There are arguments for both sides of the electoral college debate. I
personally think that it does what it was intended to do, namely, try to
distribute power equitably among the states. We have to remember that
the framers of the constitution of the USA intended the federal
government to be more of an arbiter/defender of the constitution + its
citizens and not as a big centralized entity that robs the states of
their power. Hence not only is Congress composed of representatives
based on the population (House) but based on the states (Senate). This
way the States have equal power in the Senate and the people have equal
power in the House. All laws and powers not explicitly stated in the
Constitution are granted to the States, pointing again to the
preeminence of the states in the distribution of power. So the
electoral college is an extension of this thinking. Essentially the
President is running as if he were running for President for each state.
Otherwise the President would be beholden to large groups of voters
such as large cities, unions, wealthy people, etc. Of course this
already happens to some degree, but it would be much worse. When the
President "wins" a state, he gets both the popular votes (House
electrates) and the States votes (Senate electorates) since there are
538 electorates in total, the same number as the number of Senators +
Representatives. What might be an interesting compromise would be to
allow the electorates to be divided based on the proportions of each
candidates' popular votes in each state, as do some states and is
proposed in Colorado. That would make it a bit more tilted toward a
popular vote, but still giving states with small populations the two
electorates based on the Senate representation a wee bit more say in the
election. The problem with this is that it would make each election
alot closer, with the result that there would rarely be a "mandate" as
has been produced by the electoral college in previous years, allowing
the President to push his agenda easier.
rg
Tom C wrote:
William Robb wrote:
All we ask is that you just choose one this time around.
-------------------------------------
I normally don't comment on politics, but I've heard this so many times
over the last four years and have to say:
1. Based on the electoral college, numerous voters are dienfranchised
from the start. In other words, their vote for a president only counts
up to the state level. If a state is 75% for one candidate and 25% for
another, all electoral votes for the state go to the person with 75% of
the vote, meaning the votes of the other 25% essentially don't count
when it comes to choosing the president. Supposedly this helps keep big
states from deciding the election and beating out all the little
states. It leads to the situation where the candidate that wins the
popular vote, might just not get to office.
2. If there is a dispute regarding the outcome of an election, where
else can it be taken but to the courts?
3. If the Supreme Court had not gotten involved there would have been no
resolution at all and one can only wonder if Clinton would still be in
office. What if the court had said, OK Congress you choose the president?
4. If the Supreme Court had ordered new elections then one party or
another would scream "unfair", because you can't count on the same
people showing up/not showing up as last time.
5. If the Supreme Court had come down in favor of the opposing
candidate, then it would be the Republicans crying that the president
was selected, not elected, as the Democrats have been doing since 2000.
6. Indirectly, by virtue of past presidential candidates being elected
and having chosen Supreme Court justices, one could make the case that
the "people" did actually choose one.
Quite farcical actually.
Tom C.
