This was very interesting to read.
Seems sensible to me, but do any supporters of the college system see any faults in the logic?
So.....that happened
- Thread starter Alc
- Start date
Seems sensible to me, but do any supporters of the college system see any faults in the logic?
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
- Local time
- Today, 08:16
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,276
Most of the defenses of the College that I've seen which do NOT rely on the whole 'six cities would rule us all' nonsense revolve around the concept that the US is an alliance of 50 sovereign states, not a nation in and of itself, that the states should all have equal power, and that the very idea of a popular election would be the end of the entire federal system. The idea is that small, low-population states should have as much pull on who wins the presidency as the high-population ones. And if you look at the US as an alliance rather than a nation, then there's some logic to that argument.
Mind you, none have bothered explaining why a popular vote is perfectly fine for state governor, when the same argument can be made that states are merely a collection of allied counties.
An interesting discussion of this can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/16/should-the-electoral-college-be-abolished (The two arguments are entirely too long to be reposting here.)
Mind you, none have bothered explaining why a popular vote is perfectly fine for state governor, when the same argument can be made that states are merely a collection of allied counties.
An interesting discussion of this can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/11/16/should-the-electoral-college-be-abolished (The two arguments are entirely too long to be reposting here.)
I did read something to that effect a while ago. As an outsider, it's really odd to hear things like this, if only because I grew up in the 70s/80s, when the USA was this golden utopia seen on TV and in the cinema. The people were united (hence the name), the rich helped the poor, and so on.
It's a bit depressing to grow up and realize that the 'United' part of the name is akin to a country having 'People's Republic' or 'Democratic Republic' in its name i.e. it needs to be specifically stated, because you'd never guess otherwise.
I will set aside some time to read that in full, when I give it the attention it merits.
- Local time
- Today, 07:16
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,401
The fault in the electoral college lies in the implementation, not the concept. Frothy directly commented on the problem at hand - that electoral votes by state sometimes face a state "winner take all" rule that should be revoked. The election might have come out differently if electors were bound according to large districts within a state rather than to the state as a whole - the way it is in many states now.
The problem I hear is yet another form of sour grapes. The Democrats knew the election rules and lost according to those rules, so now they want to retroactively change the rules. It doesn't matter why they want to. It ALWAYS comes down to the message and the personalities involved. DJT ignited a fire in the uncommitted voters; HRC doused the fire in her extant support group, who didn't turn out as strongly. Read Yahoo News to see the detailed demographic analyses, which show that her problem was the weakness of her position as perceived by her own support group.
To more directly address Alc's question:
The electoral college was a leveling mechanism proposed - and accepted by the Continental Congress - to prevent the more heavily populated and more industrial northern colonies from always outvoting the less populated and more heavily agricultural southern colonies. The theory was that different regions of the country have different needs by dint of geography, and a purely democratic system will always be unbalanced towards the more densely populated areas, thus granting them more tax and political resources than the less populated areas. The results in an unbalanced situation usually sway towards the larger group and leave the less populated states feeling a form of taxation without representation. Which is why the original 13 colonies rebelled against King George when they did. (OK, it was a LOT more than that, but it takes a full-sized textbook to do justice to all of the ills.)
Secession movements occur when the balance between national and regional government authority becomes lopsided, whatever the actual reason. The American Revolution was one case in point. With those events fresh in their minds, the Continental Congress tried to address the problem and prevent its recurrence. The electoral college was an attempt to prevent what happened anyway 90 years later (approx.) when 13 states formed the Confederacy and attempted to secede from the USA. It was a political issue in state's rights vs. federal rights triggered by the moral issue of slavery. OK, the southern states were definitely on the wrong side of the moral issue - but not wrong about the political issue.
Let's look at a more recent issue in the topic of individual state's rights vs. the rights of the conglomerate government - Brexit. My friends across the pond will know more about the intimate political furor, but it is another example of "smaller regional" vs. "encompassing regional" rights, is it not? It might be a different issue that triggered the split - but yet another split occurred on the same general principle.
Finding a balance is impossible. We have resorted to handing out politically motivated bribes (called "entitlements") because the politicians find that they can't survive without buying votes, and HRC promised to be a vote-getter (regarding welfare issues). (Unfortunately, so did DJT, on taxes.) In so doing, we have started down the slippery slope that eventually finished off Ancient Rome.
Consider these old quotes, if you will:
The problem I hear is yet another form of sour grapes. The Democrats knew the election rules and lost according to those rules, so now they want to retroactively change the rules. It doesn't matter why they want to. It ALWAYS comes down to the message and the personalities involved. DJT ignited a fire in the uncommitted voters; HRC doused the fire in her extant support group, who didn't turn out as strongly. Read Yahoo News to see the detailed demographic analyses, which show that her problem was the weakness of her position as perceived by her own support group.
To more directly address Alc's question:
The electoral college was a leveling mechanism proposed - and accepted by the Continental Congress - to prevent the more heavily populated and more industrial northern colonies from always outvoting the less populated and more heavily agricultural southern colonies. The theory was that different regions of the country have different needs by dint of geography, and a purely democratic system will always be unbalanced towards the more densely populated areas, thus granting them more tax and political resources than the less populated areas. The results in an unbalanced situation usually sway towards the larger group and leave the less populated states feeling a form of taxation without representation. Which is why the original 13 colonies rebelled against King George when they did. (OK, it was a LOT more than that, but it takes a full-sized textbook to do justice to all of the ills.)
Secession movements occur when the balance between national and regional government authority becomes lopsided, whatever the actual reason. The American Revolution was one case in point. With those events fresh in their minds, the Continental Congress tried to address the problem and prevent its recurrence. The electoral college was an attempt to prevent what happened anyway 90 years later (approx.) when 13 states formed the Confederacy and attempted to secede from the USA. It was a political issue in state's rights vs. federal rights triggered by the moral issue of slavery. OK, the southern states were definitely on the wrong side of the moral issue - but not wrong about the political issue.
Let's look at a more recent issue in the topic of individual state's rights vs. the rights of the conglomerate government - Brexit. My friends across the pond will know more about the intimate political furor, but it is another example of "smaller regional" vs. "encompassing regional" rights, is it not? It might be a different issue that triggered the split - but yet another split occurred on the same general principle.
Finding a balance is impossible. We have resorted to handing out politically motivated bribes (called "entitlements") because the politicians find that they can't survive without buying votes, and HRC promised to be a vote-getter (regarding welfare issues). (Unfortunately, so did DJT, on taxes.) In so doing, we have started down the slippery slope that eventually finished off Ancient Rome.
Consider these old quotes, if you will:
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
- Local time
- Today, 08:16
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,276
Unfortunately, the US as shown in 70's and 80's media never actually existed. We are absolutely not a united people, and since you've brought up helping the poor, we've argued on whether that's even an acceptable exercise of government power for at least a century now.
At its founding, the US truly was simply an alliance (confederation, to be precise) of 13 sovereign nations, and there was a LOT of extremely bitter fighting over the strength of the overall government vs the strength of the component states. Our first attempt - via the Articles of Confederation - actually failed miserably because the states were overwhelmingly more powerful than the government, and not one was willing to work for the betterment of the nation at the potential expense of local interests.
Thus, in 1787, we got together for a do-over, which led to such wonderful things as slaves counting as 3/5 population, a House whose membership was set by population, a Senate whose membership was set at 2 per state (and whose members were selected by individual state legislatures, NOT popular vote), and a President whose election wasn't necessarily determined by popular vote at all.
In fact, Congress bears a striking and deliberate similarity to the UK Parliament, in that you have a lower house selected by the populace, and an upper house selected (at the time) by our version of the aristocracy. It and the Presidency were both set up the way they were because in the 18th century, the national leadership believed that the common man had no business in politics, that it was the province of educated white male gentry and no one else. (If you don't believe me, read the Constitution, it's quite explicit on that.)
There was, however, a sharp divide that remains to this day on whether each state was equal no matter what or whether the states with greater populations should have more say. The electoral college was a compromise in that regard that grants smaller states a distinctly greater say in national elections than their population would suggest, but not as much as you see in the Senate.
I'm sure Doc is saying that that was the intention of the Founders, so that's how it must stay, but the fact is that the Constitution allows for changes, and over the last 229 years, there has been a major move toward populism, whether it be Lincoln's statement that this is a government 'of the people, for the people, and by the people' or the amendment that took the election of Senators *OUT* of the state legislatures' hands. The founders repeated again and again that the best defense against the breakdown of the democratic system is an informed electorate; unfortunately, the entrenched political parties are doing everything in their power to ensure that no informed electorate exists, which is why you have people actually believing Trump when he says that he never said that thing he was videotaped saying the day before.
The fact of the matter, however, is simply this: No political system that overrides the express will of the people in a free election can call itself democratic. That's why governors are based on popular vote, referendums are based on popular vote, and senators, representatives, and all other elections are based on popular vote. Literally the *ONLY* election in America NOT based on the popular vote is the Presidency, and as a result, 5 of our 45 presidents have managed to beat someone who won more votes than him. (Lincoln was the sixth president to not win the popular majority, but he was still the highest vote-getter at 39%.)
I thought the Electoral College was an archaic institution when I learned about it in school, I still thought it was idiotic to keep around when I was a Republican (!) voter in 2000 when it put Bush in office (my change of heart happened when he started talking about invading Iraq), and I see this year's election as just more proof of why it absolutely needs to go.
A government that ignores its people is by no stretch of the imagination of the people, for the people, or by the people.
At its founding, the US truly was simply an alliance (confederation, to be precise) of 13 sovereign nations, and there was a LOT of extremely bitter fighting over the strength of the overall government vs the strength of the component states. Our first attempt - via the Articles of Confederation - actually failed miserably because the states were overwhelmingly more powerful than the government, and not one was willing to work for the betterment of the nation at the potential expense of local interests.
Thus, in 1787, we got together for a do-over, which led to such wonderful things as slaves counting as 3/5 population, a House whose membership was set by population, a Senate whose membership was set at 2 per state (and whose members were selected by individual state legislatures, NOT popular vote), and a President whose election wasn't necessarily determined by popular vote at all.
In fact, Congress bears a striking and deliberate similarity to the UK Parliament, in that you have a lower house selected by the populace, and an upper house selected (at the time) by our version of the aristocracy. It and the Presidency were both set up the way they were because in the 18th century, the national leadership believed that the common man had no business in politics, that it was the province of educated white male gentry and no one else. (If you don't believe me, read the Constitution, it's quite explicit on that.)
There was, however, a sharp divide that remains to this day on whether each state was equal no matter what or whether the states with greater populations should have more say. The electoral college was a compromise in that regard that grants smaller states a distinctly greater say in national elections than their population would suggest, but not as much as you see in the Senate.
I'm sure Doc is saying that that was the intention of the Founders, so that's how it must stay, but the fact is that the Constitution allows for changes, and over the last 229 years, there has been a major move toward populism, whether it be Lincoln's statement that this is a government 'of the people, for the people, and by the people' or the amendment that took the election of Senators *OUT* of the state legislatures' hands. The founders repeated again and again that the best defense against the breakdown of the democratic system is an informed electorate; unfortunately, the entrenched political parties are doing everything in their power to ensure that no informed electorate exists, which is why you have people actually believing Trump when he says that he never said that thing he was videotaped saying the day before.
The fact of the matter, however, is simply this: No political system that overrides the express will of the people in a free election can call itself democratic. That's why governors are based on popular vote, referendums are based on popular vote, and senators, representatives, and all other elections are based on popular vote. Literally the *ONLY* election in America NOT based on the popular vote is the Presidency, and as a result, 5 of our 45 presidents have managed to beat someone who won more votes than him. (Lincoln was the sixth president to not win the popular majority, but he was still the highest vote-getter at 39%.)
I thought the Electoral College was an archaic institution when I learned about it in school, I still thought it was idiotic to keep around when I was a Republican (!) voter in 2000 when it put Bush in office (my change of heart happened when he started talking about invading Iraq), and I see this year's election as just more proof of why it absolutely needs to go.
A government that ignores its people is by no stretch of the imagination of the people, for the people, or by the people.
- Local time
- Today, 07:16
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,401
Hypothetical case, but relevant to the comment: So... if tomorrow, the USA votes to reestablish slavery in a free election and the popular vote says to do it, but the courts say "NO" and prevent implementation of the results of that vote - are we still a democracy?
Frothingslosh, I absolutely agree that the electoral college is flawed - but tossing the baby out with the bathwater seems wrong, too. The popular vote seems to be the wrong answer if, as you say, we lack an educated populace. Perhaps revoking the state mandates for the "winner take all" states so that they can have a split electoral vote might improve matters?
I don't think that the intent of the founders must be cast in stone any more than you or I believe that a 2000-year-old-book should absolutely govern modern morality. (That is, of course, another thread.) I am resistant to change for the sake of change, but not when I come to the conclusion that change is necessary.
My expression of that perceived need for change was to vote against HRC by selecting the only other candidate who had half-a-chance to win. Yes, it left a bad taste in my mouth. But it was definitely a case of the lesser of two evils. That is how badly I thought of HRC. I deeply regret that you can't see that I acted in what seemed to me to be a reasoned manner based on a badly conflicted conscience.
Only time will tell whether DJT will be our worst-ever president, but I know deep down in my heart that HRC would DEFINITELY have qualified for that title had she won. As stated before, I am not anti-black and not anti-woman. I could have accepted Carly Fiorina - but would not have voted for Sarah Palin. I worked for black employers for over 20 of my 28 years as a Dept. of Defense contractor and had NO PROBLEM with that. It was and is all about the individual candidates, and I was revulsed by HRC.
- Local time
- Today, 07:16
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,401
I read an interesting analysis article by Matt Bai regarding what happened in the election. Something he said seemed relevant. I'll paraphrase just to keep it simple.
We don't live in ancient Athens. Why would we think that a pure democracy prevailed here? And what happened to ancient Greece, anyway? (Last question is mine and is rhetorical.)
I'll further add that in MODERN Athens, things ain't so great either, because the excessive liberal handouts for pensions and such almost destroyed Greece.
Follow-up and companion question to a previous one:
Hypothetical case, but relevant to the comment: So... if tomorrow, the USA votes to reestablish slavery in a free election and the popular vote says to do it, but the courts say "NO" and prevent implementation of the results of that vote - are we still a democracy?
And if we held that election and the majority vote said to reestablish slavery and the courts DID NOT step in to say "NO" so that slavery would be established, I think that would be democracy by Frothy's definition - but would anyone want to live in such a place? The electoral college, with its awkward division of votes; and the bicameral legislature split by popular criteria in one side and regional / geographic criteria on the other side are the attempt by the Founding Fathers to NOT be ancient Greece. Works for me.
We don't live in ancient Athens. Why would we think that a pure democracy prevailed here? And what happened to ancient Greece, anyway? (Last question is mine and is rhetorical.)
I'll further add that in MODERN Athens, things ain't so great either, because the excessive liberal handouts for pensions and such almost destroyed Greece.
Follow-up and companion question to a previous one:
Hypothetical case, but relevant to the comment: So... if tomorrow, the USA votes to reestablish slavery in a free election and the popular vote says to do it, but the courts say "NO" and prevent implementation of the results of that vote - are we still a democracy?
And if we held that election and the majority vote said to reestablish slavery and the courts DID NOT step in to say "NO" so that slavery would be established, I think that would be democracy by Frothy's definition - but would anyone want to live in such a place? The electoral college, with its awkward division of votes; and the bicameral legislature split by popular criteria in one side and regional / geographic criteria on the other side are the attempt by the Founding Fathers to NOT be ancient Greece. Works for me.
I think the difference there is between electing a leader and establishing a specific law/rule.
If you vote to elect a leader, the expectation is that he or she has either the knowledge or a team of advisors to permit him or her to make the best decisions on behalf of the people who voted for them. As the Brexit vote proved, people on both sides were woefully ignorant of many of the issues and it was a little ridiculous to use their uneducated opinions as the basis for which to make a national policy decision on something so important.
Frothingslosh
Premier Pale Stale Ale
- Local time
- Today, 08:16
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2012
- Messages
- 3,276
You mean like I did?
I see you deleted the post where I stated I was doing precisely that.
I see you deleted the post where I stated I was doing precisely that.
Steve R.
Retired
- Local time
- Today, 08:16
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,729
What constitutes the "will-of-people" and the effect on the political leadership is somewhat subjective. For example, in the just completed Presidential election Clinton received 47.9% of the popular vote and Trump received 47.2% of the popular vote. Given that close of a result neither party can truly assert that they have received a "mandate" from the people.
Additionally, many consider the Electoral College as being obsolete since a candidate can win an election through the Electoral College even-though they would have otherwise "won" based on the receiving a greater popular vote.
And along those lines, electing a President for a fixed term of four years could also be considered obsolete now. The will-of-the-people can change over time. As a consequence the President's agenda may no longer be in conformance with the will-of-the-people. Given that, why should the President remain in office?
In the US there is no method to rectify this since the US does not have a Parliament and there is no procedure for a "vote of no confidence" that would allow the government to be reorganized. As an example, when BREXIT passed David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) resigned since he recognized that the will-of-the-people had changed. He graciously resigned to allow a "new" government to be formed to take over the process of leaving the European Union as the public desired. (Note: that Cameron was not subject to a "vote of no confidence. The last successful vote of no confidence occurred in 1979.) My conclusionary summation, for those who are strong advocates for unfettered democracy is that the political leadership should be subject to dismal when they no longer represent the will-of-the-people.
Additionally, many consider the Electoral College as being obsolete since a candidate can win an election through the Electoral College even-though they would have otherwise "won" based on the receiving a greater popular vote.
And along those lines, electing a President for a fixed term of four years could also be considered obsolete now. The will-of-the-people can change over time. As a consequence the President's agenda may no longer be in conformance with the will-of-the-people. Given that, why should the President remain in office?
In the US there is no method to rectify this since the US does not have a Parliament and there is no procedure for a "vote of no confidence" that would allow the government to be reorganized. As an example, when BREXIT passed David Cameron (UK Prime Minister) resigned since he recognized that the will-of-the-people had changed. He graciously resigned to allow a "new" government to be formed to take over the process of leaving the European Union as the public desired. (Note: that Cameron was not subject to a "vote of no confidence. The last successful vote of no confidence occurred in 1979.) My conclusionary summation, for those who are strong advocates for unfettered democracy is that the political leadership should be subject to dismal when they no longer represent the will-of-the-people.
- Local time
- Today, 07:16
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,401
Thanks, Steve, for chiming in. Yes, that 0.7% difference is hard to describe using the word "mandate" - and that is where the problem lies. The HRC supports realize that they were so close to winning, and would have won if the votes had been distributed differently. Which is playing the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" game. So close yet so far.
Alc, your point is also well taken. Many of the analyses I have read after-the-fact make it clear that they Democrats and HRC essentially saw what they wanted to see, but what they DID see wasn't the reality of the disaffected voters.
You are correct that there is a difference between election to office and referendums on laws, but if we recall the Al Gore and Florida "hanging chads" fiasco, that mess ended up with having to get the Supremes adding their 2 cents' worth, so specific laws/rules were potentially a bit fluid at that time. I am reminded of the "Treasure of Sierra Madre" - "Badge? We don't need no steenking badge." Well, here it was "Election laws? We don't need no steenking election laws."
Vassago, I understand that Frothy is upset with me and I regret that he has taken my attitude as somehow insulting. However, I worked as a musician on Bourbon Street for many years while going through college. I've been called things I had to ask my friends about because I had never heard those words in those combinations before. I know it's not a good precedent, and please do what you think is right, but I can live with having been called a rude name or two. I'm bigger than that.
Alc, your point is also well taken. Many of the analyses I have read after-the-fact make it clear that they Democrats and HRC essentially saw what they wanted to see, but what they DID see wasn't the reality of the disaffected voters.
You are correct that there is a difference between election to office and referendums on laws, but if we recall the Al Gore and Florida "hanging chads" fiasco, that mess ended up with having to get the Supremes adding their 2 cents' worth, so specific laws/rules were potentially a bit fluid at that time. I am reminded of the "Treasure of Sierra Madre" - "Badge? We don't need no steenking badge." Well, here it was "Election laws? We don't need no steenking election laws."
Vassago, I understand that Frothy is upset with me and I regret that he has taken my attitude as somehow insulting. However, I worked as a musician on Bourbon Street for many years while going through college. I've been called things I had to ask my friends about because I had never heard those words in those combinations before. I know it's not a good precedent, and please do what you think is right, but I can live with having been called a rude name or two. I'm bigger than that.
- Local time
- Today, 07:16
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2001
- Messages
- 30,401
The news analysts, obviously having little else to do, have delved deeper and deeper into the Trump/Clinton election. For our foreign friends who still wonder what happened and WHY it happened, I offer this view from a writer from the New York Post.
http://nypost.com/2017/05/03/no-hillary-the-main-reason-you-lost-is-you/
With the benefit of hindsight and collated after-the-election polling (not limited to exit polling), Mr. Olsen offers at least a few insights.
http://nypost.com/2017/05/03/no-hillary-the-main-reason-you-lost-is-you/
With the benefit of hindsight and collated after-the-election polling (not limited to exit polling), Mr. Olsen offers at least a few insights.
Similar threads
