument, but the truth is that that isn't really working very well. What's to stop candidates now from ignoring all the states that aren't battleground? I think every candidate campaigns in every state so that the faithful are given some attention, but inevitably, the bulk of their time, money, and energy is spent on the battleground states. Thus, you still have candidates spending an inordinate amount of time on one smaller segment of the greater population. So yes, politicians would probably spend more time on California and New York, but I don't see that as creating a problem. It's just shifting the focus to populations rather than on places where there's a mix of liberals and conservatives. And, just like in the current system, I don't see why candidates wouldn't be sure to visit all 50 states in the interest of maintaining the bases they have.

In short, I don't see this as a problem. Not exactly sure ehat yumean by federal structure.

Quote:

It would raise the question: Why don't we elect a Senate based on population size? Slippery slope argument, I know, but there is a certain amount of pressure to do this now. Those forces would be strengthened.

I'm not sure why you keep pinning extreme situations to what would really be a minor change.

As for scrapping the constitution, I'm not sure why you think this would be necessary to change the EC. Perhaps you're just responding to CBC.

I, for one, am not interested in rewriting the Constitution. However, I don't think that an amendment would trigger some sweeping series of changes alluded to in another post.

In fact, I'm not completely sure an amendment would be better than states simply making the changes themselves, meaning I'm not averse to keeping the EC but allowing votes to be split. I'm also not sure which would be easier/more likely.

Quote:

Direct election might encourage 3rd parties and end up producing a series of minority presidents. The media often errs in inviting fringe whackos on to talk shows in the interest of 'hearing all sides' and thereby lending credence to slugs who should stay under their rock.

You portray it far differently than I would. Strengthening of third parties is the primary reason I'd like to see the EC removed or reformed. I really hold no love for either Democrats or Republicans. A viable third choice would be welcome. Even if not viable, a challenge to the two-party stranglehold would be welcome.

And this is why such a change is to difficult to make. I doubt either party is interested in diminishing its own power.

Quote:

The Electoral College lends an air of legitimacy to candidates who win in very close elections. Normally, the Electoral vote skews the outcome to be even more in favor of the winner than the popular vote. This would be lacking if we were to go to direct election.

Did the EC lend the 2000 vote an air of legitimacy? I don't see a lot of merit in the argument that skewing the results is of some benefit to our group psyche.

And Kuros is right about the primaries having a similar negative effect, but I don't think you can properly compare the effects of the two. They're influential in two different ways. However, there is no compelling reason that a few of the same states should get to decide every election who the candidates will be while other states are consistently sidelined.

It's my sincere hope that this issue isn't ignored again in the off-season.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject:

Good post, Nowhere. Time is short this morning, so I'll only reply to one part and try to get back to the rest later today.

Quote:

I'm not a fan of our present system of nominating candidates, but there is at least one good part. During primary/caucus season, candidates are forced to visit almost every state. I'm from Iowa so we get massive attention from the candidates until the caucus. After that, in the General Election, the final nominee makes one quick stop in the state on their way to someplace more important.

I agree with you that the present system isn't working very well and would enjoy a discussion on alternatives (on another thread).

I'll try to re-think my federalism argument. You are not the only one who doesn't get what I'm trying to say, so I must not be expressing it very well. (I'm convinced it's a relevant point.)

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2007 4:08 pm Post subject:

I was hunting for an article comparing countries' Presidential systems, and found this gem.

Quote:

Unlike [Korea's] politicking by motley crews of carpetbaggers who frequently move from one party to another and whose parties merge and disappear so often that voters can hardly remember their names and understand their identities, French politicians stay with the party they choose and seldom bolt from it.

LOL, 'motley crews of carpetbaggers.' Laughing

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 11:39 am Post subject: ...

Quote:

During primary/caucus season, candidates are forced to visit almost every state. I'm from Iowa so we get massive attention from the candidates until the caucus.

Candidates are forced to visit states until they have enough votes, and again, they get their votes from the same states (outside of the ones that have just made changes) every election.

Quote:

We aren�t alone in being left out. About half of the states still hadn�t conducted primaries by the time Senator John Kerry obtained enough delegates to secure the Democratic nomination.

Quote:

http://sos.ky.gov/secdesk/mediacenter/articles/nass.htm

So, no, not really.

The proposal in the link sounds good.

Oh, and I know no one else seems interested, but the size of the House of Reps needs to be unfrozen.

1 rep per 500,000 people is atrocious.

But this is already off-topic far enough. Ima go and start another thread about that.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 1:53 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Not exactly sure ehat yumean by federal structure.

For two hundred years each State has been casting its votes in a winner-take-all fashion. IOW, each State has a role to play. If we go to direct election, all that will matter will be the total number of votes a candidate gets, regardless of where the voter comes from. There will be no role of any kind for the State as a state.

The Declaration of Independence declared 13 separate countries free of Britain. People forget that. Our present government started with 11 States, not 13, because Rhode Island and North Carolina chose not to join. They remained independent countries for a short time before joining. All the later states joined as equal States when they came into the Union.

The Constitution is a compromise document that deliberately treats us as one People in the House of Representatives and as a collection of States in the Senate.

We don't want States to be strong enough to challenge the Federal government, like they were before the Civil War, but we don't want to reduce them to local administrative units of the Federal government either.

I think removing the Electoral College would be a major step in that direction, tilting us too far toward democracy and too far away from the republican principle. The division of power is too important in the balance of power to ignore.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:13 pm Post subject: ...

Quote:

Right. That's essentially why I don't care if we reform the electoral college or toss it all together. Based on your point, fine, let's keep it, but allow states to split votes. The big difference between that and a direct election is that Wyoming and some other randoms get a shave of a point more. They're already ignored in primaries and the general election, so who really gives a hoot?

IOW, we have a system designed so that they won't get ignored where they're ignored anyway. I could give a rip whether this has gone on for 10 or 200 years.

Meanwhile, states have a whole other boatload of rights that are not threatened at all by allowing electoral votes to be split.

I think I understand your point about federalism, but I don't see it as a good point at all. What exactly are the negative implications of adopting such a change?

On the other hand, you have the issue of voter apathy. You and a few other professors on this board took me to task for not voting for 8 years. My response is that it didn't matter whether I voted or not. I stand by that response. It didn't matter and it doesn't matter who I vote for in 2008. It doesn't matter if I vote at all in the next presidential election. My state is already decided.

This is a condition I've grown up in,and it's highly significant to me when someone trots out their Santa Claus story about citizenship and one's patriotic duty to vote.

Roundabout voting time (in our country or elsewhere) the D-word starts getting tossed about freely.

I know that you , Ya-ta, can appreciate the difference between democracy and a republic, but I object to the wholesale prostitution of the word "democracy" in our modern civilization.

Kuros

Joined: 27 Apr 2004

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject:

I love that we're having an impassioned argument on Con-Law.

*yay*

Nowhere Man wrote:

You and a few other professors on this board took me to task for not voting for 8 years. My response is that it didn't matter whether I voted or not. I stand by that response. It didn't matter and it doesn't matter who I vote for in 2008. It doesn't matter if I vote at all in the next presidential election.

Generally, I don't think people should hassle others for not voting. But, I do think that voting, even if it seems futile, is an important exercise of your civil responsibility.

Quote:

Meanwhile, states have a whole other boatload of rights that are not threatened at all by allowing electoral votes to be split.

Very true.

Oh, Ya-Ta, he's giving you a run for your money.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: ...

Quote:

Generally, I don't think people should hassle others for not voting. But, I do think that voting, even if it seems futile, is an important exercise of your civil responsibility.

There was an afkn commercial. A faucet was running. People were standing about talking about how bad it was. One person stepped forward and shut it off, followed by a message to vote. That's more mythology than reality.

In Thailand, you have to vote. It's the law. In the impoverished provinces, you can buy a vote for a can of beer. Thai law prohibits the sale of alcohol on election day.

While I don't hold to your dream of civil responsibility and all of its implications, I do believe that splitting the electoral vote would encourage more Americans to be "civically responsible".

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:13 am Post subject:

Quote:

You and a few other professors on this board took me to task for not voting for 8 years

That must have been on one of my warm fuzzy patriotic days. Other days I think people who don't vote probably shouldn't be allowed to vote even if they wanted to. I used to debate my high school students on whether or not voters should have to have received at least a 'C' in Government class in order to vote. I was semi-serious. I also sometimes think minimum voting age should be around 45.

Quote:

Meanwhile, states have a whole other boatload of rights that are not threatened at all by allowing electoral votes to be split.

Quite true. I don't want to see them chipped away either. I'm not a fan of the Department of Education nor am I a proponent of the Constitutional amendment dealing with marriage in any form. Like I said, I don't like the idea of states becoming just regional administrative districts of the Federal government.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 5:20 am Post subject:

IF we were to go with the proportional distribution idea, I'd rather we have a public discussion and adopt an amendment. I know it isn't necessary, but I would rather see the People consulted in a public debate and change things in light of that debate. The manner of electing a president is more fundamental than choosing a state tree.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:57 pm Post subject: ...

Well, consulting the people is a swell idea. I think the people should be consulted on all matter of things. One fundamental case would be (have been) the decision to go to war. Of course, I've been opposed to it since the get-go, but it's hard for me to explain how happy (not the right word) I'd have been if we'd had a straight-up referendum on the issue and I'd lost. That would really only be the beginning of my ideas about how the people could be consulted.

What troubles me in this case is that:

a) there's not much consulting of the people as it stands. Bush is pretty clear on this. Still, he has a point when it comes to polling people. It's entirely possible to color/paint things based on how you ask the questions.

In that sense, how exactly are you going to go about consulting the people?

b)

Quote:

Our country would probably be best if we only allow the people who don't want to vote to vote. Wink

IOW, people raised in a republican state should be lined up and shot when they talk about sharing their "democracy" with the rest of the world.

c) I believe you and I can exchange ideas good-naturedly. I'm not a fan of dismissing people via psychoanalysis. That said, by my perception of the points you make, I get the feeling that:

1) You don't want this to happen

and

2) You're throwing obstacles in the way.

I think it would be fine if each state changed their electoral system. The change is more important to me than how it comes about. If the change happened at the state level, how exactly would it be disenfranchising "the people" of this public discussion you want?

Finally, we're talking about changing federal elections. How exactly does changing federal elections relegate states to being local lackeys of the federal government? So, we change the way people vote for the president of the United States. Does that take away from states' abilities to tax, make law, or otherwise do the things they do? Your suggestion that changing federal election rules reassigns state power to local authority is a strawman, is it not?

Who cares if states have done X for 200 years? That's not an argument in and of itself.

And that brings us back to your first argument. You don't want states to change the way they vote until we consult the public, so you want an amendment? In doing so, you're essentially arguing that you want states to maintain their power by a federal decision. Am I the only one this doesn't make any sense to?

Which brings us back to the fundamental accusation: You don't like this idea for change, and that's what's driving your argument more than anything else.

I AM trying to be objective here, but that's the way I see it.

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:47 pm Post subject:

Quote:

In that sense, how exactly are you going to go about consulting the people?

As I said, I'd prefer this issue be addressed with an amendment because it is such a fundamental issue of governance. I think the issue would be debated in the media, town meetings and coffee shops. I think it would be a good thing for the public to review the reasons our Constitution is a republican and not a democratic one. The balance struck, albeit accidentally, between republicanism and democracy was a good one that has served us well. If we are going to change that, I want us to address the issue directly.

I like the amendment process because it requires a 2/3's majority, a super-majority, to change something fundamental. When that happens, then I think we have spoken as The People and not just as people.

I believe the people are consulted every two years and that is enough. We choose our representatives at all levels and should re-elect them if they do a good job and throw the bums out when then do a bad job. I don't like referendums and initiatives because they are democratic and side-step the normal legislative process of negotiating, coalition forming and compromise. Referendums and initiatives bring in tyranny of the majority and ignore minority opinions. Not a good thing.

Quote:

Who cares if states have done X for 200 years? That's not an argument in and of itself.

It IS an argument in and of itself to me. By that, I mean that the country doesn't belong ONLY to the present living generation. It also belongs to past and future generations. I don't think we are chained by past generations, but that we acknowledge their wisdom and experience by being very cautious about changing our inheritance. I think that kind of responsible action pays respect to future generations.

Quote:

Your suggestion that changing federal election rules reassigns state power to local authority is a strawman, is it not?

No, I don't believe it is and certainly didn't mean it that way. Where I'm coming from is that the Constitution is divided in the way it views government. The House is meant to be a democratic element and the Senate a republican element, not representative of people, but of areas. I like the way the Electoral College evolved into a winner-take-all in each State. That is in line with the Senate-type concept. To divide the electoral votes or to abolish them altogether would eliminate this.

It is clear you are a small 'd' democrat. I think you are wrong to think that way, and Madison and Washington would agree with me Very Happy

, but it is your right.

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Fri Dec 07, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject: ...

Quote:

I think the issue would be debated in the media, town meetings and coffee shops. I think it would be a good thing for the public to review the reasons our Constitution is a republican and not a democratic one.

Don't get me wrong. I think that it's a beautiful vision that you paint of Tom and Bill down at the coffee shop getting down to the brass tacks of electoral reform.

But, first of all, did Tom and Bill do that when we banned alcohol? Maybe we wouldn't have if they had.

In fact, I don't think the general citizenry has ever sat down and had a chat when we amended the Constitution. Again, not that it's a bad idea, but why does this suddenly become a prerequisite?

Quote:

I like the amendment process because it requires a 2/3's majority, a super-majority, to change something fundamental. When that happens, then I think we have spoken as The People and not just as people.

OK. Good for you. I guess that explains why you're so happy about the House size being frozen without one. Er, what happened to the coffee shops and good ole pronvincialism there?

Quote:

I believe the people are consulted every two years and that is enough. We choose our representatives at all levels and should re-elect them if they do a good job and throw the bums out when then do a bad job.

Jeesus. Do you really think that's what's happening?

Not to be a conspiracy theorist, but this is how I think DC goes:

You get elected based on promises to your constituents aboutt their narrow concerns.

You get re-elected if you manage to meet those concerns, and you by and large *beep* yourself out to whoever can afford a lobbyist to bolster your next campaign.

Quote:

I don't like referendums and initiatives because they are democratic and side-step the normal legislative process of negotiating, coalition forming and compromise. Referendums and initiatives bring in tyranny of the majority and ignore minority opinions. Not a good thing.

You don't like referendums but you want people to sit down in coffee shops and hash out whether we should amend the constitution?

Quote:

Quote:
Who cares if states have done X for 200 years? That's not an argument in and of itself.

It IS an argument in and of itself to me. By that, I mean that the country doesn't belong ONLY to the present living generation. It also belongs to past and future generations. I don't think we are chained by past generations, but that we acknowledge their wisdom and experience by being very cautious about changing our inheritance. I think that kind of responsible action pays respect to future generations.

OK, Confucius.

Quote:

Quote:
Your suggestion that changing federal election rules reassigns state power to local authority is a strawman, is it not?

No, I don't believe it is and certainly didn't mean it that way. Where I'm coming from is that the Constitution is divided in the way it views government. The House is meant to be a democratic element and the Senate a republican element, not representative of people, but
of areas.

And with the freeze, the house is becoming more like the senate, not as it was meant to be.

Quote:

I like the way the Electoral College evolved into a winner-take-all in each State. That is in line with the Senate-type concept. To divide the electoral votes or to abolish them altogether would eliminate this.

Yes. Based on what you've said here, that appears to be the crux of your argument: You like it. I don't believe you've articulated, in any any meaningful way, shape, or form, why it's good otherwise.

I sincerely don't mean this as a personal attack, but i believe that's also why you don't think there's "any compelling evidence" for Iowa and Nh to always be first in the primaries.

Quote:

It is clear you are a small 'd' democrat. I think you are wrong to think that way, and Madison and Washington would agree with me Very Happy , but it is your right.

This much is true, and it's also a reason i don't appreciate you and Gopher portraying Jefferson as a whackjob. Of course, you have me at a disadvantage because we can't really see the results of the alternative.

I guess that makes me "anti-establishment" (a label I'll proudly wear).

Nowhere Man

Joined: 08 Feb 2004

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:21 am Post subject: ...

A further factor: The size of the electoral college is based on the size of the House of representatives. Unfreeze the house. Split the electoral vote. One proposition was to give the winner of the popular vote X number of votes. What about that?

Ya-ta Boy

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994

Posted: Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:12 pm Post subject:

Quote:

...portraying Jefferson as a whackjob. Of course, you have me at a disadvantage because we can't really see the results of the alternative.

The accusations against Jefferson are not original with Gopher and me. Hamilton and Adams would gladly have dropped the Washington Monument on TJ's head if they'd had the opportunity. Political discourse today is pretty rough, but it's a tea party in Boston's Back Bay (where the Lodges only speak to the Cabots and the Cabots only speak to God--or the other way around) compared to the late 1790's.

Your admission about being at a disadvantage is the strongest argument of all against changing the system. Setting out on a Sunday drive with no destination in mind is all well and good, but it just isn't wise to run a country that way.

I'm a small 'r' republican, but a democratic republican. Very Happy

I've never lived in a city back home, only small towns. From time to time I had the opportunity to drop in at cafes about 9am and eavesdrop on the conversations of the railroaders and farmers. You would be impressed at the level of political discourse that goes on. Just because people wear bib overalls doesn't mean they don't have sharp minds and a lot of life experience to draw on. I've attended city council meetings, school board meetings and public meetings and saw the same wisdom displayed, along with some flat-out idiocy. So I firmly believe the public deserves a chance to discuss and debate our form of government.

But the way to utilize that common wisdom is through regular elections to the legislative branch where the different regions and interests get meshed through the normal deliberative process of legislative bodies, not the direct democracy of referendums where the majority always wins.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 4 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe