|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What should we do with the Electoral College? |
| Keep it as is! |
|
12% |
[ 1 ] |
| Scrap it and allow direct elections |
|
37% |
[ 3 ] |
| Modify it but let's not exactly allow direct elections |
|
50% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 8 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:08 am Post subject: Federalist #68 and the Electoral College |
 |
|
Federalist #68
| Alexander Hamilton wrote: |
To the People of the State of New York:
THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent... |
Interesting that Hamilton claims in the beginning of Federalist #68 that the Electoral College is the least controversial of all the Constitutional Convention's decisions. At any rate, today, it may be one of the more controversial decisions. EFLTrainer brought it up on another thread and I thought people might want to hash it out here.
Could the Electoral College be obsolete? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 4:23 am Post subject: More about the US Electoral College |
|
|
Here's a link for those who want some more details on how the modern Electoral College works. There's also suggestions in the article on how the College might be reformed.
Wikipedia on the US Electoral College
| Wikipedia wrote: |
| Election of President of the United States and Vice President of the United States is indirect. Presidential Electors are chosen by the popular vote every four years on Election Day. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and the District of Columbia are actually choosing Electors when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official (electoral) votes for those two offices. |
It's important to note that the selection of Electors varies slightly by State.
| Quote: |
Presidential Electors are nominated by their state political parties in the summer before the Popular Vote on Election Day. Each state provides its own means for the nomination of Electors. In some states, such as Oklahoma, the Electors are nominated in primaries the same way that other candidates are nominated. Other states, such as Virginia and North Carolina, nominate Electors in party conventions. In Pennsylvania, the campaign committees of the candidates name their candidates for Presidential Elector (an attempt to discourage faithless Electors). All states require the names of all Electors to be filed with the Secretary of State (or equivalent) at least a month prior to election day.
On election day, voters cast ballots for slates of Presidential Electors pledged to the candidates for president and vice president. The party that wins a state elects its entire slate of Electors. (Note the two exceptions in the following paragraph.) At the time of the state canvass of the vote, the Secretary of State (or equivalent) signs a special form called the Certificate of Ascertainment which sets forth the people elected to the office of Presidential Elector, along with the number of votes cast for every party's slate of Elector nominees. These Certificates of Ascertainment are forwarded to the Office of the Vice President to be used to verify that the people who cast the electoral votes are in fact the people who were elected for that purpose.
Two states elect the Presidential Electors with a slightly different method. Maine and Nebraska elect two Electors by a statewide ballot and choose their remaining Electors by congressional district. The method has been used in Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1996, though neither has split its electoral votes in modern elections. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I will admit up-front that I am a Constitutional conservative. It makes me really nervous when people start talking about tinkering with the Constitution. Call me an elitist if you want, but there are a good number of posters on this forum who I do not consider to be the intellectual equals of James Madison (Father of the Constitution).
Changing the local zoning laws, the speed limits on state highways or the legal age for drinking need only a majority vote. That makes sense to me. Those laws affect how people live their daily lives. It also makes sense to me that we need a super-majority to amend the Constitution, an �explicit and authentic� act, in Washington�s words. The Constitution is not just another law, it is the basic structure of how we live together under one government. For better or ill, our government is designed to be a federal structure, a combination of states with some elements of democracy. By and large, it has served us well for more than 200 years.
The issue in this thread is the Electoral College. It is my view that the College should be reformed, but not abolished.
Abolishing it would eliminate the federal structure in presidential elections. Candidates would have no reason to campaign outside major urban areas. It would create the problems that come with the tyranny of the majority. Minorities are entitled to their safeguards.
The Electoral College (and the Senate, for that matter) was designed to exaggerate the power of the small states in order to give them some protection. That is right and correct.
I am open to the suggestion that the College be reformed, perhaps through proportional distribution of the electoral votes. I would listen to and consider arguments in favor of that reform. However, you can count on me to always vote against any constitutional amendment abolishing the Electoral College. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks ya-ta for that post. I found that to be quite articulate and a good read.
Also thanks to Kuros for starting a thread on an important subject.
That being said, I don't have much to say on the matter. While it aggrevates me that Ohio and Missouri have a larger impact on the Presidential election than California, I'm afraid if we abolished the college, then it would be the total opposite: no one would pay attention to MO & OH while California, NY, and TX would get it all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| While we're at it, I say we reform the Senate was well. California and Montana should not have the same voting power. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also want to thank Kuros for bringing up this topic. I think it is an important one, especially after the Election of 2000. It usually gets discussed for one day in our high school government class and then never again until 10 minutes during a presidential election every 4 years.
(Ohio (20); Missouri (11) = 31)
California 55 electoral votes.
Oregon (7); Idaho (4); Nevada (5); Montana (3); Wyoming (3); New Mexico (5); North Dakota (3); South Dakota (3); Nebraska (5); Kansas (6); Iowa (7); New Hampshire (4) = 55
And keep in mind that those 12 states only have the same number of electoral votes as California because of the distortion of guaranteeing that every state starts with 3 votes. My point is that the people of those states have as much right to protect their interests as the good people of California, but a candiate would be far less likely to consider them without the Electoral College. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
While we're at it, I say we reform the Senate was well. California and Montana should not have the same voting power.
|
So Mr. Depot, is it safe to assume you are a radical fire-eating small 'd' democrat of the Robespierre/J-P Marat/Republic of Virtue variety?
More seriously, do you really reject the Great Compromise at the Constitutional Convention? Ben Franklin was wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I also want to thank Kuros for bringing up this topic. |
I'm sure you mean for starting the thread, as it was I, according to Kuros himself, who brought up the topic.
Credit where due, gents!
As for the electoral college, I see the Congress and the presidency as fundamentally different in their purposes. Congress is the primary - pre-PAC era, in theory - shaper of law, the presidency the enforcer. However, the president is also each individual's representative on the world stage. The president does not represent states, Congressmen do. The president represents the nation (collective) and the people (individual). Thus, the president should not be elected by states, which is what the electoral college in effect does, particularly given most states apportion on a winner-take-all basis.
As the president does not represent my state, but me, my single vote should be equal to every other single vote. To say this gives only urban areas power is akin to claiming all people of any given city/metropolitan area/state vote the same. This is obviously flawed logic.
No, the Electoral College turns the president into the representative of states, not individual citizens. Eliminating it gives us that power and makes each individual vote more powerful. In fact, if I vote in the majority, but my state votes in the minority, my vote ahs effectively been discarded. Whereas, if I vote in the minority and my state votes in the majority, my vote has been correctly counted. This is inherently unequal. The solution is no Electoral college. Without it, every vote will count exactly as voted.
The basic flaw in Ya-ta's argument is that it ignores this simple fact: the president does not represent cities or states, but individuals. The balancer is the Congress, which attempts to give individuals representation in the House and states representation in the Senate. The Electoral College reduces voting rights.
Last edited by EFLtrainer on Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hater Depot wrote: |
| While we're at it, I say we reform the Senate was well. California and Montana should not have the same voting power. |
yeah, you'd think they'd at least make two branches of congress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 17, 2006 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with Ya-Ta Boy, particularly concerning the controversey over Electoral Votes. I actually think the system favors big states like California, because if you win California by one vote you take all. Meanwhile, you have to win each of 12 states seperately to take an equal number of votes.
I think another serious challenge to the electoral system comes in the form of blocking a third-party candidate.
| Quote: |
Disadvantage for third parties
Opponents also argue that the method by which most states allot their electoral votes tends to favor a two-party system. Even when a third-party candidate receives a significant number of popular votes, such a candidate may not receive a plurality in any state and may not garner even a single electoral vote, as was the case of Ross Perot, who won 18% of the popular vote in the 1992 elections. Proponents counter by stating that a third-party candidate with enough votes to win will usually be able to garner some electoral votes, and these electors might even hold the balance of power. Additionally, third parties with a strong sectional appeal could actually find their strength enhanced by the Electoral College.
Some proponents of proportional representation claim that, because third parties generally start as regional phenomena [citation needed] and because the Electoral College is a form of regional allocation, the Electoral College would enhance the power of third parties if electoral votes were allocated by proportional representation. |
I don't buy the regional argument. That may have been true 150 years ago but nowadays there is no party that is going to find 51% appeal in one region without finding serious appeal in another. Even in severe Red and Blue states, its rare that Bush got twice as many votes as Gore/Kerry, or vice versa. However, I would be happy to see a system that didn't obstruct 3rd party candidates whatsoever, if only we could preserve the advantages of the Electoral system as we did so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EFLtrainer
Joined: 04 May 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Again, the Congress is where the individual representation gets balanced. Why do we need to do it twice? We've had the will of the people ignored three times so far, right? But look what has happened as a result of just ONE of those three failures. That one failure far exceeds any gains made in the other two "corrections" of the people's will.
You guys are equating campaigning in those states with legislating for those states. There's a logical disconnect. Their Senators and Congresspersons do have a job to do. And they can join up, as they do, with other states to make legislation. The presidency doesn't affect this much at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 1:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| The basic flaw in Ya-ta's argument is that it ignores this simple fact: the president does not represent cities or states, but individuals. The balancer is the Congress, which attempts to give individuals representation in the House and states representation in the Senate. The Electoral College reduces voting rights. |
I am going to disagree with EFLTrainer.
The president doesn�t represent cities, states or individuals. His constitutional role is different. He does represent the country. He is in fact the only nationally elected government official. (Well, OK, there is also the VeeP, but you know what I mean.) I reject the idea that he is a �representative� of individuals, at least if I am understanding EFLTrainers choice of word.
EFL did make a good point. The president is elected by the states. That is the effect of the Electoral College. The Executive is indirectly elected, in this case, by the Electoral College. Senators were also indirectly elected until early in the last century. The change to direct election has not notably improved the quality of Senators. (If I thought going back to the old system would get us Daniel Webster and Henry Clay back, I�d be tempted to support reversion to the old system.)
In my opinion, what EFLTrainer and Hater Depot are not fully appreciating is the delicate balance of the separation and division of federal and state powers, republican and democratic values, the whole system of checks and balances that are designed into the Constitution.
During the Revolutionary Era, which started in 1763 and carried on for that whole generation of people, there was public discussion of republicanism and democracy. Essentially, the whole population was educated in the benefits and weaknesses of each. I don�t believe that is true any more. In fact, I think the average person today is hard pressed to explain the difference in even the most general terms. For an uneducated populace to take the power into their own hands of changing the structure of government is dangerous.
As I mentioned, we have already changed the way we elect Senators. Now people are saying we should change the way we elect the President. Hater Depot has said we also need to change the structure of the Senate itself. We are on the slippery slope to direct (sort of direct representative) democracy.
Both EFLTrainer and Hater Depot seem to favor �one man, one vote�. Majority rule. In some situations, I also favor it. But not in this one. The majority is usually right, but it is never right when the majority votes to take away fundamental rights of a minority. Sometimes it�s right for �1 man, 1.2 votes�. (I just made that up. I�m pretty proud of myself.)
There is great danger in tipping over the system of checks and balances we have inherited.
Keep your mitts off my Constitution! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with direct elections, as I see it, has more to do with the chance for mischief and honest confusion than with allowing a simple nationwide majority to prevail.
Alexander Hamilton addresses these points:
| Alexander Hamilton wrote: |
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder...as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption...No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty. |
Hamilton only leaves as last a final objection to the establishment of a simple majority vote. It was at least as important to him that the credibility of the institution in charge of electing the President be upheld and protected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 18, 2006 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Alexander Hamilton |
Our only monarchist.  I attribute that to genetics. His dad was Scottish. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
