Unpopular vote: If you dump the Electoral College

ALBUQUERQUE TRIBUNE ^ | 8-11-2004 | Jeffry Gardner

[Clemenza]

Yeah, show the GORE/BUSH Map and all the downstate Lazio areas are Blue. Lawn Guyland and the other suburban counties voted for Gore, yet supported Loozio just because he had a vowel at the end of his name.

[supercat]

Took me a while to track it down, and a deeply regret that the article is done in pdf, rather than in html. But here's the cite for my article, "Electoral College Reform by the Numbers," which is solid statistically, considering it was done for the American Academy of Actuaries. Here's the addy: http://www.contingencies.org/sepoct01/electoral.pdf If your interested in getting deeply into the subject, you'll like this article.

Interesting proposal, although the wording of the 'contingency' legislation is weak and I don't see how it could be made adequately strong.

The problem is that I don't see any good way of writing the legislation to ensure that the states really act in 'consensus' fashion. Suppose, for example, that states comprising 490 electoral votes pass this election (leaving 48 votes cast by states that don't). A couple of the states that passed such legislation, comprising 5 electoral votes each, balk at splitting their electoral votes because it would throw the election to their non-preferred candidate. They each argue that since [the other state] hasn't accepted the 90% criterion as having been yet met, [the other state] is required to cast its EVs as winner-take-all. Thus, the 90% criterion hasn't been met and so the state must also cast its own vote as winner-take-all.

Things could get very bizarre.

[Congressman Billybob]

"Contingent" legislation is actually rather common in one specific area of the law. There are Uniform Commercial Codes of various types that are proposed by private Commissioners. They have no effect until adopted by state legislatures, and obviously a "uniform" code is no such thing when only a handful of states have acted.

So they write "contingent" legislation that kicks in at a certain time, provided a stated number of states have acted. The trigger date should be 1 January, [Election Year]. The law has to be in place then, since candidates shape their campaigns based on the parameters of election laws. So those laws would be in effect long before anyone knows how the Electoral College votes will shake out.

John / Billybob

[Rastus]

You seem to think those of us who support the electoral college only do so because we like the 2000 outcome. It has nothing to do with that. If Bush beat Kerry in the pop and lost the EC, you wouldn't hear me crying like a little Algore girl. I support the system no matter the outcome.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

I honestly don't follow why you believe our legislative system is proof of a 'tyranny of the majority.' If our legislatures are put there by a majority of the people and vote in accordance with their constituents, they are following the will of the people. I'd rather they follow the will of a majority rather than, say, ten of their old frat buddies. If they don't represent the people who put them there, the people need to vote them out.

Judicial activism is a good example of the tyranny of the minority, which is the only true type of tyranny there is. (Democracy arose in Attic Greece to fight against tyranny, much to Aristophanes' annoyance, who did believe that democracies were a barbarian form of mob rule. In The Knights, he anticipates Alexander Tyler's observations that all democracies are bound to fail economically when the voting populace realizes they can vote themselves gifts from the public coffers.) We certainly need to fix the flaw that allows judicial activism in our system. I believe Robert Bork offers a good solution in "Coercing Virtue."

While I completely agree with you about homeowner associations being a form of tyranny, I classify that as a Constitutional violation of a property-rights issue, and not an electoral issue. That is, I believe that 'majority' has no more right to control what another person does with his property than they have to outlaw his free speech. You won't see the tides turn against HA's until there is a racial or religious discrimination issue that reaches national attention.

As the article puts it, without the Electoral College, the plurality of the vote situated in the cities, which tend to attract leftists, would determine all national elections.

If the leftists had their way and got rid of the EC and instituted pure democracy (replacing our form of government which is not a democracy but a democratic republic), then a plurality of the voters in the major cities could hold referendums for such issues as banning tractors nationwide. This could cause just a bit of heartache in the Midwest. This is just one extreme example of what could happen if the two were combined.

As far as third parties are concerned, I would very much like to see a more conservative party have a fair shot (which means splitting the total votes into thirds....17% just ain't gonna cut it let alone 3 or 4) at winning the presidency. When enough of the voting population supports such a contender, the EC will not eliminate them as a voice, but will give them as equal say as the other two parties. The problem is not the EC, rather that there simply is not a serious third-party contender out there with enough support to put a candidate in the running. What would you like to see, the name of every person who can come up with 10 supporters put on the national ballot? No, then what number, 1000? I'm not being snide, I'm just not sure what percentage of support is reasonable to put someone on a ballot, but I do think it needs to be closer to an even split with the existing number of parties.

Our system helps to thin the field so that national elections don't become so complicated with a hundred micro-parties that the people ignore them. But I agree with your implication that the two parties cooperate to keep out third parties, and I'd like to see that control broken down. But I really don't want to see a hundred parties on every national ballot (and local ballot for that matter). Talk about further fracturing our sense of nationhood! We're having enough problems with unity in this country.

My liberal friend a couple of years ago also supported the idea of proportional representation. According to his scheme, the vote of each minority would count more than a single vote, whatever the "proportion" would be needed to match the majority. He didn't like me pointing out that it was simply a new application of the 3/5 rule from the days of slavery and that it was equally dehumanizing. His scheme also meant that if enough people (again, what number, who knows?) identified themselves as, say, Zoroastrians (no offense to any Zoroastrians out there, I just plucked a name out of the air) and they felt that they were not being represented and wanted to be, then the electorate would be forced to allow them to have their own representative, outside the number of representatives apportioned by the population and districting established by our national census.

My point is that this leftist friend of mine knows the politicians he supports are backed by an UNDERwhelming minority of the voting populace...yet he wants to get them elected. This is the true form of tyranny...an underwhelming percentage of the populace ruling the overwhelming majority.

Until someone comes up with a better idea of sorting out the riffraff from those who a substantial percentage of the people want to be represented by, I'll support the EC.

[smokeyb]

Until someone comes up with a better idea of sorting out the riffraff from those who a substantial percentage of the people want to be represented by, I'll support the EC.

The founding fathers knew what they were doing.

[Blood of Tyrants]

I honestly don't follow why you believe our legislative system is proof of a 'tyranny of the majority.' If our legislatures are put there by a majority of the people and vote in accordance with their constituents, they are following the will of the people.

You make my point for me. Show me where in the Constitution it gives Congress the authority to GIVE the taxpayers money away. Just because Congress gets a majority doesn't make it right yet every year they pass dozens of laws that do not meet constitutional muster. So what if the majority of people support it?

What if the "will of the people" was to kill all blacks? Hey, the majority of people support it, so what is the problem?

What we are rapidly degenerating to is a democracy instead of a Constitutional Republic. The difference is this: A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. A Constitutional Republic is where the sheep is armed and willing to contest the validity of the vote.

Right now in our nation about half of the people pay 97% of the income taxes. We are rapidly moving towards a system of those who pay the taxes and those who are paid off by the taxes. Once the number of people who suck off the system reaches 51%, they will start voting larger and larger chunks of money from the treasury (i.e. the taxpayers) to themselves. But that won't matter to you because it is the will of the people! Right?

Tyranny of a large group of people is still tyranny.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Actually, BoT, you make my point for me.

As I stated, a real tyranny is not of the majority but of the minority ruling the majority.

I agree our representatives (and judiciary, who are appointed by representatives voted in by a majority) are not correctly following the will of the people and are running roughshod over the Constitution. But this is NOT the fault of the EC or our electoral process. And this does not prove the need for overthrowing the will of the majority in favor of a will of the minority.

The constitution is quite clear about the percentage of our representatives required to pass a law. Your example of the 'majority' voting to kill African Americans is argumentum ad absurdum because the Constitution and criminal law forbids it.

Your paraphrase of Franklin's quote is a bit inaccurate (the wolves and sheep). In Franklin's quote it is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote. A minority in this country (led by Barbara Boxer and her ilk) would love to institute a national ban on firearms and begin the door-to-door confiscation.

But your use of his quote explaining democracy proves my point. Because if Democracy is three wolves and two sheep voting on what to have for lunch, in our system (a democratic republic), the minority is protected from the majority because the two sheep and the three wolves EACH get ONE representative. No changes can be made until there is a majority of representatives in agreement. Since it is 1-1, the wolves will not be able to vote to have the sheep for lunch, thus the minority is protected from the majority.

But I do entirely agree with you that we are being financially bled to death by the nicks of a thousand taxes. What we need to do is thump those representatives out of office fast and hard using the electoral process and get people in there who are not going to run as moderate, tax-cutting representatives (as Clinton did) and then tax the hell out of the people once in office.

Essentially my point is this, I understand your argument and your frustration, but I think you're blurring the line between the electoral process (the majority electing representatives) and those representatives not doing what they are supposed to do (represent the majority but in accordance with Constitutional precepts). Let's face it, the majority in this country are for tax cuts across the board. NO politician gets elected promising higher taxes. Yes, these politicians are morally degenerate who promise one thing and then do another. But it's not the system or the majority who is doing what is wrong, it is the representatives individually and collectively. This, in fact, is further proof of the implicit 'tyranny of the minority' in this country. It is those representatives that appeal to the majority by promising tax cuts but then betray their constituents by raising taxes who appeal to the tyranny of the minority, for they raise those taxes in order to buy votes by redistributing the money to select minority groups.

As you correctly stated, we are a Constitutional Republic. The will of the majority is restrained by the Constitution and our laws. We need to put the fear of G-- into anyone who is thinking about running for office that violating the Constitution or the will of the majority will be dealt with swiftly. Should we implement a system of civil and criminal liability for our politicians? That is, jail time for representatives who violate the Constitution or who betray their constituents? I don't know. Maybe. Regardless, the system is fine. We just need to abide by it and to use it to our (the majority's) advantage.

Thanks for the replies. I appreciate the discussion.

[suzyq5558]

Trust me Ghost i agreed with your whole post! I do not wnat to the EC abolished ever. I hope I didnt give you a different idea!

[Blood of Tyrants]

The majority is SUPPOSED to be constrained by the Constitution but in reality we both know that is not so. So far the only "right" that has been found to be absolute is the right of a female to kill her unborn child.

"Shall not be infringed" means absolutely nothing to the Congressmen and their pet judges.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

No, I didn't think that at all!
I just included you (as well as the others) in the reply because I thought you might find it interesting since your post implied an active interest in the issue.

I'm still fairly new at posting replies. Sorry for any confusion!

[suzyq5558]

not a problem. Iam interested in the EC to the extent that there is a segment of the population that appears to be totaly ignorant on how the EC works,i confess I do not understand all the minute details but i understand the overall picture and its a very fair way of picking our President. Hitlery keeps bringing it up to these idiots who do not know and she knows this and I think that if you dont know how these things work you should educate yourself before running your yap. and I loved your post!by the way,more imput and this is a good thing.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Interesting chart.

However, the problem with the "what would have happened under a non-electoral college system" data is that under a different system, the candidates would have campaigned differently, some voters would have stayed home, and other non-voters would have voted.

[dvwjr]

This is not a "non-electoral college system", it is just the Maine-Nebraska district system applied nation-wide. The district system for allocating electors used to be the norm in the early days of the Republic. Sure, it is a 'what-if' look at history, but it shows what would happen in so-called 'noncompetitive' States if the noncompetitive party could wrest a few electoral votes from a State instead of being shut out due to winner-take-all. It is interesting to note that even with the District system, there has not been a split in the electoral votes of either Maine or Nebraska.

Colorado has an non-relevant referendum on the ballot this November to apportion its electoral votes on a whole number proportional basis as of this election. The problem with that is that Congress requires that the rules for selecting electors be in place BEFORE the election. The other problem is that the US Constitution only allows the Legislatures of the several States to determine the method of allocating its electors. That explicit charge may not be transfered to the People of the State of Colorado, it belongs to the Legislature of Colorado only...


dvwjr