Let's get rid of the Electoral College

@Setanta,

I refer you to my previous reply: you are resorting to plagiarising my posts: i don't throw out insults tho. Guess I'm just not that inadequate.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

How, for example, was a Gore victory an example of tyranny of the majority?

Robert, I am shortening your replies, picking out what I think explains the argument well enough so that I can reply, I hope you don't mind. Tyranny is an exaggerated term in the vast majority of cases, but it still is descriptive of the danger. In overwhelming popular vote victories, the electoral college almost always agrees, but in very narrow popular vote victories, the electoral college may provide a different verdict, so it does inject a check and balance that may be due to regional interests, interests that are valid, so I think it is valuable to water down the effect of the popular vote at the margins.

Quote:

Quote:
There was enough of the representation of regional or state interests expressed by the voters from various states that it trumped the simple popular vote that is obviously very highly weighted by urban interests and thinking.

What regional or state interests? You just mean political ideology right? No actual competing regional interests?

Things like agricultural and energy interests, and the producers of such. For example, I pick 2 or 3 of potentially hundreds of them, but Wyoming produces a large portion of the coal that is mined, that is shipped to almost half of the states or more, for energy production. This is an immensely important industry, vital to the nations well being. Wyoming understands this industry infinitely more than the residents of New York City or Chicago. Another example is Alaska, which produces a large amount of oil, and thus they understand oil production, I think, more than the general population. Agricultural production is of course highly vital, but a small portion of the population is the producers of this, and they comprise a minority of the population. The reasons should be clear why the areas that produce such things, and countless other unnamed things, should be slightly factored into the election of a president by using the electoral college. Again, clear majorities still elect presidents, typically, but the electoral college gives a voice to regional and state interests that they would not have without the electoral college, and I think this is extremely important. All of this should be so obvious if you would consider all of this.

Quote:

Quote:
Of course there is a balance of both, and in most cases the popular vote expresses the same choice as the electoral college, but where the split is so narrowly equal, the influence of state interests can tip the balance, and I contend that it is highly proper and appropriate.

You already established that you think it's appropriate, but where is the tyranny of the majority.

I already explained it, and tyranny is not the proper word in most cases, but the word describes the effect in theory. One example I would cite, is what if the majority of the population receives government welfare, they will vote for the continuation of that practice, at the expense of the producers, the farmers, the mining industry, the oil industry, and other industries that may be concentrated in one state or another. Fact is, I think the non-producers or the marginal producers are already wreaking havoc in this country, they have enough power at the ballot box to vote for anyone that promises them more goodies. This has been predicted as a logical progression and potential downfall of democracies. It may happen with the electoral college, but at least the electoral college provides a very small deterrent in my opinion.

Quote:

Quote:

We have instituted into the system something called "checks and balances," and I think the electoral college is one of those.

I know, and like all others who I've heard say so you can't seem to give me any good examples though. I understand the concept well and a good example of how this provides such protection would be very convincing to me.

I have provided them in the above.

Quote:

I've not advocated the abolition of States Okie.

If not, then you should be able to see the value of the electoral college.

1 Reply

@Fountofwisdom,

Plagiarism? That's hilarious. You throw out insults all the time. When in the thread about astrolabes, i contradicted you, you came back with a claim that i was completely ignorant of history, and therefore must be an American. You said very nearly the same thing to O'George, accusing him of ignorance of history, and stating that therefore he must be an American. I've yet to see you offer an intelligent and informed opinion on the Electoral College. That doesn't mean that you'd have to agree with me, many people here, perhaps most people here, don't agree with me on the subject. But it would require you to know at least something about the subject, and making claims such as that the Electoral College produces "dud" leaders is ample evidence that you don't know how the College functions, or what its function is. As i've pointed out repeatedly, i've made clear what my position is in this thread. All you need to do to argue with my point of view is read the thread. But you'd rather make snotty remarks and attempt to belittle me, which you continue to do with the implication that my behavior arises from being "inadequate."

I see no reason to alter the opinion i have of you, which is that you only come here for the opportunity to insult Americans and disparage the United States. I don't really care if you do, because you simply display your ignorance in the process.

Any time you're ready to discuss the topic, rather than throw out insults at me and others, and any time you're ready to actually read the thread , and respond to what i've written, rather than erecting straw men, let me know.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

As I predicted earlier: you cannot make an argument: although I concede you are verbose.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Tyranny is an exaggerated term in the vast majority of cases, but it still is descriptive of the danger.

Ok, how about one single example wheere it is not an exaggerated term and that the Electoral College protects against it.

Every time I see the merits of this system discussed I see people parrot the same old line about the genius of the founding fathers and how the electoral college protects us from tyranny of the majority.

I've never seen anyone come up with any good example of what it's supposed to be protecting us against.

Quote:

In overwhelming popular vote victories, the electoral college almost always agrees, but in very narrow popular vote victories, the electoral college may provide a different verdict, so it does inject a check and balance that may be due to regional interests, interests that are valid, so I think it is valuable to water down the effect of the popular vote at the margins.

What regional interests that are valid? Again, I'm honestly interested in hearing about this. This would be a very compelling argument for the system but I've never seen someone come up with a regional interest at all, much less one that validates the disproportionate representation some states receive.

If the whole argument for it is that it just may possibly, perhaps symbolically, protect smaller states then don't you think it's a sight weaker than your initial claim that it protects "vital" state interests.

Quote:

Things like agricultural and energy interests, and the producers of such. For example, I pick 2 or 3 of potentially hundreds of them, but Wyoming produces a large portion of the coal that is mined, that is shipped to almost half of the states or more, for energy production. This is an immensely important industry, vital to the nations well being. Wyoming understands this industry infinitely more than the residents of New York City or Chicago.

These are examples of state interests. What I've been asking for is an example where the electoral college protects these very interests from tyranny of the majority. I don't dispute that there are conflicting regional interests, I dispute that these are protected by the electoral college.

Quote:

Again, clear majorities still elect presidents, typically, but the electoral college gives a voice to regional and state interests that they would not have without the electoral college, and I think this is extremely important.

Without the electoral college they'd would still have a voice Okie. In fact they'd have the same voice as any other citizen. I think you meant to say that without the system they wouldn't have an inflated voice worth more than those in some other states.

Quote:

All of this should be so obvious if you would consider all of this.

I think I've considered it at least as much as you Okie, as subjective as many components to this are I don't think you should be surprised if people can disagree on them, even being equally informed.

Like I've said, I'd find an example of realistic protection against tyranny of the majority to be very convincing. Joe had me thinking my position very hard with his arguments about the flaws of other systems and this is a position I'd be willing to reconsider if a good example of what it's supposed to protect against can be made.

Quote:

I already explained it, and tyranny is not the proper word in most cases, but the word describes the effect in theory.

Tyranny sounds pretty bad, for sure, but I'd accept something pretty simple:

Any example where the interests of the majority conflict with the interests of the minority AND the interests of the minority should be honored.

There are always going to be competing interests, but that doesn't mean that the minority should have their way.

Quote:

One example I would cite, is what if the majority of the population receives government welfare, they will vote for the continuation of that practice, at the expense of the producers, the farmers, the mining industry, the oil industry, and other industries that may be concentrated in one state or another.

This is an example of the concept of tyranny of the majority, but it's not a realistic one. An example like this that the system realistically protects against is what I'd find convincing.

Quote:

Fact is, I think the non-producers or the marginal producers are already wreaking havoc in this country, they have enough power at the ballot box to vote for anyone that promises them more goodies. This has been predicted as a logical progression and potential downfall of democracies. It may happen with the electoral college, but at least the electoral college provides a very small deterrent in my opinion.

I think you have it backwards. Look at this graph of states that give more than they get, and get more than they give:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3041/2987025203_fc2c517522_o.jpg

If any states can be considered "marginal producers" it's the very states that get inordinate representation in this system. If anything, this system is protecting the marginal producers, not the opposite.

Quote:

Quote:

I've not advocated the abolition of States Okie.

If not, then you should be able to see the value of the electoral college.

Let's just say I'm daft or something and I am unable to see it. Why don't you enlighten me. Show me how advocating the abolition of the electoral college is the same as advocating the abolition of the states.

2 Replies

@Fountofwisdom,

I'll make an argument at such time as you produce a point of view against which to argue. You've said that the Electoral College produces "dud" leaders, but both Joe and i have pointed out that the College is not responsible for the choice of candidates. What other point of view do you have to offer that you wish me to make an argument against?

1 Reply

@Setanta,

No but the choice of which candidate is chosen is by electoral college: really any separation of the primaries and the college are illusory. The candidates are chosen because it is believed they will win the college. In America you have a system of where a party's candidate can be chosen by its opponents. It is possible that in Iowa (which I know is a Caucus) Obama was Elected by republicans who thought a black man couldnt get elected. The New hampshire primary gave a much different result. I accpet this is speculation, but its a nice theory,and certainly possible.
I think this creates a lot of delay, why not pick a candidate by popular vote of the party members in say August. Campaign in September. And vote in October.
Through European eyes Palin was seen as a dangerous joke candidate, even by our right wing. Bush was obviously out of his depth. You mentioned Thatcher. I would say Thatcher was abhorrent, divisive and confrontational. But not incompetent to govern. I couldn't say the same about Regan. Or Ford. Or the Criminal Nixon.
I appreciate this leaves only Bush snr, Clinton and Carter. My view on Clinton is that he was the most thoroughly investigated of all presidents: and all they could come up with is sex scandals: that makes him honest in my eyes. Carter I'm probably too young to remember politically, but I got the impression that he wasn't helped by his friends.
I think any system over 200 years old is well due a review. The views on what makes a dud president are arguable, but I think the views expressed wouldn't be considered unreasonable in Europe. Regan possibly may be considered kindly with hindsight.
I also think the 4 yearly view of the shambles at the polls gives a very bad impression of America. both as a democracy and as a country.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert, you totally miss the point. You read my replies, and miss the point, or mistake the point. I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't get it. Sorry, but you have to be more perceptive than you appear to be. It seems obvious you have a pre-packaged product to sell, apparently, at least it seems that way, and you purposely mis-characterize everything I have said.

Your so-called debunking of what I said about protecting the producers, is also part of your problem, you miss the point. You admit that variations occur from state to state, that is the main point which supports my opinion, whether it is for or against producers, but you need to identify the type of production you speak of, this is not a one dimensional situation, and further - merely measuring it in terms of taxes paid also is another case of tunnel vision, there are other factors involved, such as profit margins, where the corporations or businesses are based out of, etc. etc. etc.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Robert, you totally miss the point. You read my replies, and miss the point, or mistake the point. I don't know how to explain it to you if you don't get it. Sorry, but you have to be more perceptive than you appear to be. It seems obvious you have a pre-packaged product to sell, apparently, at least it seems that way, and you purposely mis-characterize everything I have said.

I don't think I missed your point so much as disagreed with it based on the evidence you were able to provide. I understand the arguments you made, I just don't see the evidence for them at the degrees I'd find satisfactory. If you'd like to play an emperor's new clothes argument with me and say it's because I'm just not perceptive enough that's fine, but I'll go on saying the argument is naked if not a single example can be produced for it.

And I don't think I mis-characterized anything you said either but if you have any examples of how I did so I'd be willing to look at it as well.

Quote:

Your so-called debunking of what I said about protecting the producers, is also part of your problem, you miss the point.

Don't consider it a debunking then. I was honest when I said I ask you because I'd find it a very convincing argument. I find arguments to the effect of "you just aren't perceptive enough" to be unconvincing and I find evidence and examples to be convincing.

I'm willing to be convinced, and don't really care about "debunking" you here. But I just don't think you have any such evidence to provide for the argument, doesn't mean I'm right, it just means you don't have those examples. So I'll keep looking and if anyone else knows of good examples by all means share them.

Quote:

You admit that variations occur from state to state, that is the main point which supports my opinion, whether it is for or against producers, but you need to identify the type of production you speak of, this is not a one dimensional situation, and further - merely measuring it in terms of taxes paid also is another case of tunnel vision, there are other factors involved, such as profit margins, where the corporations or businesses are based out of, etc. etc. etc.

Huh? I don't think you made much sense, but I'll try to explain why I don't find the regional interests you spoke of to be a convincing justification.

Firstly, I do see how it is in regional interests to have disproportionate representation. Hell it'd certainly be in my interests to have extremely disproportionate representation for myself. This is just plain obvious Okie, it's to anyone's advantage to have disproportionately powerful representation. And sure, this disproportionate representation can be used to forward their regional interests.

What I fail to see is the justification of it. For me, if it were protecting against exploitation and the "tyranny of the majority" it would be a worthy safeguard. But I just don't see evidence that it is doing so and while I'm sure it's advantageous to have disproportionately powerful representation for any reason I don't think it is fair and just for all reasons.

So this is why there'd have to be legitimate tyranny of the majority protection to be worthwhile to me.

2 Replies

If it came to a vote, I would vote to eliminate the electoral college. I can't add anything that hasn't been said here already, so I will continue to read, but offer no further opinions.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Here's an interesting idea: The states should have a college based on how much they benefit the Union: Basically the election would be decided in New England and Calif. Also I think the bottom candidates should be voted out of the Union, to prevent complacency: Does the Union need Mississippi? Or New Mexico.?

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

I don't know how you can look at the same factors and come to different conclusions. I will take another stab at it. If regional factors have no effect, then why the red state blue state differences, and so if you agree there are regional differences, then you must think regional differences should not be factored in. And I think you are wrong, just as wrong as if you would like to do away with states. The argument for the electoral college is essentially as valid as the argument for preserving the states.

Another example, why does the middle class vote Republican, and the poor and the very rich with a guilt complex vote Democrat? Would you agree those people in the middle produce more economic benefit to the country, and make the country work, than the population areas with more welfare recipients that vote mostly Democratic? It is a well known fact that the cities are what elects Democrats, and those areas are more populated with the lower producers, I think statistically, I am going to guess, I could be wrong but it seems like a safe guess.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I don't know how you can look at the same factors and come to different conclusions.

Because it's a subjective matter and we have different opinions? I don't find it incredible that you hold your position, I think reasonable people can disagree with each other on this subjective issue.

Quote:

If regional factors have no effect, then why the red state blue state differences...

Who said "regional factors have no effect"? There are always regional interests that compete, what I said was that I don't think it's justified to elevate some over the others without the legitimate need to protect them from tyranny of the majority.

Quote:

...and so if you agree there are regional differences, then you must think regional differences should not be factored in.

It just does not follow Okie. I do think regional differences should be factored in, I just think it should be factored in without disproportionate power.

Quote:

And I think you are wrong, just as wrong as if you would like to do away with states. The argument for the electoral college is essentially as valid as the argument for preserving the states.

As long as we are just saying what we think I'll admit to finding this a bit absurd. I just don't think abolishing the electoral college is in any way comparable to abolishing the states.

Quote:

Another example, why does the middle class vote Republican, and the poor and the very rich with a guilt complex vote Democrat?

These are dubious claims, and really have nothing at all to do with the electoral college so I'm not going to argue them.

Quote:

Would you agree those people in the middle produce more economic benefit to the country, and make the country work, than the population areas with more welfare recipients that vote mostly Democratic?

Not at all, the small states with disproportionate representation are not economy drivers at all. In fact, the large states without the disproportionate representation are.

Quote:

It is a well known fact that the cities are what elects Democrats, and those areas are more populated with the lower producers, I think statistically, I am going to guess, I could be wrong but it seems like a safe guess.

Your guess is pretty wildly wrong, hell it's just a mix of your negative opinion of Democrats with your negative opinion of urban culture.

If you want to talk about "low producers" we can do those numbers. I'll bet that the small states with disproportionate representation are the low producers and we can look up real numbers instead of using your image of urban welfare if you want.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

We just disagree. My reasons are sound. And I disagree that small states are not important economic drivers. Look at Wyoming, with its coal reserves that we could hardly do without as a nation, and at Alaska with its oil and gas. Some of the factors have future importance apart from how much they contribute to the economy now, although they often do in very important ways, such as energy reserves in the ground, these things are crucial, they are not only important to our economy but crucial to our national security.

I will stand on my statement that the same logic that argues for the existence of states also argues for retaining the electoral college. The arguments are too numerous and varied to point out here, but an inquiring and intelligent mind could surely conceive of a huge number of them with a reasonable effort, and it could all be summed up by going back to my opening statement a number of posts back, that this is the United States, so named for a reason, that reason being pretty important, it has to do with how our nation views itself and is constituted.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

And I disagree that small states are not important economic drivers. ... and [at] Alaska with its oil and gas.

My reasons are sound.

1 Reply

@Fountofwisdom,

The candidate is not "chosen" by the electoral college--this is precisely why you need to inform yourself. The states choose the electors, who are then bound to vote as instructed by the states in which they are chosen. Most states have a winner take all system, the only exception of which i am certain is the state of Colorado, which has an ordinance which allocates electoral votes based on the popular vote. Even in those states in which the winner take all system obtains, the winner is the person who receives the majority of the popular vote. The Electoral College chooses no one--the electors choose as they are instructed by their states (and electors have been known in the past to vote contrary to their instructions, although it has been very rare).

When you say that any separation of the Electoral College and the primary elections is illusory you further display your ignorance. Candidates frequently win primaries, but are later beaten out by other candidates who win more delegates in subsequent primaries. The beginning of the primary process by no means determines who eventually will win the nomination at the party's nominating convention, and if two candidates were to come to such a convention with very nearly the same number of pledged delegates, it is entirely possible that the candidate with the most delegates would not necessarily be the nominee. None of this is the least affected by the Electoral College, nor has anything to do with the process which it represents.

A party's candidate cannot necessarily be chosen by its opponents, you display your ignorance again. Many states (but by no means all states) require registration by political party, or registration as an independent. In those cases, you may not vote in the primary of any party but the party for which you are registered. In states which do not require registration by party affiliation, you can vote in only one party primary, so if you chose to vote for a candidate of a party other than the one you support, you could not vote for the candidate of your choice in your own party. You further display your ignorance of the caucus method of a primary--in Iowa, only members of a political party as determined by their affiliation registered with the board of elections can participate in the caucus. Republicans cannot choose a candidate for the Democratic Party, and the reverse is, of course, true. Not only was that a silly speculation, it was no kind of theory, and not in the least possible. Before making such pompous pronouncements, i would suggest either educating yourself about how the political system works in the United States, or simply admitting that you don't know how it works.

As for that silliness about picking a candidate in August, campaigning in September and voting in October, that completely ignores the fact that in many states, there is no registration by party affiliation, and Americans would not care to be told that they must choose an affiliation and that they could not then subsequently change it. At one time, almost every state (and possibly every state, but i don't recall to a certainty) required the registration of voters by party affiliation, but this has changed over the last several decades precisely because Americans don't care to be pigeon-holed.

As for your comments on Reagan, Ford, Nixon and Bush, although you may not have cared for their policies (and i suspect that you don't really know anything about the administrations of Nixon and Ford), you have no basis upon which to allege that they were incompetent to govern. I have already pointed out to one of the other Americans here that partisan disgust is not a basis upon which to allege incompetence, and have also pointed out that the competence of an administration is a product of the executive officers who serve the administration as much as it is by the President, and in fact, i would say is more a product of the competence of the cabinet taken as a whole.

That you offer the European view is as meaningless to American politics as would an American criticism of European politics. Americans don't vote to please Europeans, and neither would it be reasonable to expect Europeans to vote in a manner to please Americans. As for how you think our election system makes us "look," given that you have displayed every sign of a deep antipathy toward the United States and Americans ever since you arrived at this site, i am neither surprised nor impressed by and with your opinion.

1 Reply

@Fountofwisdom,

Hey people! I believe I got Founts goat. She/he/it sure went off in a tirade.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Nixon was impeached: someone who is considered so bad that they are removed by their countires judicial system would imply they weren't fit to govern.
Americans tend to lack any knowledge of world politics: I point out that in terms of change over of administrations can think of no country that does it worse. An electoral system which takes a year is unacceptable. No business would work this way.
You completely repeat the word ignorance which shows how stupidly you argue. Repetition of nonsense may make you feel good, but as I don't resect you views it's just animal noise to me.
You have some very naive ideas on how people work: I would certainly vote as an independant. And pick the worse candidate. It wouldn't take many malicious votes to skew the election.
McCain could easily have been chosen by Democrats: the republicans didn't endorse him. The Republicans finally plumped for the belief that a Black man wouldn't get elected: espescially a moslem terrorist.
The fact that this was even discussed by McCain seriously shows how ill educated America is: plus there was that odious cartoon in the New York times.
As the college then picks between the two worst possible candidates put forward, it would make a poor choice.
Picking a candidate and holding an election in Summer is much more sensible than picking one in January. Longer days and better weather.
If people are sufficiently motivated they can register for a party: they are not compelled to vote that way in the election:
You seem to base your entire debate on how knowlegeable you are, which is false. You have shown no ability to construct an argument.
Consider the Bejing Olympics. The lasting impression is the China may be a repressive dictatorship but they can organise a good party.
Americans should have more pride in their democracy: the queues are a national disgrace: and it happens every time. A country in which the people had even an ounce of self respect would sort this out.
I point out that this makes your country look stupid, in most countries the populace would feel this is wrong and they should change things. Americans feel that being a bad neighbour is a patriotic duty, they take pride in that they alllow torture, refuse to join world treaties on climate change, scupper treaties on free trade, refuse to join world bodies.
The awful electoral system produces awful government.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

You have expressed Setantas standpoint, but in a succinct way. He too has nothing to add, but takes a long time to say it.

1 Reply

@rabel22,

Congratulations on your stupidity, it was a remarkable display of ignorance even for an American. However, I'm sure Setanta will out stupid you very soon, You have to admire his efforts to be dumb. I notice You didn't reply to any of my points. You recognise you are too stupid to do so.

1 Reply

Let's get rid of the Electoral College

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know