On Jan 9, 2010, at 9:38 PM, Dave Ketchum wrote:
...
Ludicrous, isn't it?
about as ludi as the Electoral College.
Here I choke. Go back to the years in which it was born. What
better could you have proposed then than electing a committee (the
EC) to look intelligently for qualified candidates to elect as Pres
and VP? To have campaigns such as we have now would have been
impractical. Now civilization has advanced and it would make sense
to move to something new.
i thought that the main concern at the time had to do with decoupling
the effort a government would have to make if there is a close
election from the states where it isn't close. some people claim
that this is *still* a good reason to keep the EC; in the case of a
close election, you need not worry about recounting the whole
country, where the authority at the seat of government would have a
lot of trouble in the outskirts of Georgia or New Hampshire (when
information could travel as fast as horses).
so the decoupled census separately determines congressional
apportionment and, from that the influence of each state on the
presidential election is a function (a pretty simple function that is
meant to reduce the influence of the big states a little). all that
needs to happen is that, on Jan 6, the Congress at the seat of
government must decide if a slate from any particular state is valid
or not, and if so count the electoral votes. (this, BTW, was an
issue in early 2001 when deciding if the Florida slate was valid.
Rep Jesse Jackson and a few other US Reps, objected to the slate but
they couldn't get a single Senator to agree, so the slate was
considered valid.) anyway, by leaving to the states the sole
authority to decide how their electors are chosen, it left the issue
of settling close elections, vote padding, etc. to the states which,
being smaller, could manage such affairs better than the Feds could.
There is no way that some corrupt election judges in some little
state could inflate vote totals and change the outcome of a
presidential election, 6 horse-days away from DC where it would be
hard to check to accept vote totals. with the EC, the vote *totals*
are determined in advance. it's only the breakdown of the electoral
vote that congress has to test for validity and accept (or reject).
it's harder to mess up the counts for the more finite set of
electoral votes.
that's my spin on why the EC happened.
--
r b-j [email protected]
"Imagination is more important than knowledge."
----
Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
