Dean on Electoral College System: ‘Get Rid of It'

[stephanie]

By John P. Gregg
Valley News Staff Writer
Hanover -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean yesterday said he favors replacing the Electoral College system with a tally whereby American presidents are elected by the popular vote.

“I think it's outlived its usefulness,” Dean said in response to a question on the subject during a talk to a government class at Dartmouth College. “It was an invention for a time 200 years ago. I think that times have changed and we ought to get rid of it, one way or the other.”

The Maryland Legislature last month approved a plan that would direct its 10 electoral votes to be cast for the winner of the national popular vote, rather than the victor in Maryland. The plan, however, would take effect only if states forming a majority of the country's 538 electoral votes followed suit.

Several smaller, rural states have historically voiced support for the present system, which was established in the Constitution, saying it allows them to retain an important role in presidential elections. Presidential campaigns must devote attention to small swing states such as West Virginia or New Hampshire, which has just 4 electoral votes, under the current system. Only two presidents have been elected without winning the popular vote, notably George W. Bush in the bitterly contested 2000 election.

“I'm torn about this because I come from a small state. If it passes, you won't see a lot of presidential candidates out, after the primary season is over, in the small states,” Dean said of moving to a popular vote for president. “But you will see presidential candidates of both parties in Texas and California. And I think you need to do that. Right now, Democrats don't go to Texas, and Republicans don’t go to California. That’s not so good for the country.”

In telephone interviews after Dean's comments, the idea won the backing of two top Democrats in Vermont, where Dean served as governor before running for president in 2004.

Vermont Secretary of State Deb Markowitz said the 2000 election, in which Democrat Al Gore lost despite winning the popular vote, is “problematic for democracy.”

“I'm with Howard Dean in that I think, in this day and age, we really cross state borders, we move from one state to the next, and there's not this same kind of sense that the interests of one state are very different from the interests of others, which the Electoral College was designed to protect,” she said.

“I think it would help democracy, and I'm not worried that it would dilute Vermont's role,” added Senate President Pro Tempore Peter Shumlin, a Putney Democrat.

Across the border in New Hampshire, state Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said he doesn't have strong feelings about the subject but noted that most of the “hue and cry” to abolish the Electoral College system is coming from Democrats.

“I do think that historically the Electoral College is a bit of an anachronism. That being said, I also think it has served our nation well, like so many things our founders set up,” Cullen said.

At the Dartmouth class on comparative politics, Dean fielded about 20 questions during his hour-long appearance.

Dean said:

* He didn't think the New Hampshire primary's influence on presidential politics was being eroded by the front-loading of multiple primaries on Feb. 5, shortly after the Granite State is expected to hold its vote.

“Judging by the number of presidential candidates you've had here, and how often they've come, I don’t think New Hampshire is in any danger of losing its influence. In fact, I think the front-loading movement to Feb. 5 is actually going to increase New Hampshire's influence, because I think the front four states are essentially going to set the tone,” he said.

* Historically, only voters in Oregon and Vermont had been driven at the polls by environmental concerns, but Gore's focus on climate change in the movie An Inconvenient Truth had catalyzed the issue.

“This election is going to be very interesting, because concern over global warming has begun to go to the top echelons of what people worry about,” Dean said.

* The newly elected president of France, conservative Nicolas Sarkozy, would be seen as “a moderate Democrat over here.”

“I'm not joking,” Dean said. “I think we ought to give Sarkozy a chance. The French people have spoken. We don't know a lot about him, but we know he's bright, he’s apparently supportive of America, which is certainly a welcome change from President Chirac, and let’s just see how this works.”

* While he doesn't believe the Second Amendment gives each individual the right to bear arms, he also rejected the notion of national gun control laws.

“I come from a state that doesn't have any gun laws, except that there's no shooting deer from a car -- they don't think that’s fair,” Dean quipped. “My views on guns are that every state is so different, then why not let the people of each state decide how much or how little gun control they want. I don't see how you can have a national gun control law, because one size doesn’t fit all.”

After the class, students said they were pleased to have a new view of Dean.

Evan Nogay, a freshman football player from West Virginia, said he had formed his opinion of Dean as “erratic” from the televised “scream” speech the Vermont Democrat made to supporters after the Iowa caucuses in 2004. “I was incredibly impressed with him in general,” Nogay said of Dean yesterday.

Lisa Baldez, the government professor whose class hosted Dean, said the format had fit well with the course's focus on revolutionary change.

“There was something about the classroom … that kind of allowed him to engage the issues more deeply. He answered 20 questions, and he provided really thoughtful answers. I was really pleased,” Baldez said.

There was one issue, however, that Dean didn't discuss. Though he wasn't asked about the movement to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, which has consumed Vermont activists in recent months, Dean ducked the issue when asked by a reporter as he was leaving.

“I'm not going to comment on that,” Dean said.
http://www.vnews.com/05082007/3970624.htm

[Mr. P]

This guy IS a real IDIOT. Really he is.

[diuretic]

Interesting article. I would have thought a one vote one person for a president would be better in a mature rather than a young nation. Bur just an aside the push in Australia for a republic (we're a constitutional monarchy) foundered on disputes over how the president is to be elected.

[Yurt]

This is a republic. I can't believe he is saying this. As Madison said:


... there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

[Abbey Marie]

Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean

Is he still alive? :laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

Dean's pipe dream.

[diuretic]

This is a republic. I can't believe he is saying this. As Madison said:

Oh that old chestnut about the US not being a democracy. Cobblers. It's a democracy. It's a republic. There is no contradiction.

And Madison would get it were he alive today. I mean give the bloke a break, he wrote that in 1787, democracies - republican and of the constitutional monarchy type - have thrived since then.

[loosecannon]

I fully agree with Dean. The electoral system is not only a dinosaur, but it is antithema to democracy.

Because of the electoral C system there is no constitutional right to a citizens vote being counted at all.

And Madison could not anticipate that a tyranny of political party monopoly would occur instead of a tyranny of the masses.

If popular vote was installed then presidential elections would no longer focus on swing states, but on swing voters in all states at once.

It would be more difficult to rig elections with tightly managed campaigns and smear ads.

[Dilloduck]

I fully agree with Dean. The electoral system is not only a dinosaur, but it is antithema to democracy.

Because of the electoral C system there is no constitutional right to a citizens vote being counted at all.

And Madison could not anticipate that a tyranny of political party monopoly would occur instead of a tyranny of the masses.

If popular vote was installed then presidential elections would no longer focus on swing states, but on swing voters in all states at once.

It would be more difficult to rig elections with tightly managed campaigns and smear ads.

Possibly a reasonable idea IF the federal govt could keep its greedy paws out of powers that are specifically and constitutionally relegated to states. Fat chance of THAT happening.

[MtnBiker]

If popular vote was installed then presidential elections would no longer focus on swing states, but on swing voters in all states at once.


What a joke, presidential elections would not focus on swing votes in individual states they would only focus on getting to most votes per election campaign money dollar. Large urban areas would be the major focus for campaigns, small populated states would go mostly ignored.

Its all a moot point anyway there is not enough states that would vote to change the constitution and the electoral college.

[loosecannon]

What a joke, presidential elections would not focus on swing votes in individual states they would only focus on getting to most votes per election campaign money dollar. Large urban areas would be the major focus for campaigns, small populated states would go mostly ignored.

Its all a moot point anyway there is not enough states that would vote to change the constitution and the electoral college.

You are clearly entitled to your POV, but I disagree on both counts.

The biggest bang for the buck in tightly managed campaigns has been to focus on swing voters in the key swing states that could tip an electoral victory.

THAT has removed most states from being active.

But with the popular vote as the yardstick then all swing voters in every state would necesarily become the targets of the campaign.

I suspect that the states would almost all vote for reform. The hold outs would likely be NY, CA, FL, TX, and maybe OH. But all the rest would be served by reforming the system.

[avatar4321]

You are clearly entitled to your POV, but I disagree on both counts.

The biggest bang for the buck in tightly managed campaigns has been to focus on swing voters in the key swing states that could tip an electoral victory.

THAT has removed most states from being active.

But with the popular vote as the yardstick then all swing voters in every state would necesarily become the targets of the campaign.

I suspect that the states would almost all vote for reform. The hold outs would likely be NY, CA, FL, TX, and maybe OH. But all the rest would be served by reforming the system.

There is more swing states than ever. How can you possibly say that this system removes states from being active?

No the states that are going to be the biggest hold out are the small states who would get absolutely no say if the electoral college is abolished. States like California would embrace it quickly because it would give them significantly more power.

but then we dont really want a democracy anyway. Im quite happy as a Republic because Democracies dont last long.

[Hobbit]

Oh that old chestnut about the US not being a democracy. Cobblers. It's a democracy. It's a republic. There is no contradiction.

And Madison would get it were he alive today. I mean give the bloke a break, he wrote that in 1787, democracies - republican and of the constitutional monarchy type - have thrived since then.

No, this is a republic, not a democracy. You can't be both.

[diuretic]

No, this is a republic, not a democracy. You can't be both.

I beg to differ and you know if it's okay with you (without getting into a keyboard fight) I'd like to explain my view and see how it stacks up. I'll explain my reasoning first because I think it's only right I explain what I meant.

I have this idea that democracy is a condition. I always thought the US was a liberal representative democracy. You elect your reps and off they go to represent you in DC. And here where I live, I vote, we elect our reps and off they go to Canberra. Just like you do.

But where we have a monarch and a bi-cameral parliament, you have a president and a bi-cameral Congress.

So why isn't the US a liberal democracy with the form of republic?

[Pale Rider]

I beg to differ and you know if it's okay with you (without getting into a keyboard fight) I'd like to explain my view and see how it stacks up. I'll explain my reasoning first because I think it's only right I explain what I meant.

I have this idea that democracy is a condition. I always thought the US was a liberal representative democracy. You elect your reps and off they go to represent you in DC. And here where I live, I vote, we elect our reps and off they go to Canberra. Just like you do.

But where we have a monarch and a bi-cameral parliament, you have a president and a bi-cameral Congress.

So why isn't the US a liberal democracy with the form of republic?

Our Pledge of Alliegence goes like this... "and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands". Our Pledge of Alliegence does NOT go... "and to the DEMOCRACY, for which it stands".

So you see, we ARE a Republic, and your arguements of bi-whatever are moot.

[Hobbit]

I beg to differ and you know if it's okay with you (without getting into a keyboard fight) I'd like to explain my view and see how it stacks up. I'll explain my reasoning first because I think it's only right I explain what I meant.

I have this idea that democracy is a condition. I always thought the US was a liberal representative democracy. You elect your reps and off they go to represent you in DC. And here where I live, I vote, we elect our reps and off they go to Canberra. Just like you do.

But where we have a monarch and a bi-cameral parliament, you have a president and a bi-cameral Congress.

So why isn't the US a liberal democracy with the form of republic?

What you have described is a republic. In a democracy, each individual allowed to vote has the same voting power on every scale, whereas, in a republic, the minority voters are given a small measure of additional power to prevent mob rule. Also, ours is a constitutional republic, meaning that no part of the republic may override the Constitution without first changing it (though that hasn't stopped them so far). These checks are inteded to keep us from descending into mob rule. If this was a democracy, there would be no electoral college. There would be no senate. The president would have no veto power. The majority would get whatever it wanted, which typically means that whichever group could form the majority would just vote for itself to get benefits at the cost of the minority (tax the rich and give to the poor, anybody?), and that is why we're a republic instead of a democracy, though far too many people attempt to use those terms interchangably.

[TheStripey1]

By John P. Gregg
Valley News Staff Writer
Hanover -- Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean yesterday said he favors replacing the Electoral College system with a tally whereby American presidents are elected by the popular vote.

...snip

http://www.vnews.com/05082007/3970624.htm

I agree. One man one vote... one woman one vote... I've often wondered why we still have the electoral college.

Any idea, steffy?

[TheStripey1]

This guy IS a real IDIOT. Really he is.

just because you don't like him, P, doesn't make him an idiot...

Is there some part of one man one vote you don't like? which part?

[TheStripey1]

1) There is more swing states than ever. How can you possibly say that this system removes states from being active?

2) No the states that are going to be the biggest hold out are the small states who would get absolutely no say if the electoral college is abolished. States like California would embrace it quickly because it would give them significantly more power.

3) but then we dont really want a democracy anyway. Im quite happy as a Republic because Democracies dont last long.


1) If all there was was the popular vote, there wouldn't BE state totals... it would be ONE total... just like in Iraq... if it's good for Iraq, why isn't it good for the country that brought them democracy?

2) see 1

3) Then why did we create one in Iraq?

[Yurt]

A true democracy would not protect the rights of an individual, because the rule of the majority would always win. With a republic, like the US, the rights of the individual are protected, vis a vis, the Constitution. As I think was mentioned in a post above, individual rights are further protected by a checks and balance type of government. Thus, if the "mob" (as was stated earlier) was to vote the president in by [mob] vote, then because the majority spoke, thats it.

Wait you say, what about the congress and senate and the supreme court. We can leave the SCOTUS out this for now, and look just at congress and the senate. A true democracy could not have a senate. Why? Because each state gets two. Could not even have an assembly because, the majority of the populace would not be voting. It would be a "majority" of the region the congressmen represented, thus not a true representation of the whole.

[diuretic]

Our Pledge of Alliegence goes like this... "and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands". Our Pledge of Alliegence does NOT go... "and to the DEMOCRACY, for which it stands".

So you see, we ARE a Republic, and your arguements of bi-whatever are moot.

As I said, you have republican form of democratic government.

[diuretic]

What you have described is a republic. In a democracy, each individual allowed to vote has the same voting power on every scale, whereas, in a republic, the minority voters are given a small measure of additional power to prevent mob rule. Also, ours is a constitutional republic, meaning that no part of the republic may override the Constitution without first changing it (though that hasn't stopped them so far). These checks are inteded to keep us from descending into mob rule. If this was a democracy, there would be no electoral college. There would be no senate. The president would have no veto power. The majority would get whatever it wanted, which typically means that whichever group could form the majority would just vote for itself to get benefits at the cost of the minority (tax the rich and give to the poor, anybody?), and that is why we're a republic instead of a democracy, though far too many people attempt to use those terms interchangably.

I think you've confused the system of representation with the nature of government. I contend that the electoral college is merely another means of achieving indirect representation, ie it's a democracy. The form is republican. Republican being not a monarchy. You have no monarch, you have a president.

The UK has an elected lower house of parliament. It has an unelected upper house of parliament. It has a monarch. It is a constitutional monarchy which has indirect representation. It's a democracy.

Australia has an elected lower house of parliament. It has an elected senate but each senator is elected on a quota of votes. It has as monarch. It is a constitutional monarchy which has indirect representation. It's a democracy.

Where does the US differ and why is it not a democracy?

[MtnBiker]

I agree. One man one vote... one woman one vote... I've often wondered why we still have the electoral college.

Any idea, steffy?

Yes, here is why!



Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.


The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.



Amendment XII
The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

[diuretic]

A true democracy would not protect the rights of an individual, because the rule of the majority would always win. With a republic, like the US, the rights of the individual are protected, vis a vis, the Constitution. As I think was mentioned in a post above, individual rights are further protected by a checks and balance type of government. Thus, if the "mob" (as was stated earlier) was to vote the president in by [mob] vote, then because the majority spoke, thats it.

Democracy protects the rights of the individual and takes into account the minority views. That's what liberal democracies are about.




Wait you say, what about the congress and senate and the supreme court. We can leave the SCOTUS out this for now, and look just at congress and the senate. A true democracy could not have a senate. Why? Because each state gets two. Could not even have an assembly because, the majority of the populace would not be voting. It would be a "majority" of the region the congressmen represented, thus not a true representation of the whole.

Because the US is a federation of states, then states' rights are considered. That's what the senate is for. We pinched that idea when our colonies and province were discussing federation.

[Yurt]

As I said, you have republican form of democratic government.

I don't think you are understanding the true definitions of the forms of government. If you did, you would see this can't be.

[Yurt]

=diuretic;55517]Democracy protects the rights of the individual and takes into account the minority views. That's what liberal democracies are about.

Could you please define what a true democracy is.



Because the US is a federation of states, then states' rights are considered. That's what the senate is for. We pinched that idea when our colonies and province were discussing federation.

But this is what makes a republic, not a democracy where the majority rules, period. Is that not what is being advocated by the "popular" vote crowd? The mob rules? Regardless of the individual. Explain to me now, in a democracy, and individuals rights are protected.

[MtnBiker]

Walter E Williams says it very well;


Are We A Republic Or A Democracy?
by Walter E. Williams



We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.
The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.


Walter E. Williams
c2-05
January 3, 2005


http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/republic.html

[Kathianne]

Walter E Williams says it very well;



http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/republic.html

Agreed. The Framers recognized, as did the Greeks, that a democracy could only work in a very small, homogenous area. Even with 13 colonies, the new nation did not meet the criteria. So the slammed together, the best of Greece and the Roman Republic. Did a mighty fine job of it too, for over 200 years.

The next 50 or so, well they are more than less up for grabs.

In 2007, like prior to this point, we are a Republic.

[loosecannon]

But this is what makes a republic, not a democracy where the majority rules, period. Is that not what is being advocated by the "popular" vote crowd? The mob rules? Regardless of the individual. Explain to me now, in a democracy, and individuals rights are protected.

This is quite easy if you can follow the bouncing ball:

The discussion is about whether a president will be elected by a one man/one vote election rather than an electoral system.

If the pres is elected by a one man/one vote system he represents the people. Thus we have a republic. But he is also elected by the public which makes it a represenative democracy.

NOT AT ALL DIFF than it is today except that the votes of the people actually count.

Now you can not subscribe to statements like this:


government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish..... if you oppose one man/one vote.

Slam dunk. Game, set, match.

[MtnBiker]

No one need oppose one man/one vote, that is not the legal manner which elects the President to our Republic.

[loosecannon]

No one need oppose one man/one vote, that is not the legal manner which elects the President to our Republic.

Exactly. One man/no vote is our system.

$1/one vote is how America elects it's representatives.

[MtnBiker]

That is not how the President is elected. The thread is about the electoral college. The electoral college elects the President.

[loosecannon]

That is not how the President is elected. The thread is about the electoral college. The electoral college elects the President.

NO, false. The thread is about an ALTERNATIVE to the present system.

As in one man/one vote; no electoral college.

[Psychoblues]

They close the liquor stores in Tennessee on voting day for exactly that reason, lc. I wonder how many other states employ the same analogy?


Exactly. One man/no vote is our system.

$1/one vote is how America elects it's representatives.

I am dumbfounded!!!!!!!:laugh2: :laugh2: :laugh2:

[MtnBiker]

NO, false. The thread is about an ALTERNATIVE to the present system.

As in one man/one vote; no electoral college.

Well that would make the alternative in the opposition.

I love seeing you guys get all bothered by the subject. The electoral college will continue to be the system. Two thirds of the state will not admend the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college.

[Yurt]

This is quite easy if you can follow the bouncing ball:

The discussion is about whether a president will be elected by a one man/one vote election rather than an electoral system.

If the pres is elected by a one man/one vote system he represents the people. Thus we have a republic. But he is also elected by the public which makes it a represenative democracy.

NOT AT ALL DIFF than it is today except that the votes of the people actually count.

Now you can not subscribe to statements like this:

if you oppose one man/one vote.

Slam dunk. Game, set, match.

If I say I am right, surely the echo in my head means I am right...

:lame2:

[Yurt]

Well that would make the alternative in the opposition.

I love seeing you guys get all bothered by the subject. The electoral college will continue to be the system. Two thirds of the state will not admend the Constitution to eliminate the electoral college.

Its because he is ruled by mob mentality, which is why we have a republic. Too keep the loosecannons of the world balanced and CHECKED.

[loosecannon]

Well that would make the alternative in the opposition.

Yes in the opposition to one person/no vote.

Why do you oppose one person/one vote?

[Yurt]

deleted for now

Finally some commonsense.... :clap:

[loosecannon]

If I say I am right, surely the echo in my head means I am right...

:lame2:

but you are never right (yet).

Prove me wrong.

[Yurt]

but you are never right (yet).

Prove me wrong.

I know you are, but what am I...

[diuretic]

I don't think you are understanding the true definitions of the forms of government. If you did, you would see this can't be.

No problems, I'm open to being shown I'm wrrr..wrrrrr...wrrrrrooooo..

In error.

[diuretic]

Could you please define what a true democracy is.




But this is what makes a republic, not a democracy where the majority rules, period. Is that not what is being advocated by the "popular" vote crowd? The mob rules? Regardless of the individual. Explain to me now, in a democracy, and individuals rights are protected.

I'm trying to argue that the two aren't contradictory, that they are complementary. Doesn't a majority rule in the US?

[diuretic]

Sorry I'm stuffing up this thread and I really don't want to tell Americans how to elect their president so if anyone is interested I can always start a thread on the republic/democracy argument but if no-one gives a rat's then I'll leave it here and bow out of this thread to avoid thread-warp.

[stephanie]

Sorry I'm stuffing up this thread and I really don't want to tell Americans how to elect their president so if anyone is interested I can always start a thread on the republic/democracy argument but if no-one gives a rat's then I'll leave it here and bow out of this thread to avoid thread-warp.

:poke:

:slap:

:laugh2:

Just Kidding..........

[MtnBiker]

Why do you oppose one person/one vote?

Quite simple, I do not have to oppose it or even think about it. Supporting the constitution is all that needs to be done.

[diuretic]

:poke:

:slap:

:laugh2:

Just Kidding..........

Thanks stephanie! At last!!

I got a slap! My favourite smilie!! :D

Just checking back in, not getting into the blue of course.....:coffee:

Going to shut up now.....well, about the topic.....as I said I would......;)

[No1tovote4]

I'm trying to argue that the two aren't contradictory, that they are complementary. Doesn't a majority rule in the US?

No, that is what a Republic is all about. Also, the minority is protected from the tyranny of the majority by the constitutional limitations put into the system. Hence, a person like me who is a member of a minority religion has no problems whatsoever in a society where far more than the majority hold a similar belief system.

[loosecannon]

Quite simple, I do not have to oppose it or even think about it. Supporting the constitution is all that needs to be done.

But the constitution itself provides the means and therefore the implied justification for amending it's statutes. It remands the elections to the states to conduct as they wish limited now only by the responsibility to not discriminate between voters rights based on sex, creed, race etc, and that recounts must be conducted on a universal platform across a state.

So supporting Marylands choice, or any states choice to abolish the electoral college is not at odds with supporting the constitution.

Given the choice to oppose the electoral college granted via the constitution why do you not support one man/one vote?

[MtnBiker]

I'll try this again.

Walter E Williams says it very well;


Are We A Republic Or A Democracy?
by Walter E. Williams



We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.
Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos." In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.
The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.

Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.


Walter E. Williams
c2-05
January 3, 2005


http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/republic.html

[No1tovote4]

But the constitution itself provides the means and therefore the implied justification for amending it's statutes. It remands the elections to the states to conduct as they wish limited now only by the responsibility to not discriminate between voters rights based on sex, creed, race etc, and that recounts must be conducted on a universal platform across a state.

So supporting Marylands choice, or any states choice to abolish the electoral college is not at odds with supporting the constitution.

Given the choice to oppose the electoral college granted via the constitution why do you not support one man/one vote?

'One man/one vote' (misnomer here, I'll get into that later), in this case being overturning the validity of the Electoral College, is simply justification for the tyranny of the majority. Do those who live in NYC and California have a right to dictate the laws to every other state who may believe differently because of higher population counts?

The Founders rejected rule of the majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy.

The Electoral College, in practice, gives a little more electoral power to racial minorities, such as blacks and Hispanics, and thus is important in helping to achieve racial justice. Because these minorities tend to live in the large cities of the bigger states, their votes are important in tilting all the electoral votes of their state, thus encouraging candidates of both parties to appeal for their votes, and those who might have never been heard are thus granted a more powerful voice in their government.

Also, only counting popular vote would cause some states to change their laws to effect the vote count and thus giving them a higher count, let's say change the voting age to 14 so that they can have a greater impact on the Presidential election. It also would change the actions of the candidates. We'll take Bush against Gore for example. No reason to campaign at all in California, he could focus on Texas for a larger majority there as each vote for Bush in Texas would cancel a vote for Kerry/Gore in California. Instead of giving him reason to learn issues that effect the different states, a candidate could solely campaign regionally and ignore the very different problems of states outside of that base of support.

As for the 'One man, One vote' misnomer. Each person gets a vote in their election, it is already 'One man, One vote'.

[loosecannon]

'One man/one vote' (misnomer here, I'll get into that later), in this case being overturning the validity of the Electoral College, is simply justification for the tyranny of the majority. Do those who live in NYC and California have a right to dictate the laws to every other state who may believe differently because of higher population counts?

The Founders rejected rule of the majority because plebiscites historically have been the tool of dictatorships, not democracy.

The Electoral College, in practice, gives a little more electoral power to racial minorities, such as blacks and Hispanics, and thus is important in helping to achieve racial justice. Because these minorities tend to live in the large cities of the bigger states, their votes are important in tilting all the electoral votes of their state, thus encouraging candidates of both parties to appeal for their votes, and those who might have never been heard are thus granted a more powerful voice in their government.

Also, only counting popular vote would cause some states to change their laws to effect the vote count and thus giving them a higher count, let's say change the voting age to 14 so that they can have a greater impact on the Presidential election. It also would change the actions of the candidates. We'll take Bush against Gore for example. No reason to campaign at all in California, he could focus on Texas for a larger majority there as each vote for Bush in Texas would cancel a vote for Kerry/Gore in California. Instead of giving him reason to learn issues that effect the different states, a candidate could solely campaign regionally and ignore the very different problems of states outside of that base of support.

As for the 'One man, One vote' misnomer. Each person gets a vote in their election, it is already 'One man, One vote'.

I find no rational reason to believe that the states changing their laws the way Maryland has will

>disempower small states
>encourage lowering the voting age
>encourage a tyranny of the masses anywhere near as effectively as the two party system is already imposing a tyranny of the majority.

And one man/one vote is not a misnomer. There is no federal guarantee that ANY individual votes will counted toward presidential candidates.

Adopting a popular vote system guarantees that EVERY vote will counted toward the candidate of the voters choice (+/- elections errors).

[No1tovote4]

I find no rational reason to believe that the states changing their laws the way Maryland has will

>disempower small states
>encourage lowering the voting age
>encourage a tyranny of the masses anywhere near as effectively as the two party system is already imposing a tyranny of the majority.

And one man/one vote is not a misnomer. There is no federal guarantee that ANY individual votes will counted toward presidential candidates.

Adopting a popular vote system guarantees that EVERY vote will counted toward the candidate of the voters choice (+/- elections errors).

That would be incorrect, in rulings of the SCOTUS it has been clearly indicated that votes will be counted toward their election. Each person gets one vote whomever wins that election gets the vote of the electors of that state as they have chosen to reflect them. In Maryland, they may choose to limit their effectiveness by splitting the vote to match percentages. I prefer a system where the winner gets the votes of the state so that I can be reasonably assured that regional voters of greater population centers do not dictate to me for the rest of my life.

Anyway, your "no reason to believe" is just as good as my reasonable extrapolation from what I know to be human nature. You may advocate it, but I have reason behind my desire to see you fail.

[MtnBiker]

Maryland still only has 10 electoral votes.

[MtnBiker]

I prefer a system where the winner gets the votes of the state so that I can be reasonably assured that regional voters of greater population centers do not dictate to me for the rest of my life.



Good point.

[loosecannon]

Good point.

How so? How would urban centers have more pull if the votes were popular instead of electoral?

Unless you are speaking about the states with miniscule populations it makes no diff. Even then it could work for or against the small states to use a popular vote.

[MtnBiker]

A catogram based on population for the 2004 presidential election

http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/statecartredblue.png

This cartogram looks very similar to the one above it, but it is not identical. Wyoming, for instance, has approximately doubled in size, precisely because of the bias in favor of small states.
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/election/statecartcollege.png

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

[loosecannon]

Mt Biker. Really, so what.

Since electoral votes are apportioned according to blocks of population and each state has at least 3 electors it is impossible for a state to gain or lose more than 33% of it's pull via the electoral college vs popular vote methodology.

And statistically there will probably be an equal number of small states that lose clout BECAUSE of the electoral college system as who gain clout because of it.

BUT a popular vote will be more fair to every state in the nation in weighting that state with a fair share of clout since it will be fair right down to single digits at last census.

[MtnBiker]

BUT a popular vote will be more fair to every state in the nation in weighting that state with a fair share of clout since it will be fair right down to single digits at last census.

No it would not.