On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Daniel Carrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Rod Engelsman wrote: > >> I think winner take all systems are hugely unfair and undemocratic. >>> >> >> It depends on how much "all" there is to take. If the prize is a single >> seat >> (a representative, for example) then winner-take-all is inevitable. >> > > Well, yes. But you know that I'm talking about the Electoral College. > Having a single guy take all the points from Florida because he got 50.001% > of the popular vote is not fair. Not as unfair as actually getting 49.999% and then having the re-counts stopped by the Federal Supreme Court before the truth could be discovered. > > > On a larger scale, our overall system of governance always was a >> compromise to hammer out a union among a number of inherently unequal >> states. >> > > And that's all fine and good, but the Electoral College does nothing to > further this goal. For example, maybe you want to give extra weight to small > states so they don't get overrun by the big states. A winner take all system > does nothing for that. The only reason why the current system gives more > weight to small states is because small states get more delegates > per-capita. But you can get that without a winner take all system (e.g. like > the Democrat primaries). > But the "more weight" part is the patently undemocratic aspect of it. And it was designed that way not because everybody thought the residents of small states should get more weight, but as a concession to the small states so they would agree to join the union. You also have to remember that originally there was no national presidential election much less national primaries. The electoral college was chosen by the state legislatures (as were the Senators) and they were sent to Washington with no set preference for any particular candidate. So the people didn't decide who would be president, nor even did the state legislatures directly; the EC was supposed to be a group of erudite fellows who would make that decision on our behalf. Things have changed. The Senate is now chosen by popular vote and the EC delegations effectively are as well, but the latter is a choice that has been made by each of the 50 states individually. Officially, the EC is still chosen by the legislatures so it actually would have been entirely legitimate for the Florida legislature in 2000 to have just passed a resolution awarding all their delegates to GW completely bypassing the voters and the courts. Political suicide, but legitimate. > > > > IIRC, Europe >> had every bit as much trouble putting together a confederate system for >> the >> EU, with similar results. >> > > But notice that Europe does not have a winner-take-all system. Except for > when there is only one delegate to choose (e.g. country presidents). > > > Our real undemocratic institutions are the Senate (2 seats per state, >> regardless of size or population) and by extension, the Electoral College. >> > > The European Council of Ministers is one minister per country. So it has > the same problem as the US Senate. This wouldn't be bad if the EU Parliament > had more power. You could argue there are benefits to having two bodies, one > that follows population and one that gives equal weight to everyone, who > have to get along with each other and compromise. > I would actually argue for three -- a Senate as originally chosen by the State \governments and a House of Reps like we have now, plus a Parliament consisting of a set number of seats that are allocated by national political party strength. That would set a place at the table for minority opinions like the Greens and the Libertarians. But it would be almost impossible to pass any legislation if all three bodies plus the President had to sign on. Rod
