FINALLY!!! A NATIONAL PLAN TO REFORM THE ELECTRAL COLLEGE

Setanta wrote:

okie wrote:
The electoral college has only swung the election a very limited number of times versus the popular vote, . . .

This is an unwarranted statement. Fourteen United States Presidents have been minority Presidents--meaning that they took less than 50% of the popular vote.

I stand corrected if you are correct. When I made the statement, I did question just how many times it may have occurred, but I did not look it up. Still, I would argue that if you look at the vote situation in those times when the electoral college did swing the vote, the popular vote difference was typically not very statisticly significant in terms of being a clear majority, and so a president winning by virtue of the majority of the states was deemed more important in the future vision of the founders than having a president elected by a very slight majority of the people, but by a clear minority of the states. I agree with that wisdom, wholeheartedly.

0 Replies

It is rare, indeed to have a situation where the electoral college was opposite of the popular vote. Saying thate the winner has had less than 50% of the vote 14 times is accurate but you left out why - 3rd party candidates, for the majority of those cases. Runnoff elections would take care of that - abolishing the electoral college would not.

0 Replies

AliceInWonderland wrote:

It is rare, indeed to have a situation where the electoral college was opposite of the popular vote. Saying thate the winner has had less than 50% of the vote 14 times is accurate but you left out why - 3rd party candidates, for the majority of those cases. Runnoff elections would take care of that - abolishing the electoral college would not.

Thanks, you are absolutely right to point that out. Having less than 50% of the vote is quite different than not having more votes than the closest competitor. So my original statement should stand. Even when I think I might be wrong, I am still right. Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh, Very Happy

The Democrats beloved Bill Clinton did not get anything close to 50% as I recall, at least the first time around.

0 Replies

I have no idea what Okie thought he was saying in his response to me. Alice's response ignores that the current two "major" parties did not acheive their ascendancy until well after the American Civil War, and even then, there were often viable candidates who lead "third party" movements. Clinton was twice a minority President in exactly the situation Alice describes, but Ross Perot destroyed the party he created and which made Clinton a minority President--it was not a victim of "the two party system." Leaving aside George Washington, who twice was elected unopposed, and James Madison, who was unopposed in his second term--Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. was the most popular President in United States history, based upon his plurality. When he ran against Taft and Wilson in 1912, he did not simply act the spoiler for Taft, he had a very good chance at winning that one, had he not been shot.

Lincoln's election is a perfect example of the significance of the Electoral College--Lincoln took more votes than anyone else, but the run-off to which Alice refers was never even a subject of debate, because the vote was sufficiently split by four viable parties running, that Lincoln carried states which Douglas failed to win, and states which Breckenridge failed to win, despite the fact that the combined votes given to those two Democrats would have buried the first Republican candidate. Several such elections have been very bitterly contested, and have left a lot of angry voters in the nation--we simply don't have social memories of things which have not occurred in our own lifetimes, except for a few fuzzy notions of controversies in the lifetimes of our parents and grandparents. When John Adams won the 1796 election, there were three Federalist candidates, and four Democratic-Republican candidates--seven candidates representing two parties. All of the candidate assumed that the leading candidate for a particular party would get all of the electors of that party--and so the "winner take all" concept of instructing electors was born.

From the end of Grant's second term, with the 1876 election, until McKinely was elected in 1896, every President elected was a minority President, and in 1876 there was no third party--it was a clear case of Hayes winning in the Electoral College. The 1888 election was just as bitter, with Benjamin Harrison beating a Democrat (Grover Cleveland) who had polled the most votes.

Both of you underrate the significance of the Electoral College in the political history of the country. Or rather, i should say that i believe that is so. In the case of Okie, i'm not entirely certain i know what it is he thinks he's saying.

Okie, i've told you before that your should check your facts before you make remarks on history, and yet here we have you once again shooting your mouth off, when, in your own words: "When I made the statement, I did question just how many times it may have occurred, but I did not look it up." As for the significance of the difference in the popular vote and the Electoral College, i already pointed to Lincoln's election, in which he garnered less than 40% of the vote, but got 180 votes in the Electoral College.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Okie, i've told you before that your should check your facts before you make remarks on history, and yet here we have you once again shooting your mouth off, when, in your own words: "When I made the statement, I did question just how many times it may have occurred, but I did not look it up." As for the significance of the difference in the popular vote and the Electoral College, i already pointed to Lincoln's election, in which he garnered less than 40% of the vote, but got 180 votes in the Electoral College.

What is it that I said that you don't understand? Or is it you simply want to obfuscate what I said? Alice seems to understand what I said pretty clearly, even with compliments. I don't see much to it that is very complicated.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I stand corrected if you are correct. When I made the statement, I did question just how many times it may have occurred, but I did not look it up. Still, I would argue that if you look at the vote situation in those times when the electoral college did swing the vote, the popular vote difference was typically not very statisticly significant in terms of being a clear majority, and so a president winning by virtue of the majority of the states was deemed more important in the future vision of the founders than having a president elected by a very slight majority of the people, but by a clear minority of the states. I agree with that wisdom, wholeheartedly. (empahsis added)

I have underlined the impossibly long and obscure sentence to which i refer. First, you admit that you've done no research on the question, then--one assumes, based upon confidence in the value of your own ignorance--you suggest that the difference between popular votes garnered and eletoral votes garnered is not significant, all before wandering off into an obscure conjecture about what the writers of the constitution intended for the future. The point is that someone who becomes a minority President has not won a majority of the votes, but has "won" a "majority" of the states--which is to say, has secured the majority of electors in the several states. Lincoln's example is once again instructive. He won seventeen states--even though he did not have a plurality in a single one of them--and four electoral votes in New Jersey, which did not participate in the "winner take all" elector lottery system. In states in which Stephen Douglas won the most Democratic votes, John Breckenridge siphoned off enough Democratic votes to give Lincoln the edge, and the reverse was true in states in which most Democrats voted for Breckenridge. All that i can deduce from what it appears that you intended to say is that you don't understand either the intent nor the working of the Electoral College at all.

All of these issue are made the more politically poignant by the reference political parties so often make to "a clear mandate" based upon a "landslide" in the Electoral College, when the popular vote is actually very close. Given that most people who are eligible to vote do not vote, even a "clear winner" in the beauty contest still has only gotten slightly more than half of the votes of considerably fewer than half the voters. In such a case, someone who got 60% of a 40% turn out did not in fact get the votes of even one quarter of all thsoe eligible to vote.

0 Replies

The point was that, while the electoral college played a part, it has rarely been different from the popular vote.

In the cases you mentioned:

During Lincoln's election, the electoral college had less to do with his election than the fact that there were 4 parties running. At the time, those Democrat parties were not unified, thus running separate candidates. To suggest that the electoral college change the election is not valid. Perhaps, had Breckinridge and Douglas run together, things would have been different.

I couldn't find popular vote numbers for the 1796 election, only electoral college. The difficulty at that time, however, was still that whomever received the most electoral votes was president and the second runner up was VP - got a little ugly. The electoral college was not the problem. Rather, the chaos that ensued from not voting for president/VP together caused the strife. That would have been a problem even if popular vote made the decision.

1876 & 1888 - correct. Electoral conflicted with the popular vote. With the 2000 election, that makes 3 times the electoral college has directly change election results vs. popular vote.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by listing the election from 1876 - through 1896 as producing minority presidents. We've had lots of those, some wildly popular while in office - they were minority presidents due to "other" candidates taking 1 - 4% of the vote, not because of the electoral college. They would have been president, aside the 3 exception already noted, regardless.

Since we don't have run-off elections, the electoral college is design to provide a stronger majority in a tight race - it does not, generally, change election results.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

[
I have underlined the impossibly long and obscure sentence to which i refer. First, you admit that you've done no research on the question, then--one assumes, based upon confidence in the value of your own ignorance--you suggest that the difference between popular votes garnered and eletoral votes garnered is not significant, all before wandering off into an obscure conjecture about what the writers of the constitution intended for the future. The point is that someone who becomes a minority President has not won a majority of the votes, but has "won" a "majority" of the states--which is to say, has secured the majority of electors in the several states. Lincoln's example is once again instructive. He won seventeen states--even though he did not have a plurality in a single one of them--and four electoral votes in New Jersey, which did not participate in the "winner take all" elector lottery system. In states in which Stephen Douglas won the most Democratic votes, John Breckenridge siphoned off enough Democratic votes to give Lincoln the edge, and the reverse was true in states in which most Democrats voted for Breckenridge. All that i can deduce from what it appears that you intended to say is that you don't understand either the intent nor the working of the Electoral College at all.

All of these issue are made the more politically poignant by the reference political parties so often make to "a clear mandate" based upon a "landslide" in the Electoral College, when the popular vote is actually very close. Given that most people who are eligible to vote do not vote, even a "clear winner" in the beauty contest still has only gotten slightly more than half of the votes of considerably fewer than half the voters. In such a case, someone who got 60% of a 40% turn out did not in fact get the votes of even one quarter of all thsoe eligible to vote.

I believe Okie's convoluted sentence was suggesting that in close elections, there will be much fighting regardless of the outcome. Particularly in those instances where few bothered to vote (51% in 2000), the popular vote is less important than the electoral college vote precicely because of the low voter turnout.

0 Replies

The point i have made since i first posted in this thread, and one which apparently both you and Okie have ignored, is that the purpose of the Electoral College is to protect the people from possible majoritarian tyrrany. Therefore, elections in which no candidate polled the majority of votes cast are still relevant, because the effect of the College was to define a clear winning candidate, despite the lack of a majority. In those cases in which a minority President also defeated a candidate with a clear plurality, the exact purpose of the Electoral College was served. This is something with which i have no problem--i only would have a problem if it were shown conclusively that the election were stolen by vote fraud or rigging.

The 1796 election is siginifcant because it shows the rise of the notion of "winner-take-all" concept for the instruction of electors. The two Federalist candidates who polled fewer votes than Adams and the three Democratic-Republican canddidates who polled fewer votes than Jefferson instructed their electors to vote for their party's candidate. Thereafter, many of the states followed a "winner-take-all" tradition for instructing electors based upon the plurality for any candidate in the Presidential election. Had the Democratic Party (it is the Democratic Party, by the way, not the "Democrat Party,") followed such a path in 1860, and Breckenridge had conceded his electors to Douglas, Douglas would have won--but in those states in which Douglas and Breckenridge had polled more votes than Lincoln, but neither of them had polled more individually than Lincoln, with neither willing to concede to the other, electors were instructed to vote for Lincoln, and hence, his seventeen states.

The point i made long ago in this thread is that the mere possibility of a minority President assures that candidates do not pander to a handful of states, while ignoring the rest.

0 Replies

By the way, if Okie simply meant to say that the Electoral College has rarely changed the result of the popular vote, that is certainly not what he wrote--which is why i pointed out how poorly articulated his post was.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The point i made long ago in this thread is that the mere possibility of a minority President assures that candidates do not pander to a handful of states, while ignoring the rest.

Sure.... but isn't that exactly what happens? Candidates don't think it's necessary to pander to states firmly on one side, or the other. The concentrate on the "swing states". At the same time, one vote is worth more than another vote. This is kind of in the face of my understanding of democracy.

(disclaimer: I'm still European)

0 Replies

I don't care if you're a peein' or not . . . your habits of micturation do not interest me.

This is a democratic republic, not a democracy--get over it. I find it incomprehensible that a political party which polled votes would be barred from the parliament because they had failed to pass an arbitrarily established proportional threshhold--and yet that happens routinely in European politics. Go figure . . .

0 Replies

Also by the way, candidate focus on "swing states," but they ignore the others at their peril--and their handlers know this, even if the candidate is clueless (which i suspect is usually the case these days).

0 Replies

Set, did you mean "micturition"?

And where do you see the difference between the current system and a proportional system (where candidates would, maybe, ignore less populated states at their own peril)?

0 Replies

And you're right about the arbitrarily established proportional threshhold, btw......

0 Replies

I find micturition and micturation both, although i acknowledge that micturition appears to be the more prevelant, and therefore the preferred spelling.

There would, under a proportional system, be many states which could be ignored at no peril to the candidates at all, because of the sparsity of their population. As it currently stands, a candidate can win by putting together a few "swing states" such as Ohio was in the last election, with a few heavily populated states from among the big six, and a lot of states like Montana and Wyoming with one or only a few Representatives, but an elector for each of their two senators. With a proportional system, many states, most of them agricultural and mining states in the West, could be ignored altogether, at no peril to the candidate--and in any show down between a representative of urban interests and a candidate championing the rural states and the South (the coalition which elected Ronald Reagan), the urban candidate would bury the other candidate every time. You are either ignorant of or are ignoring the discrepancy in state populations. About ten percent of the American population lives in California, but less that one tenth of one percent lives in Wyoming.

0 Replies

But, having a proportional vote: do you think that ALL of California would vote for one candidate? Wouldn't it be more important for that canditate to cater to all the states, because, let's say attention devoted per vote would be as important in a densely populated state as in any other one?

0 Replies

(I'm quite aware of the challenges of a country the size of the United States poses, for sheer size, compared to a country like Germany. Still, I don't quite understand why one vote should be more important than another vote....)

0 Replies

The point about population and compaigning is this--your media, from front-yard signs to television ads, gets far more mileage in heavily populated states than in sparsely populated states. The mere economics of campaigning (and money governs all in this system) would lead the candidate from one populous state to another. A candidate could afford to ignore sparsely populated states if he or she was clearly projected to win heavily populated states by a significant majority. For example, as it stands right now, no one bothers to go stumping in Hawaii or Alaska, nor in Puerto Rico or any of the Pacific Trust territories, even though those people have the vote. Why bother with Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Utah, Idaho, Nebraska, Kansas, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico if you've got California, Texas, Illinois and Florida sewn up, and a half-dozen states of the old South?

0 Replies

Well, but isn't this a side-effect of the "winner-takes-all" system? If you had, let's say, 52% in a heavily populated state, you might not bother to pander to the sparsely-populated states, because you'd have enough votes to win.

If you had even 60 or 70 percent of the votes in a proportional system, you might STILL see yourself forced to campaign even in the sparsely populated states, because your opponent could easily win even just with most of the votes from those states.

Maybe an oversimplification, but I don't see the logical flaw in that assumption........

0 Replies

FINALLY!!! A NATIONAL PLAN TO REFORM THE ELECTRAL COLLEGE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know