I heard one of the best and truly democratic ideas to come out of anyone after a very long long time!! There is a ballot initiative in Colorado to split its 9 electoral votes according to the popular vote!! It seems like a very novel idea to me. That truly would represent the public in the most democratic manner. why should all 54 California electoral votes go to a Democrat if only 52% of the public voted for a Democrat and why should all 46 Texas electoral votes go to a Republican if over 45% of the public voted for a Democrat?????
Although Im sure Tom Delay, Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the cronie political establishment in DC have had severe heart burn at the thought of such a democratic idea, I personally love it!!
What do you guys think?? I think its one of the best ideas to come out of the American public for a very long time!!
The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President - some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.
The Electoral College is a peculiar American institution. When Americans vote for President and Vice-President, they do not actually vote for those people, but for electors. These electors meet in their state capitals after the general election and cast votes for President and votes for Vice-President. Though electors are pledged to the candidates of their party, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring them to so vote - and, in fact, every so often an elector defects from his party's candidates, though the effect on the election is usually nil. Some states have laws against electors casting such "faithless" votes, but it is unclear if anyone could actually be prosecuted under such laws, since the electors are protected by the Constitution (though not in so many words).
Holding a popular election for the Presidency/Vice-Presidency simply wasn't practical when the Constitution was framed.
But the Electoral College is really a peculiar and vague thing in the constitution. I'm in the minority. I've always thought it needs to be strengthened and better defined rather than abolished.
Either way, it's weird to bring this government entity about just to elect the executive every four years and then disappear.
/Zin
-- Modified on 10/4/2004 7:51:26 AM
Actually, the powers at be in 1785 or so didn't trust the common voter, which didn't include women or African-Americans, to know or make an intelligent choice, so they reservered to the Electoral College the ability or right to pick the President & Vice President.
If it passes, it's written to be *retro-active* to this election!
This means that, say without the initiative passing, perhaps Bush wins by three or four electoral votes, because Colorado is on his side by single-digit percentage points. So he gets all 9 votes. If, however, the initiative passes, then Colorado's electoral votes get alloted 4-4-1, between Bush-Kerry-Nader, respectively. Then Kerry is pushed over the top due to Colorado's votes being so split. Bush loses five votes, Kerry gains four and wins.
However, if this happens, making the law retroactive is likely to be challenged in court, so adding yet more uncertainty to the conduct of this election.
Of the idea itself, I like it better than what we have now, but it's likely to cause a wider debate and dispute about the electoral college, which is really not very well defined entity in our Constitution.
/Zin
... it gives way to much importance to states with low populations. Further, it is anti-democratic (small d). It should have been eliminated long ago.
Which the framers would have seen as too dangerous.
The House of Representatives is the only section of the government originally designed to be democratically elected. The Senate was later changed by amendment, but I really believe that to be an error. If both are popularly elected, why not just have a unicameral Congress?
The US wasn't designed as a democracy, but as a Republic with protected democratic rights. I really think that the Constitution as a whole should be rethought rather than making structural changes to the government piecemeal.
/Zin
... and the presidency ought to represent the nation as a whole. I agree that a unicameral legislature is the wrong idea. The presidency is a different issue.
If you abolish the electoral college concept, why bother to have a national election at all?
You would anly need to have elections in the 8-10 most populated metro areas and you elect a president.
I DON'T THINK SO.
The constitution has hel up (albeit somewhat battered) for over 200 years. I understand that the original framers spent a great deal of time studying the best form of government and the cosnstitution is what we got out of it.
It's vague, yet specific. Basically-It works well.
The real problem is not with the format of the government, it's with the lazy, lame citixenry who take no interest in how they are governed and continue to send the same ass clowns back to Washington, over and over again.
It used to be that people entered political service out of the desire to improve the lives of thier fellow citizens. It was a perceived duty to society.
NOW it's just a way for most lawyers to not do any productive work. I don't like the idea of term limits because there are, occasionally, effective and valued servants of government. Regrettably, they are few and far between-the majority, be they Democrats, Republicans, Independents, or any other party are useless and ineffective at doing anything but mouthing off for the cameras and voting themselves pay raises and benefits that bypass desires of the citizenry.
... the electorical college distorts national voting. All that the elimination of the EC would do is to insure that everyone's vote had the same weight. The EC is a historical artifact to deal with political questions that were important when the country was founded and that are settled today: we are not a confederation of states.
The government is always seen to be terrible by it's citizens. Ben Franklin said "no man's life or property are safe when the legislature is in session". It is corrupt and inefficient because it reflects us. The inefficiency keeps us safe and free. Let us pray that it continues.
Harry
of the electoral votes from a state. This cuts both ways. Take New York state for example. If one candidate defeats the other there by 1.5%, the winner gets all of the electoral votes instead of 51.5% of them. The loser, having polled 48.5% of the vote, gets no electoral votes. The same dynamic applies to small states.
Instead of disenfranchising small states, the proposal would actually give them more proportional power to influence an election, except in cases where a very large state goes overwhelmingly for one candidate (say >70% of the vote). I have not seen any state go overwhelmingly for any candidate in my adult life, that has included elections where the winner won by a landslide or otherwise large margin of electoral votes.
I think population mass are given to great of importance by the electoral system. By your opinion, states such as North Dakota shouldn't have a say in who their President is? They should just shut the fuck up and keep supplying the food for the nation?
I've always seen the "all or nothing" feature of the Electoral College as having two other results, whether intended or not.
1. If I recall, the College was also designed to neutralizs the individual power of states. With all or nothing, a small majority is worth the same as a large majority - thereby mitigating the influence of concentrated pockets of power.
2. Unfortunately, the College also has the unintended effect of marginalizing non-swing states. If you live in a traditionally conservative state, forget ever seeing Kerry in your hometown. If we had proportional representation, candidates would be more motivated to reach out to minorities in inidividual states.
3. The Electoral College, in concert with our congressional system, also has the effect of further marginalizing third party candidates.