Skip to comments.The Few Decide For The Many (Huge BusinessWeek report calling for abolition of Electoral College)
Posted on 06/03/2004 8:00:39 PM PDT by Dont Mention the War
click here to read article
Perhaps. But thrice in six seconds?
Very elegant analogy.
It was a compromise. The North wanted zero, and the South wanted one. Three fifths was the compromise.
As I recall, one of the first things the Hildebeast did upon taking the junior NY seat in the Senate was to draft a bill to abolish the Electoral College - wonder why? The bill was defeated, thank God.
Exactly. The way the article is written is at least not the whole story.
First of all, "unfiltered democracy" is still just as dangerous today, as it was then. Perhaps moreso. Probably moreso.
As I understand it, the 3/5ths deal was a NORTHERN compromise, - the Southern slaveholders understandably wanted each slave to count - reason being for increased representation in congress, not that slaves were to be afforded any rights other than to be a slave. The Northern states, for their part, didn't want any slaves counted at all, in order to dilute the power of the Southern states. We can deduce this stuff, despite what anyone at George Mason Uni might have to say, or Business Week.
Remember, those determined to undermine the constitution won't ever stop, it requires eternal vigilance on the part of the citizenry, to become and remain informed of just what exactly our forefathers did, and bequeathed not to just this country, but the world. What's next, abolishing the Senate, too?
Well I can type three letters in 6 seconds, can't you? And therefore I can click the mouse three times, when I don't get near instant gratification of the post registering.
The Electoral College must stand. The reason the Founding Fathers wanted it is still the same reason we need it today. Just take a look at California and see where the dems live and then see where the republicans live. This is fair representation
Amen. We can't allow the Electoral College to fall. If the globalist/Libs get their way, only NY and California need vote. We can't allow them to replace our Republic with mob rule.
A small or medium state (20 or fewer electoral votes) would be nuts to change the electoral system to a popular vote.
It'd take about 2 election cycles for the people of Calif, NY, TX, Fla, and PA to realize they could run the country and ignore everyone else.
"Anarchists like chaos"
Maybe, but that can't be their sole motivation. Socialism leads to fascism each and every time. Perhaps they are the same thing, in any case, to be avoided if at all possible. How many times does the world need to re-invent the wheel? The last century's slaughter-fest ought to be proof enough. Right???
I read on Free Republic within the past few days that Dems were trying to get some usually Republican states to split their electorates according to the popular vote in that state. That would be much easier for them to accomplish since it could be done at the state level and would be worse than a nationwide popular vote because the Dem voters from Republican states would get electoral votes but the Republican voters from Dem states would not.
That's the kind of stuff that will turn the current culture war into Civil War II. It will be much uglier than the first one.
You forgot to mention the "Oklahomans," so I will. :-)
I admit I may be missing something but wouldn't making the Electoral College vote proportional be the same as just taking the popular vote?
Instead you will see a flood of negative editorials and news articles that Bush will be prohibited from answering.
After this election, McInsane will clearly be the fool. His name appears prominently on the McCain-Feingold CFR bill, which will prove to be a laughingstock.
We must use it against him after November. We must point out how impotent a law it turned out to be. We must use it to show how incompetent a lawmaker McCain is.
Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent miscellaneous ping list.
*That's the kind of stuff that will turn the current culture war into Civil War II. It will be much uglier than the first one*
But much, much shorter (assuming it ever comes to that): the folks in the Red States have all the guns.
And the testicular fortitude to use them.
Electoral College reform comes up repeatedly on Free Republic and elsewhere, of course. Business Week does have a quasi-point, I guess: the votes of residents of 30+ states won't matter. Here in NC, for example, either a) President Bush will win by a bunch, or b) if it's close, it'll mean that Kerry has won a national landslide, and NC won't have been the critical determinant anyway. But the cure they propose is far worse than the disease. In addition to the merits of Federalism and the power held by the individual states, the electoral system tends to isolate, and therefore minimize fraud (vote-stealing in Chicago would swing only Illinois), and, as an even more practical matter, it helps determine the winner more quickly. How would we like to see a national recount? Florida 2000 would pale in comparison; the outcome could be in doubt, or at least contested, for months -- or years.
We've discussed proportional electoral votes (such as now exist in Maine and Nebraska) before. Such a scheme, implemented nationally, might bring more campaign attention to states previously regarded as locked up one way or the other. But I recall that you argued persuasively that such a system, if based on Congressional Districts, would make the current gerrymandering look like child's play. I can't dispute that. Another possibility which has been floated is to award electoral votes in proportion to each state's popular vote (e.g., if Bush receives 60% of North Carolina's vote, and Kerry receives 40% [a bit optimistic, granted], Bush would receive 9 electoral votes to Kerry's 6). That doesn't do much for me, either. It would tend to focus the race on major metro areas rather than swing states, but that doesn't strike me as an improvement.
So we're left with the old maxim: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Well, except for those pesky human electors.
I agree with almost everything you said. Almost exactly right. Proportional allocation of electoral votes by states by popular vote (not by CD's which sucks for the reason you mentioned) does have its merits though (it would not lead to massive litigation, maybe in a couple of states if the electoral count were near even). Granted, it would lead to the candidates spending most of their time in the high population states. That seems appropriate to me. In short, swing states versus metro areas is not very persuasive as a policy argument. Why should swing states be so special, just because the geography happens to lead to a close partisan split? But it is not worth the bother. The electoral college as constructed in close enough. The idea is to get a quick result, by the rules, provided the popular vote is not way out of line. Close is good enough in horse shoes and electing a president.
Yes it is and your 50 state analysis of the chaos of a popular vote election is right on. That's the point of the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers were wise to include it in the Constitution to vaccinate us from anarchy.
Very true. The Left are at work like termites, night and day, in power or out, to render the Constitution meaningless and establish themselves as aristocracy.
Yeah, what he said... exactly right on ALL points IMO.
To modify - I think it should be proportional if there is no winner over 50%. Secondly I have zero respect for those people appointed to be in the electoral college. They are party hacks and their appointments make a mockery of the college system. Make it a point system at least.
"Putting aside the partisan stuff that doesn't matter much really - no candidate losing by two percentage points has much chance of carrying the electoral college..."
But a candidate losing by two percentage points carrying the electoral college (or House) has happened twice in the last 54 Presidential contests, in 1824 and 1876. Historically that works out to be about a 3.7% occurrence.
Originally posted by Torrie:
"As I said, it is practically near impossible for a candidate to win the electoral vote, while losing the popular vote by say by more than 51.5 to 48.5 of the major party vote, and even that is a stretch."
That exact occurrence happened in 1876 when Hayes(R) beat Tilden(D) in the electoral college while losing the "popular" vote by 3.02%. That makes the current odds of a possible recurrence around 1.85%...
Winning Percentage Year Winner Electoral Vote "Popular" Vote Notes -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1824 Adams(6) 32.20% 30.92% Lost "popular vote" by 10.43% 1860 Lincoln 59.40% 39.82% 1912 Wilson 81.92% 41.84% 1992 Clinton 68.77% 43.01% 1968 Nixon 55.95% 43.42% 1856 Buchanan 58.80% 45.28% 1892 Cleveland(24) 62.39% 46.02% 1848 Taylor 56.20% 47.28% 1888 Harrison(23) 58.10% 47.82% Lost "popular" vote by 0.80% 2000 Bush(43) 50.37% 47.87% Lost "popular" vote by 0.51% 1876 Hayes 50.10% 47.95% Lost "popular" vote by 3.02% 1880 Garfield 58.00% 48.27% 1884 Cleveland(22) 54.60% 48.50% Was 22nd and 24th President 1996 Clinton 70.45% 49.23% 1916 Wilson 52.17% 49.24% 1844 Polk 61.80% 49.54% 1948 Truman 57.06% 49.55% 1960 Kennedy 56.42% 49.72% Questionable "popular" vote victory 1976 Carter 55.20% 50.08% 1980 Reagan 90.89% 50.75% 1836 Van Buren 57.80% 50.83% 1852 Pierce 85.80% 50.84% 1896 McKinley 60.63% 51.03% 1908 Taft 66.46% 51.57% 1900 McKinley 65.32% 51.64% 1868 Grant 72.80% 52.66% 1840 Harrison(9) 79.60% 52.88% Was grandfather of Harrison(23) 1988 Bush(41) 79.18% 53.37% Was father of Bush(43) 1944 Roosevelt(32) 81.36% 53.39% 1924 Coolidge 71.94% 54.04% 1832 Jackson 76.00% 54.23% 1940 Roosevelt(32) 84.56% 54.74% 1864 Lincoln 90.60% 55.02% 1952 Eisenhower 83.24% 55.18% 1872 Grant 78.10% 55.63% 1828 Jackson 68.20% 55.97% 1904 Roosevelt(26) 70.59% 56.42% Was cousin to Roosevelt(32) 1956 Eisenhower 86.06% 57.37% 1932 Roosevelt(32) 88.89% 57.41% Only four term President 1928 Hoover 83.62% 58.21% 1984 Reagan 97.58% 58.77% 1920 Harding 76.08% 60.32% 1972 Nixon 96.65% 60.67% 1936 Roosevelt(32) 98.49% 60.80% 1964 Johnson 90.33% 61.05% 1789 Washington 85.20% n/a No Opponent 1792 Washington 97.80% n/a No Opponent 1796 Adams(2) 51.40% n/a Was father of Adams(6) 1800 Jefferson 52.90% n/a Jefferson tied with Burr in EC. 1804 Jefferson 92.00% n/a 1808 Madison 69.30% n/a 1812 Madison 58.70% n/a 1816 Monroe 82.80% n/a 1820 Monroe 98.30% n/a No Opponent
Note: The "popular" vote only tracked since 1824.
OK, I can still see post 79 on my comments to me screen, privileged chap that I am, and the guy caught me out on my asserted numbers, which was most excellent. I love being blown away, when the facts dictate it. So why was the post deleted? Talk to me AM. Don't be a stranger. For the record, in light of Hayes versus Tilden, I revise and extend my remarks to revise 51.5% to 48.5% to 52% to 48%.
Ignore the post above. I am moving beyond incipient to a more demonsrable form of dementia.
See post 81, which is a response, sort of. :)
I asked the Admin Moderator to blow away the previous version. I had a data error, formatting error and a text mistake when I cut and pasted a draft instead of final version of my reply from the most excellent NoteTab Pro (v4.95) (just a very satisfied customer)...
The 1824 case is special, since Adams(6) aka "John Quincy Adams" did not win the "popular" or electoral vote, but had to win by 13 out of 24 House State delegation (54.2%) to become President...
Just some facinating US election trivia...
I have long advocated that the other states adopt Maine and Nebraska's system (and this can of course be done without any Constitutional amendment). It preserves the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College but with finer granularity. Most states would become "battleground states" because almost every state would have at least some contestable Congressional Districts where the outcome wasn't foreordained. California, New York, Texas, etc. would suddenly be in play (at least in some areas).
Right now, if a state is too big, everyone in it from that state's "minority" party (whether Democrat or Republican) is effectively disenfranchised. And right now, if the vote in a state is extremely close, it requires a massive recount throughout the entire state (just as in Florida). Abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with a pure popular vote would just magnify the problem if the national totals were evenly divided. We'd need to recount the entire country.
On the other hand, a system based on Congressional Districts would limit the problem to a handful of very close CD's scattered around the country. That would be far more manageable. In most Congressional Districts the result would be clear-cut and unchallenged.
So for a variety of good reasons, we should follow the examples of Maine and Nebraska.
As southernnorthcarolina mentioned, it would makes the stakes that much higher for the line drawing of CD districts. Clever gerrymanders by one party in control of enough big states, could seal the election for their party's candidate for the next decade. That dog won't hunt, and must be made not to hunt. It must be killed in its crib.
You are right .. and I believe an amendment requires 3/4 of the states to ratify it. It would take years and years to accomplish this - plenty of time to educate the public to the reality of "the most votes wins".
Two thirds majority in Congress and three-fourths of the States.
The real virtue of the electoral college today is to manage the outbreak of corruption which would be inherent in an undifferentiated massive "One man- one vote" as well as to uphold the representative federalist form of government.
I hope BW enjoyed Florida 2000. With direct election of the president, we would have ten, twenty, a hundred Floridas every election, because every vote would be worth cheating for, and suing for, not just those in close states. It would mean fighting and refighting election returns in corrupt sinkholes like St Louis and Philly, to name just two, where large numbers of fraudulent votes were tallied.
They are trying to get the country "ready" for Hillary to run for President. She can't win with it the way it stands.
Right you are- check out Canada. This is what so called Democracy has caused. One area of Canada (lots of people) decides all issues in Canada. The author doesn't see fit to mention that the people living in small states would be disenfranchised effectively if the electoral college were abolished. New Hampshire, Maine etc would get no attention from any candidate. Also, the Democrats would be able to steal elections so much easier if the electoral college were abolished.
I agree that a proportional electoral system based on each state's overall popular vote would be far less objectionable than one based on Congressional Districts, for reasons previously cited. Even the better of the two proportional schemes bothers me, though. State lines should mean something (maybe the old "States Rights" Southerner coming out in me), and the loss of the winner-take-all system would surely deemphasize the importance of the states.
Anyway, we're probably beating a very dead horse. I can't see many individual states going to such a system voluntarily; anyway you slice it, they'd be diluting their electoral clout (which is why I am perplexed by the choices made by Maine and Nebraska, and would not be surprised to see either or both states end their little experiments, which in any event have had no effect to date since the Dems have taken all of Maine's EVs, and the GOP all of Nebraska's). So the only way we'll see a proportional electoral vote system happen is via a Constitutional amendment, which is about as likely as me being named the next Pope.
Hmmm - when I lived in Colorado, I was in the same congressional district as Boulder, so my GOP vote went for naught. Funny how the author is being quite selective with his concerns here - gee, could he possible have an agenda?
Wow, awesome line! :D
Splendid looking pups by the way. A different ring color collar for each pup. How cute. I was not familiar with the breed. Does the breed avoid the downside of the long adolescence of labs?
The different colors of yarn "collars" are standard operating procedure for new litters. They help ensure that one puppy doesn't get two booster shots while another misses out; with a litter of ten, it helps each get a shot at nursing (the pups don't give up their spots voluntarily); and of course, some pups are sold as early as two weeks of age, so they have to be kept track of until they're ready to go to their new homes at 6 to 7 weeks of age.
Now, as far as the downside of a long adolescence is concerned, that's a hallmark, to a greater or lesser extent, of all domestic dogs (or maybe I should say adolescence without the sullen, "silent treatment" interludes, but certainly with the rebelliousness, exploring of limits, and general rowdiness). Wolf pups will play with their litter-mates, or with a stick, when young, but they get over it, and soon get on about the business of being adults. Domestic dogs, it has been posited, have a form of arrested development bred into them, largely because that's the kind of behavior most human owners prefer.
I would say that Weimaraners, along with Labs, are toward the upper end of the "extended adolescence" scale. Both are hunting dogs (the Lab being a retriever, specializing in all-weather water retrieving, extending even to breaking the ice on a pond to get a dead duck; whereas the Weimaraner was bred to be a multipurpose tracker/pointer/retriever, mostly upland, but will retrieve from water if it's not too cold), and are therefore bred to interact with humans. This is usually a good thing, but it can make them pests, too, since they constantly want to play, or to go for a walk, or a ride in the car, and constantly want human companionship (and human food, sofas, and beds, too, if they can get away with it).
I like those characteristics myself. Others don't. Hence, Torie, the existence of cats.
So now we count illegals as full citizens of a state for purposes of determining the state's population and number of representatives.