Democrats rally to defend electoral college system - Page 5

Lucky Shot · 10-07-2007, 12:49 AM

Because the reason for the Federal Government is that the States have bound together. The Federal Government is determined to be a Republic, not a Democracy and you are indicating to the Electoral College Delegates which way the populous of a State feels towards a president. Remember, you don't vote on every issue that goes to Congress, you vote for people to represent you to vote for you.

Here is Ron Paul's comments on it which I found to be insightful.

Quote:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html

Today’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the Electoral College, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the Electoral College to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The Electoral College threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states – derided as “flyover” country – tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty

Lucky Shot

**leejo** · 10-07-2007, 12:51 AM

The states are involved in the federal elections because the constitution is written that way, dood. What's not to love?

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-07-2007, 01:07 AM

@Lucky Shot

Ron Paul is a nut. I happen to to like that nut but he is still a nut.

"Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty." Yea, whatever. His underwear is showing.

He is basically saying that the large population centers would control the the election of the president. He believes that all those in those centers would vote a certain way. As the article that opened this thread shows many in "liberal" states are actually in the republican camp and vice versa.

I am surprised that he makes these comments. Those comments effectively close the door on third party candidates. Liberty is now controlled by the States instead of the Feds. The individual is left out of this conversation. And he is, at his heart, a libertarian. Shame on him.

**WhiskeySix** · 10-07-2007, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

Remember, you don't vote on every issue that goes to Congress, you vote for people to represent you to vote for you.

Right, and similarly I don't want to vote for every decision the President currently must make. I just want to vote for the President. I view the President's job as implementing the will of the people... the same as a Senator, but with a much larger constituency.

Regarding Ron Paul:

While I fully grasp the concept of 'the tyranny of the majority', I really don't see how that applies to the election of a President.

I also think it's a GOOD thing for the candidates to spend most of their time campaigning where most of the people are. That makes more sense to me than them spending millions and millions of dollars and months upon months of time in Iowa (no offense Iowa).

Lucky Shot · 10-07-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

I also think it's a GOOD thing for the candidates to spend most of their time campaigning where most of the people are. That makes more sense to me than them spending millions and millions of dollars and months upon months of time in Iowa (no offense Iowa).

I understand those sentiments, so what can you do to change this? Press your state representatives to move up the primary (Like my home state did) and to change your state to state to split their delegates votes with respect to how your population votes.

@ Gringo

I certainly don't agree with everything Ron Paul said as I found some of it to be inflammatory but his point about how the Electoral College came to be is right on. The Individual has no direct power within a representative government which is what we are. Personally, I would love to see Senators appointed again by states, term limits, and the federal government to become more hands off on some of it's self-appointed responsibilities.

Lucky Shot

**CingularDuality** · 10-07-2007, 01:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

I also think it's a GOOD thing for the candidates to spend most of their time campaigning where most of the people are. That makes more sense to me than them spending millions and millions of dollars and months upon months of time in Iowa (no offense Iowa).

Think about what you just said. And then follow it to its probable end...

Imagine a country where only San Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta and New York/Jersey were the only cities that received FBI recruits now that the popular vote determines who is elected President. If we can increase the population and decrease (or maintain) the crime rates in the 5 largest population centers, and we can directly attribute it to this man, well, we have ourselves the best President ever, obviously.

Look, bottom line is that Ron Paul is right on this one. Our nation is a collection of individual states. The federal government exists to serve those states, not the other way around. Ignoring the importance (and the rights) of our less populated states is a mistake that the Founding Fathers were wise to address. And it saddens me that there are smart and educated people here that don't care.

**El_Gringo_Grande** · 10-07-2007, 01:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Think about what you just said. And then follow it to its probable end...

Imagine a country where only San Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta and New York/Jersey were the only cities that received FBI recruits now that the popular vote determines who is elected President. If we can increase the population and decrease (or maintain) the crime rates in the 5 largest population centers, and we can directly attribute it to this man, well, we have ourselves the best President ever, obviously.

Look, bottom line is that Ron Paul is right on this one. Our nation is a collection of individual states. The federal government exists to serve those states, not the other way around. Ignoring the importance (and the rights) of our less populated states is a mistake that the Founding Fathers were wise to address. And it saddens me that there are smart and educated people here that don't care.

You are forgetting that there is also the House and the Senate. The members of that branch would still be controlled by the individuals of the states as the state desires. That is the branch that writes the laws and controls the money. How would States be denied the power they desire? How would the states no longer be served by the Fed?

What might happen is we all realize that the Executive should be reigned in a bit. That the Legislative should have a bit more say and the people we put there be able to stand up to the bully pulpit.

President. Elected by true majority vote of the population.

Legislative. Elected however the states decide it should be done. They make this decision to ensure that the Fed will be in support them.

Judicial. A compromise between the Executive and the Legislative. Between the popular majority of the country and the power of the States.

Sounds good to me.

**WhiskeySix** · 10-07-2007, 01:48 AM

Huh? Sorry - I don't follow (either paragraph).

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Think about what you just said. And then follow it to its probable end...

Imagine a country where only San Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta and New York/Jersey were the only cities that received FBI recruits now that the popular vote determines who is elected President.

what? sorry - no idea how FBI recruiting works, or how you were relating that to this topic.

Quote:

If we can increase the population and decrease (or maintain) the crime rates in the 5 largest population centers, and we can directly attribute it to this man, well, we have ourselves the best President ever, obviously.

um. that sounds like a good idea, no? crime = bad, right?

Quote:

Our nation is a collection of individual states. The federal government exists to serve those states, not the other way around. Ignoring the importance (and the rights) of our less populated states is a mistake that the Founding Fathers were wise to address.

edit: agreed - which is why the representative form of government works w/ Senate and House.

For the presidential election though, I don't get it. Why would direct voting ignore the rights and importance of less populated states??? It's already directly proportional to a states population, right? More populous states have more Representatives and thus more EC voters, right? For argument's sake, let's say each Representative in congress represents 100,000 people. Thus each EC vote represents (roughly) the will of 100,000 people. So uh... instead of having this 100,000:1 divider in there, why not just remove the middle man and vote directly?

**CingularDuality** · 10-07-2007, 03:11 AM

Sorry, I guess I didn't expand my FBI theory far enough. Think of how huge the executive branch is. The President, ultimately, decides what happens with all of our fine federal law enforcement agencies. I used the FBI as a simple and remarkable example of the type of resources that could be shifted to only the most important population centers. There would no longer be FBI agents investigating bank robberies in Anchorage, Springfield or Helena, because those cities no longer matter, politically. Instead, politicians (that belong to the two major parties) will concentrate on the major population centers because that's where the votes are. "Flyover country" will grow exponentially until it's determined exactly where political capital is best earned.

So, yeah, no crime in the major metro areas is good, but not at the cost of crime fighting in the less populous areas.

**WhiskeySix** · 10-09-2007, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

Sorry, I guess I didn't expand my FBI theory far enough. Think of how huge the executive branch is. The President, ultimately, decides what happens with all of our fine federal law enforcement agencies. I used the FBI as a simple and remarkable example of the type of resources that could be shifted to only the most important population centers. There would no longer be FBI agents investigating bank robberies in Anchorage, Springfield or Helena, because those cities no longer matter, politically. Instead, politicians (that belong to the two major parties) will concentrate on the major population centers because that's where the votes are. "Flyover country" will grow exponentially until it's determined exactly where political capital is best earned.

So, yeah, no crime in the major metro areas is good, but not at the cost of crime fighting in the less populous areas.

You're obviously using hyperbole here, but I'm still not that concerned about who gets "ignored". I mean, right now there's a set of states that are the "important" ones when it comes to advertising and public appearances. Would things change dramatically if a new set of states were swapped in? If all of a sudden major metro areas (Chicago, NYC, Houston, Atlanta, LA, SF, Philly, etc.) got all the stumping tours and TV ad's, would Des Moines and Manchester turn into cesspools of crime because there's no FBI presence? Would New Mexico suddenly open its border because the President decided INS agents are no longer necessary? Obviously I'm using hyperbole here too - of course none of that would happen.

I'm trying to see how it'd be a bad thing, but I'm just missing it.

**Pokerface** · 10-09-2007, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhiskeySix

For the presidential election though, I don't get it. Why would direct voting ignore the rights and importance of less populated states??? It's already directly proportional to a states population, right? More populous states have more Representatives and thus more EC voters, right? For argument's sake, let's say each Representative in congress represents 100,000 people. Thus each EC vote represents (roughly) the will of 100,000 people. So uh... instead of having this 100,000:1 divider in there, why not just remove the middle man and vote directly?

Aside from the EC vote = the will of the people part, you're right, I think.

In a direct vote, 100,000 votes are 100,000 votes, no matter where they come from. With the EC system in place, 100,000 votes in Montana might get you 3 EC votes, but 100,000 votes in California -- if they're the swing votes -- might be 55 EC votes. Further, if everything goes to one victor, that's a few million wills that aren't getting representation further up the line.

The direct vote IS the will of the people, most certainly, and the EC CAN be, but with the winner-take-all systems in place, it most certainly is not.

xTYBALTx · 10-09-2007, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

The direct vote IS the will of the people, most certainly, and the EC CAN be, but with the winner-take-all systems in place, it most certainly is not.

Isn't that part of the idea?

Morganan · 10-09-2007, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Aside from the EC vote = the will of the people part, you're right, I think.

In a direct vote, 100,000 votes are 100,000 votes, no matter where they come from. With the EC system in place, 100,000 votes in Montana might get you 3 EC votes, but 100,000 votes in California -- if they're the swing votes -- might be 55 EC votes. Further, if everything goes to one victor, that's a few million wills that aren't getting representation further up the line.

The direct vote IS the will of the people, most certainly, and the EC CAN be, but with the winner-take-all systems in place, it most certainly is not.

If you allow for the splitting of the EC vote everywhere, then why have it if indeed it becomes representative of the direct vote? Doesn't that seem like an unneeded layer of complication?

**Pokerface** · 10-09-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xTYBALTx

Isn't that part of the idea?

I wasn't trying to push an agenda (at least... I don't THINK I was); just clarifying W6's position that a popular vote doesn't disenfranchise small-population states.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Morganan

If you allow for the splitting of the EC vote everywhere, then why have it if indeed it becomes representative of the direct vote? Doesn't that seem like an unneeded layer of complication?

Yes, BUT the EC dictates that a clear majority is required to win (more than everyone else combined), whereas a direct vote could have a winner with only a plurality of votes (just more than anyone else), if that's how we chose to set it up.

Outside of that, yeah, I think it could stand to be complication for complication's sake. But (and here's my agenda) I think I'd rather see that than see a swing state try to eke out every last advertising dollar from presidential candidates and remain a 'battleground' (I'm looking at YOU, Colorado).

Beatnik · 10-09-2007, 04:14 PM

The EC introduces error (regardless if it's deliberate error or not) into the measurement of the will of the people. Plain and simple.

We saw it in 2000. And it's happened multiple times before (sorry, too lazy to wiki it ATM). But oddly enough, looking back historically, converting every state to the ratio system that republicans are proposing in CA would have resulted in MORE deviations from the will of the people than the current system, and would have forced the House to decide more elections.

As for Ron Paul, several of his assertions are fallacious. Of course, the abolition of slavery was also against the constitution, until the 13th Amendment, anyway. His argument re: "majority tyranny" seems to be based on the inherent political values of those his disagrees with, and assumes that because we want every vote to count toward president, we believe in "absolute federal power". Hogwash. One man/one vote simply does not necessarily imply "absolute federal power", and in fact requires a great deal of mental gymnastics to even connect the two concepts. And his second-to-last and third-to-last paragraphs at the end there paint the opposition with such a broad brush, using loaded terms such as "hostile to liberty", "staist elites", "omnipotent federal power", and further insinuating that we hatefamilies, individual liberties, and property ownership, that any reasonable amount of scrutiny of his assertion reveals that he's just plain wrong.

His argument rings of futile rhetorical attempts to subvert the will of the (majority of) people who's politics he disagrees with, going so far as to advocate their vote counting less than his in determining the country's leader. Now THAT's what I'd call being hostile to liberty.

If one has to take these extraordinary leaps of reason and logic, not to mention plays to emotion/fear, to defend the current system, then that speaks volumes about the validity of the system.

Of course this is all a moot point, as the current political establishment has far too much invested in this system as it stands.

10-07-2007, 12:51 AM	#62 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Democrats rally to defend electoral college system The states are involved in the federal elections because the constitution is written that way, dood. What's not to love?

10-07-2007, 01:07 AM	#63 (permalink)
El_Gringo_Grande Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: OKIE HOMY Age: 40 Posts: 2,862	Re: Democrats rally to defend electoral college system @Lucky Shot Ron Paul is a nut. I happen to to like that nut but he is still a nut. "Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty." Yea, whatever. His underwear is showing. He is basically saying that the large population centers would control the the election of the president. He believes that all those in those centers would vote a certain way. As the article that opened this thread shows many in "liberal" states are actually in the republican camp and vice versa. I am surprised that he makes these comments. Those comments effectively close the door on third party candidates. Liberty is now controlled by the States instead of the Feds. The individual is left out of this conversation. And he is, at his heart, a libertarian. Shame on him. __________________ I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host. - "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt - "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson - "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta - If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

10-07-2007, 03:11 AM	#69 (permalink)
CingularDuality Join Date: May 2003 Location: Dallas/Ft. Worth area of Texas, USA Age: 33 Posts: 17,140	Re: Democrats rally to defend electoral college system Sorry, I guess I didn't expand my FBI theory far enough. Think of how huge the executive branch is. The President, ultimately, decides what happens with all of our fine federal law enforcement agencies. I used the FBI as a simple and remarkable example of the type of resources that could be shifted to only the most important population centers. There would no longer be FBI agents investigating bank robberies in Anchorage, Springfield or Helena, because those cities no longer matter, politically. Instead, politicians (that belong to the two major parties) will concentrate on the major population centers because that's where the votes are. "Flyover country" will grow exponentially until it's determined exactly where political capital is best earned. So, yeah, no crime in the major metro areas is good, but not at the cost of crime fighting in the less populous areas. __________________ Become a supporting member! Buy a Tactical Duck! Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage." TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links