Posted on 08/28/2004 11:34:36 PM PDT by Former Military Chick
When Republican delegates nominate their presidential candidate this week, they will be doing it in a city where residents who support George Bush have, for all practical purposes, already been disenfranchised. Barring a tsunami of a sweep, heavily Democratic New York will send its electoral votes to John Kerry and both parties have already written New York off as a surefire blue state. The Electoral College makes Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah, superfluous. It also makes members of the majority party in those states feel less than crucial. It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is equally important - it's winner take all here, and whether Senator Kerry beats the president by one New York vote or one million, he will still walk away with all 31 of the state's electoral votes.
The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.
The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.
The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.
Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.
The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.
Making Votes Count: Editorials in this series remain online at nytimes.com/makingvotescount.
All good points. I would suggest sending a letter to the editor letting them know they printed a falsehood.
But, after posting the following article I am not sure I would use my valuable time to correct a record, that may be just tossed away.
Sad fact is most of the main stream press has given up their freedom to elect Democrats....which doesn't protect our freedom.
"...taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy"
Hmmm...seems the Slimes doesn't know what kind of a government we have - it is, for the benefit of those in NYC and Yorba Linda, a REPUBLIC!
Wanna-be's maybe. Not natives.
The NYT has only supported the Constitution when it believes its agenda can be served thereby. But, when the Constitution gets in the way, then by all means just change it. This is the same NYT that adamantly opposed amending the Constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. And the NYT had no problem with the Supreme Court finding a right to privacy in the Constitution, thus opening the flood gates to abortion.
"So who's going to violate a state's sovereignty and split the state in two? Only the state itself could decide that. But even that wouldn't work: it would encourage EVERY state to infinitely divide and increase their Senate representation"
No, a state could not split itself.
The Constitution, Section. 3, Clause 1 says: "New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress"
Thank you.
Without the electoral college Al GORE would be convincing the terrorists we are not only decadent we are ALSO STUPID AS PRESIDENT...
And how do either of them have ANYthing to do with the electoral college? Ranting and raving about what you don't like in the current constitution is rather nonuseful. Unfortunately for you most people do not share your opinion of the 16th or 17th amendments
"OK class, close but no cigar yet."
Your knowledge of US Constitutional history and how Presidents are elected would be first rate if it were still the summer of 1804. Join me by crossing over that bridge to the 21st century, and feel the power...
Here is what I said in reply #41 to poster Leatherneck_MT:
"Really, it never happened. The electoral college has always picked the President and Vice-President. When there was no majority or a tie, then the House of Representatives, with the States each having ONE vote chooses the President, and the Senate chooses the Vice-President."
Now let's review your points in response...
"First, it must be understood, on Nov 2 you will not be voting for a President, you will vote for an Elector, who will presumably, but not necessarily, vote for your Presidential candidate. Yes, there are state laws requiring Electors to vote as the state vote goes, but that is not Constitutional law. Two cases, one from NC, the other from West Virginia actually got to the Supreme Court, in both instances, SCOTUS ducked and ruled the question moot, in that an overwhelming majority had spoken and would be unaffected by a ruling."
First off, no one was contesting the fact that electors pick the President, what was at issue was what happens in the case where there is no majority in the electoral college after it votes in December. It matters not what the US Supreme Court says on the matter of electors, it is the final judgement of the Congress which determines which electoral votes shall be counted as valid. No other branch of the Federal government has a say over how or why the electors are counted.
Your next points:
"Wise choice by the nine wise robes. Article II, sec 1, if there be a tie, the House of Representatives shall "chuse", and should that come up a tie, "then from the five highest on the List the said House shall shall in like manner chuse the President." In this incredibly unlikely event, votes shall be taken by states, each state having one vote. In that event, the person coming in second shall be Vice-President, save in another lotto odds tie, then, and only then does the Senate chime in to elect the Vice-President."
Excellent information, straight from the Constitution and perfectly valid until June 15th, 1804. You have to keep up with the times...
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 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.
* Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment.
A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.
Now the method you described was actually used once with the Thomas Jefferson/Aaron Burr election of 1800 in the House of Representatives. After 36 ballots, Jefferson was President and Burr was Vice-President. After that election, the 12th Amendment listed above was ratified and became the controlling law for Presidential elections. The next time it was used was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams(6) became President when he won the election in the House of Representatives because of the lack of a majority in the electoral college. The Vice-Presidential winner in that same 1824 election was selected by the electoral college because he had a simple majority. The only time the US Senate has exercised its 12th Amendment responsibilities was in the election of 1836 when the Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate Richard Johnson failed to receive the same electoral majority as did his Presidential running mate, Martin Van Buren. He was elected to the office by a majority vote in the US Senate. So you see, all parts of the 12th Amendment have been exercised by the Congress.
Now to your third point, that of the death of a Presidential candidate between the November election the meeting of the Electoral College in mid December...
"Now, a hypothetical exercise for the class: In Nov. a Republican has been elected by a comfortable margin, no Florida style dispute. Between Nov. and the meeting of the Electoral College in mid Dec. the President-elect dies in a tragic accident. (I am freely cribbing from Jeff Greenfield's underrated book, THE PEOPLE'S CHOICE). The Vice President actually is as dumb as a box of rocks, just to add to the fun. Who is the next President?"
Well, we do know what happens to the electors in the electoral college because it has happened before, just not for the winning candidate. It is not defined in the Constitution or in Federal election law, but the major parties hold the 'whip hand'. The electoral college votes go to other living persons, typically the majority go to whomever the party elders select. In the 1872 presidential election between the two main candidates, the winner Republican Ulysses Grant, the loser Democrat Horace Greeley, had a bit of a glitch. Mr. Greely died on Nov 29, 1872 - that small window in time between the two elections. Now he did not have enough vote to win, but his 66 electoral college votes had to go somewhere in December when the electors met...
42 votes for Thomas Hendricks 18 votes for B. Gratz Brown (the Vice-Presidential candidate) 2 votes for Charles Jenkins 1 vote for David Davis 3 votes for deceased (Greeley) from Georgia (which were not counted by Congress)
Even the House of Representatives of 1873 recognized (unlike Missouri in 2000) that you may not vote the dead into Federal office. The majority of the electors took direction from their party leaders and voted for Thomas Hendricks, who was to become the losing Democrat Vice-Presidential candidate in the presidential elections of 1876.
Glad to get you up to date.
dvwjr
Thank you for updating the thread. I am sending a *ping* for others to read your post #295.
Note: this topic was posted August 29, 2004. Just a little Hillary-related flashback, remember how she joined the bitches' chorus to abolish the E.C. in 2000? Thanks Former Military Chick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
