No Electoral College in the USA

[f1b0nacc1]

A Republic, not a Democracy

Rotbart,

Try reading the Federalist Papers, otherwise know as the FAQ for the Constitution. Written by the founders themselves, they give an excellent insight into the thinking and motivations of the people writing the Constitution. Several here have already pointed out that the Founders were absolutely aghast at thought of mob rule (as events in France demonstrated), and wished to provide numerous safeguards against it. The Electoral College was one of those.

A key misunderstanding here seems to be that the US was not intended to be a democracy, but rather a republic. Direct democracy was considered inappropriate for many reasons (chief among them the tendency towards mob rule, though it was hardly the only reason), while a republic was thought to offer considerable protections against this threat. Remember thatn until the 17th ammendment (1912), Senators were elected by state legislatures, not directly by the population of the states. Some (myself included) believe that changing this was a questionable choice, but the intention of the original system was to create a upper house which would cool the passions of the more democratic lower house. The Constitution is full of little anti-democratic measures, and while one might disagree with them, their purpose is quite clear, and openly acknowleged by the founders themselves.

Finally, there is the comment about 'fairness'. Fairness these days sems to be shorthand for "outcomes that I want to see"...the fact that Angelina Jolie has this (to me inexplicable) preference for Brad Pitt over my obviously superior charms seem grossly unfair, but there you are....

 

[Noravea]

That's not true. Removing the influence of the states from the presidental election does not weaken or make them redundant.

BTW if those polls are correct than most American citizens want to abolish the electoral college.

There are two ways to replace the electoral college:
- direct election (as in France)
- indirect election (as in Germany): the House of Representatives elects the PotUS, who will in most cases be the leader of the majority (that's the way the German chancelor is elected) - or - the Congress of the United States elects the PotUS (that's the way the German president is elected). In both cases mid-term elections would become redundant or the election period for the president will be very short.

The US has a mix of those two. Also, is there a link to these polls? In the United States, to repeal something in the Constitution, or Add something, you need 38/50 States to agree to it. More than 12 States would likely vote against it, and this includes some of the larger, more Conservatives ones.

 

[Noravea]

Rotbart,

Senators were elected by state legislatures, not directly by the population of the states. Some (myself included) believe that changing this was a questionable choice

I'm not the only one!

 

[Mark E.]

The electoral college had nothing to do with technology, feasibility or fairness. It was put in place to give small states more power and also make the individual states have a role in elections so they would sign off on the constitution. The same with giving each state two senators, small states got an advantage since they had equal voting power to states with much larger populations

To get rid of both the electoral college you would need the votes of small states and they are unlikely to give up their advantage.

Actually, many states are monolithicly one-party and there might be support for, say, Democrats in Idaho and Repubicans in MA to have their votes counted with a popular vote amendment.

The electoral college system assured the president would be elected by a majority of literate people at a time when it took weeks for news to travel. A direct popular vote requires (1) high literacy and (2) the telegraph, so there is no way it could happen in Jackson's time or much sooner than 1880.

 

[Noravea]

Actually, many states are monolithicly one-party and there might be support for, say, Democrats in Idaho and Repubicans in MA to have their votes counted with a popular vote amendment.

The electoral college system assured the president would be elected by a majority of literate people at a time when it took weeks for news to travel. A direct popular vote requires (1) high literacy and (2) the telegraph, so there is no way it could happen in Jackson's time or much sooner than 1880.

I doubt though states would get rid of it, it would be hard for someone to actually campaign against it. Also, the argument that America is a Republic and not a Direct Democracy might take hold.

 

[rule_them_all]

No, it was one of a series of checks to prevent such a vast territory from having to be ruled autocratically. Regardless of it's dated status, it worked as intended, though it's necessity is lacking to say the least. Not having an Electoral College would weaken the influence of the states, which might be a blessing in several issues, abolition of slavery being among them.

You see, India and Brazil are both countries about as big(maybe not the same size, but both are continent-like) as the US and they haven't had a lot of trouble with democracy in recent years. India, flawed as it is, has been a democracy for 60 years and in the case of Brazil, autocracy didn't happen because of the risk of the country breaking apart- national unity was doing just fine before every single military coup.

 

[Yossarian]

I'm not sure why people think it is important to give extra power to people in small states. It's ridiculous to say that we need the electoral college because it makes the President pay attention to what's going on in states with few people. What happens to New York IS much more important than what happens to Wyoming, because New York has many times more people. The amount the President should pander to each state should be proportional to the populations of those states, because what the President should be doing is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans, not for the greatest number of states.

 

[f1b0nacc1]

I'm not sure why people think it is important to give extra power to people in small states. It's ridiculous to say that we need the electoral college because it makes the President pay attention to what's going on in states with few people. What happens to New York IS much more important than what happens to Wyoming, because New York has many times more people. The amount the President should pander to each state should be proportional to the populations of those states, because what the President should be doing is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans, not for the greatest number of states.

Even if I agreed with this (and I don't), the problem is that there wouldn't be a proportional representation of those in rural areas (for instance), ther would be NONE. It is perfectly feasible to imagine (sans Electoral College) a president winning election with significant margins of votes in only 16-18 states. Why bother with the logistical (and financial) burdens of running campaigns in all 50 states (and for that matter in all parts of all 50 states) when you can merely focus on the vote-rich urban areas and dominate there. Particularly with modern mass media (which covers urban areas well, but is extremely expensive when it comes to rural areas) it is difficult to see how rural populations would have any kind of significant representation in Presidential Elections.

 

[tchizek]

I'm not sure why people think it is important to give extra power to people in small states. It's ridiculous to say that we need the electoral college because it makes the President pay attention to what's going on in states with few people. What happens to New York IS much more important than what happens to Wyoming, because New York has many times more people. The amount the President should pander to each state should be proportional to the populations of those states, because what the President should be doing is seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of Americans, not for the greatest number of states.

The end result of this sentiment is the Majority voting themselves largess from government coffers. And raising taxes on the Minority. So bad, bad idea.

And no what happens in the cities is NOT more important than the rest of the country - you would figure that out about 5 days after the rest of the country stops shipping food to the cities.

 

[Mark E.]

I'm not sure why people think it is important to give extra power to people in small states. It's ridiculous to say that we need the electoral college because it makes the President pay attention to what's going on in states with few people.

One of the issues the founding fathers faced was a fear of corruption. By isolating voting blocks by state, ballot box stuffing or undue foreign influence in Baltimore or Boston will not offset the votes of the other states.

A direct popular vote would not take away the say of the small states and I don't think they would block such an amendment. So, today the Republicans are over-represented in the fly-over states. But look at how they are represented in New York, California and Illinois: zero. Every American in every state should have the same voice.

 

[rob in cal]

Another big question is if there is a runoff provision if no one wins a majority of the popular vote. Worldwide most of the big countries that directly elect a president (France, Russia, Brazil), require one.
If the US has one, the most riveting election of the past would have been the Lincoln Douglas runoff of 1860.

 

[Aelita]

Rotbart,

Try reading the Federalist Papers, otherwise know as the FAQ for the Constitution. Written by the founders themselves, they give an excellent insight into the thinking and motivations of the people writing the Constitution. Several here have already pointed out that the Founders were absolutely aghast at thought of mob rule (as events in France demonstrated), and wished to provide numerous safeguards against it. The Electoral College was one of those.

A key misunderstanding here seems to be that the US was not intended to be a democracy, but rather a republic. Direct democracy was considered inappropriate for many reasons (chief among them the tendency towards mob rule, though it was hardly the only reason), while a republic was thought to offer considerable protections against this threat. Remember thatn until the 17th ammendment (1912), Senators were elected by state legislatures, not directly by the population of the states. Some (myself included) believe that changing this was a questionable choice, but the intention of the original system was to create a upper house which would cool the passions of the more democratic lower house. The Constitution is full of little anti-democratic measures, and while one might disagree with them, their purpose is quite clear, and openly acknowleged by the founders themselves.

Finally, there is the comment about 'fairness'. Fairness these days sems to be shorthand for "outcomes that I want to see"...the fact that Angelina Jolie has this (to me inexplicable) preference for Brad Pitt over my obviously superior charms seem grossly unfair, but there you are....

A republic that places more value on states than people is no republic at all. It's an oligarchical dictatorship waiting to happen, privileging the capricious rule of class over the rule of law.

 

[Abgrund]

One of the problems with eliminating the Electoral College is that states would be likely to submit dishonest voting results. Actually, they sometimes do already, but no state can increase its influence in Federal elections by ballot box-stuffing. If there were no Electoral College, the voter turnout in one-party states like New York or South Carolina would miraculously increase by a huge margin...

Also, it is basically impossible to get rid of the EC. Doing so would reduce the influence of a large number of small or sparsely populated states, and it only takes 1/4 + 1 of the states to block a Constitutional amendment.

 

[Lord Grattan]

One of the problems with eliminating the Electoral College is that states would be likely to submit dishonest voting results. Actually, they sometimes do already, but no state can increase its influence in Federal elections by ballot box-stuffing. If there were no Electoral College, the voter turnout in one-party states like New York or South Carolina would miraculously increase by a huge margin.

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there. Upon what credible evidence to you base those claims and accusations?

 

[Dave Howery]

well, you can't just 'get rid of' the EC, you have to have something to take it's place... so basically, we'd have elections like Europe or Canada. Which makes me wonder if it'd be worth the effort... would we really be gaining anything?

 

[Catmo]

I don't give a crap about rural and low population states. I don't give a crap about rural voters in my own state who have been gerrymandered into having a veto over who Texans send to Congress. Power to the cities and let's have a serious campaign to get the urban votes of my recently red state.

Let's get the ERA passed and then get a popular vote amendment passed.

Screw Vermont and Wyoming (though I love ya for giving women the vote before anyone else would) they get two electors for free for their thousands compared to our millions..

 

[Noravea]

I don't give a crap about rural and low population states. I don't give a crap about rural voters in my own state who have been gerrymandered into having a veto over who Texans send to Congress. Power to the cities and let's have a serious campaign to get the urban votes of my recently red state.

Let's get the ERA passed and then get a popular vote amendment passed.

Screw Vermont and Wyoming (though I love ya for giving women the vote before anyone else would) they get two electors for free for their thousands compared to our millions..

That would lead to mob rule. Also, we aren't a full Democracy, we never were. We are a Republic, which calls for Representatives electing our leader.

 

[Lord Grattan]

I don't give a crap about rural and low population states. I don't give a crap about rural voters in my own state who have been gerrymandered into having a veto over who Texans send to Congress. Power to the cities and let's have a serious campaign to get the urban votes of my recently red state.

Let's get the ERA passed and then get a popular vote amendment passed.

Screw Vermont and Wyoming (though I love ya for giving women the vote before anyone else would) they get two electors for free for their thousands compared to our millions..

Let's just take away the right to vote in all but local elctions from everyone who lives outside the limits of a city of less then 500,000. NOT.

 

[f1b0nacc1]

The definition of a republic...

From Jello Biafra:

"A republic that places more value on states than people is no republic at all. It's an oligarchical dictatorship waiting to happen, privileging the capricious rule of class over the rule of law."

You had best look up definitions of oligarchy, as it is as close to the opposite of a republic as you can come. On the other hand, as you describe yourself as a Neo-Marxist, consistency is probably too much to ask for.

The founders were deeply worried about mob rule, as they had seen examples of it elsewhere. As Abgrund astutely points out, they were also concerned about the possibilities of corruption, though they didnt' call it that. Game theory being far int he future, they didn't have the phrase 'gaming the system', but they certainly understood it. The point here is that they deliberately designed a system where many of the typical methods of hijacking the government were as difficult to implement as possible.

As for these things being anti-democratic, the founders would have heartily and proudly agreed with you, and taken it as a compliment. Given the rather dismal overall success rate (or lack thereof) of the more 'pure' democracies, I tend to appreciate their foresight.

 

[Abgrund]

Claptrap such as Carr v. Baker notwithstanding, a Republic is not a Democracy and "equal" representation is not always (or usually) fair or equitable. Representation in a republic is not strictly by numbers, but by groups (perhaps geographical groups), and there are obvious advantages to such a system. Democracy is suitable only for extremely homogeneous populations; otherwise, it is necessary to give some voice to minorities, even if they don't live in cities.

Benjamin Franklin is supposed to have said that democracy is "two foxes and a chicken voting on who is for dinner." If the institution of Negro slavery were subject to a national vote by simple majority, it would have been legal in 1960 and might be legal today. Sometimes you have to give the chicken a greater voice.