[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: RE: Republican Lies
On Mon, 27 Nov 2000 [email protected] wrote:
> In its modern context the electoral college has interesting
> political implications. If you look at the now famous
> map of the US colored by the winner of the county, Bush vs.
> Gore, it shows exactly why the framers wanted the electoral
> college.
>
> Remember that when they wrote the Constitution, the framers
> were concered about creating as many checks of power as possible.
>
> What that means now is that smaller states have a greater voice
> than they would with a popular vote. But, moreover, it removes
> the possibility that a candidate could win New York, Florida,
> California, and most major urban areas and be elected President.
>
> Now it may be a fight between major suburban centers and the heartland.
>
> Everyone who rallies for the demolition of the electoral college
> should evaluate the real implications of that opinion. Next,
> you need to study the requirements to ammending the Constitution.
> Even if this was realistic with a Congressional vote, I doubt
> many of those smaller states would reliquish their power.
>
> After all of that is said and done . . . do you really want a
> government system where all decisions are made by people who
> live in major population centers and forget the voices in
> America's heartland?
Bingo! You just nailed it. The primary reason for the electorial college was
to limit the power of factions or regions of the country and keep them from
dominating the rest. See the 10th Federalist Paper by James Madison. If you
take out New York and California, Bush wins the popular vote by over 2 million
votes. Most of the Gore votes in those states are localized to a few urban
areas (New York City, San Francisco/Oakland area, and LA- all heavy
democrat/liberal regions and densly populated). Some other reasons listed
below are valid as well.
> Levien de Braal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hello all,
>
> "Scott Weikert" wrote:
> >I've always found the electoral college system to be flawed... why should
> >one candidate or the other get ALL the votes for a particular state when
> >they may barely get a real majority? I'd prefer seeing state votes divvied
> >up by district... it'd be more accurate. Or (perish the thought!) go with
> >a popular vote system...!
>
> The system of a popular vote was actually considered initially, but preference
> was given to the current electoral college system. There are several reasons
> for this:
>
> 1) It specifically recognizes the power of the States. After all the US is a
> Republic of States, not a Democracy of People. I know the preamble to the
> constitution sounds like it's a "power to the people" document, but in
> reality it comes down to limiting the power of the Federal government in
> favor of the States (and, so the theory goes, hence the people of those
> States...)
>
> 2) When the time arrived for individual States to join the Union, the smaller
> States needed extra incentive to join. They were particularly worried that
> they would be overpowered by larger and more populous States. Instead of
> giving small States an advantage by counting the votes there as having more
> weight, the electoral system masks this advantage somewhat. There's still
> about a factor four difference for the number of votes per Electoral
> College member between small and large states.
>
> A popular vote system has its own troubles, BTW. Imagine a nationwide
> difference of a few hundred votes. What then, recount the whole country?
> At least the mess is now limited to one State, and because Bush opted to not
> ask for a recount (well, ok, he did get a recount in Republican counties, and
> he is asking for a recount of some of the overseas ballots) it's actually
> limited to four counties. Two of those (Valusia and Broward) are handled, so
> there's now only two left: Palm Beach and Miami-Dade. That simplifies things
> a lot. Also keep in mind that if Bush and Harris hadn't been opposing,
> obstructing, and even halting the recounts over and over, those two counties
> whould've been finished already and there'd be a lot less to argue over.
>
> Yes, a national vote has its advantages, but there are bigger things to
> consider than that. I personally think that the Congressional District system
> (as compared to the system of national party slates) causes much more
> misschief. It really supports a two-party system that thrives on confrontation
> and a 'big winner' instead of representation, negatiation, and cooperation.
>
-- mikeh
,,,,,
(o o)
------------------------------oOO---(_)---OOo------------------------------
| Mike Harrelson: Software Systems Engineer - Georgia State University |
|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
| <>< Email: [email protected] http://gcedunet.peachnet.edu/~mikeh |
| "Life is like a mirror. If you smile at it, it smiles back at you. But |
| if you frown, it will frown too, and give you a hard time" -Jimmie Dodd |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------