Democracy and the Electoral College System

01/09/2008 03:46:48 PM · #1

a discussion continuing from the "Who will be the next president" thread on what the electoral college system is and how it represents (or doesn't represent) democracy.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/09/2008 03:48:38 PM · #2

Good call.

Brief discussion of the "danger of democracy": //www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=5544

R.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/09/2008 03:49:20 PM · #3

From the other thread, for comparison.

Originally posted by frisca:

In basic terms, Canada uses a constituency system both provincially and federally, where each province is cut up into small areas, and each small area runs a candidate from at least two, usually 4 or 5 parties. The people in that area vote for the person they like best.

Each of those people then gets a spot in the house of commons. The party with the most elected members forms the government, the second most form the official opposition. I quite like the system as it allows at least two parties, often three parties, to have a voice in the house of commons and a vote on all issues, whether or not they form the majority (or minority as we have now) government.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/09/2008 03:52:10 PM · #4

Originally posted by Louis:

From the other thread, for comparison.

Originally posted by frisca:
In basic terms, Canada uses a constituency system both provincially and federally, where each province is cut up into small areas, and each small area runs a candidate from at least two, usually 4 or 5 parties. The people in that area vote for the person they like best.

Each of those people then gets a spot in the house of commons. The party with the most elected members forms the government, the second most form the official opposition. I quite like the system as it allows at least two parties, often three parties, to have a voice in the house of commons and a vote on all issues, whether or not they form the majority (or minority as we have now) government.

Of course, its a good measure of political wrangling when deciding how many members (or "seats") each province gets, and sometimes a large province with a great population can dominate if they have a lot of seats, so there is a lot of wrestling with making things fair, giving smaller provinces more seats, or sometimes giving a large province like Quebec more seats so they will feel they can have a great voice in the government and thereby not try to secede from the country!

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/09/2008 03:55:35 PM · #5

from the other thread:

Originally posted by "Bear Music":

The Republican model we are working with, and the Electoral College, are reasonably faithful to that original model of democracy; consensus is arrived at on a local level, and representatives represent that consensus at the state and national level. As far as consensus-building goes, this country is far too large and diverse for it to work on a national level.

There is no consensus on a local level. People don't gather on a local level about politics. People in the same neighborhood don't talk to each other about anything. The "consensus building", aka propaganda and advertisements, occurs on a national level. The electoral college is just away for the two leading parties to manipulate votes and voters. It made it possible for Dubya to steal one election (the second election he would have stolen even without the electoral college).

Spork99

OM System OM-1

01/09/2008 03:58:07 PM · #6

The Electoral college is just gerrymandering for the presidency.

01/09/2008 03:58:12 PM · #7

Originally posted by posthumous:

from the other thread:

Originally posted by "Bear Music":
The Republican model we are working with, and the Electoral College, are reasonably faithful to that original model of democracy; consensus is arrived at on a local level, and representatives represent that consensus at the state and national level. As far as consensus-building goes, this country is far too large and diverse for it to work on a national level.

There is no consensus on a local level. People don't gather on a local level about politics. People in the same neighborhood don't talk to each other about anything. The "consensus building", aka propaganda and advertisements, occurs on a national level. The electoral college is just away for the two leading parties to manipulate votes and voters. It made it possible for Dubya to steal one election (the second election he would have stolen even without the electoral college).

Yes, this is our REALITY. I am discussing THEORY; this is what was intended by the Founders. The current state of affairs is despicable, but it is not the fault of the Electoral College. That the College is manipulated by savvy pols is neither here nor there, because they will manipulate whatever system they are given to work with.

R.

01/09/2008 03:58:40 PM · #8

How is local representation maintained? Here in Canada we have our elected member who must live in the constituency she represents and thereby (its is hoped) she is alive to the issues in her constituency and will voice the concerns of her people in the House.

01/09/2008 03:59:45 PM · #9

Originally posted by frisca:

In theory that's what we have too, with our Senators and, especially, our congressmen.

R.

01/09/2008 04:01:34 PM · #10

canadian senators are largely decorative -- I don't think of them as doing much for the people except they are a bit like the house of lords, they speak when they must.

I guess that isn't the case for US Senators, who are elected? Ours are appointed.

How does the GOVERNMENT represent the people? How is the election of senators and congressmen done?

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/09/2008 04:05:28 PM · #11

From the previous thread

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by LoudDog:
If it were winner take all, no one would care about anything outside of Calif, Texas, Florida and NY. Smaller states like Vermont, Rhode Island, Wyoming and about 30 others would be greatly ignored.

Precisely the point.

R.

Maybe I'm late to the conversation, but the Electoral College IS winner take all. If a candidate wins 50% + 1 vote in that state's general election, all the state's Electors go for that candidate.

That's not strictly true. some states do it that way, some assign their electors based on % of votes received. It's up to each state to decide how to assign its electors.

R.

Only Maine and Nebraska assign their Electors on %, the rest of 48 states it's winner take all.

posthumous

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

01/09/2008 04:07:33 PM · #12

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I think it is here and there, because if you accept the reality you can try to design a system that is harder to manipulate. Unfortunately, it's the same pols who write the laws.

I also can't help but notice that a lot of things that are designed to help the "republic", such as the electoral college and the Senate and voting districts, also serve to lessen the influence of voters in major cities, where people have more contact with different viewpoints and are therefore more left-leaning and progressive.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/09/2008 04:12:17 PM · #13

Originally posted by frisca:

How is local representation maintained? Here in Canada we have our elected member who must live in the constituency she represents...

Is that hard and fast though? What about John Tory running in Don Valley West in the Ontario election in 2007? I now he had a childhood home there, but I wonder if he actually lives there currently.

01/09/2008 04:15:09 PM · #14

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by frisca:
How is local representation maintained? Here in Canada we have our elected member who must live in the constituency she represents...

Is that hard and fast though? What about John Tory running in Don Valley West in the Ontario election in 2007? I now he had a childhood home there, but I wonder if he actually lives there currently.

We had the same issue with Bush Sr. when he was president. He maintained an address in Houston, but really lived Maine.

We did live in Houston early in his political career and now maintains a winter home here.

01/09/2008 04:16:23 PM · #15

Decent Wikipedia article for background purposes

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College

01/09/2008 04:53:13 PM · #16

I think the states that will assign their electoral college delegates based on the percentage of the vote seem to be a closer representation of the public desire without unduly allowing a tyranny of the majority. I wonder these states are in the minority?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

01/09/2008 05:07:47 PM · #17

Originally posted by frisca:

It can work oddly in other ways, too. Texas is the second highest poplation in the country, therefore the second most Elctoral votes, but we hardly ever see the candidates campaign here or their TV ads (a blessing to some) becuase Texas is very red state (red=Republican) with little or no chance for a democrat to carry the state. If it wasn't winner-take-all, then you'd see some campaigning, particularly in the large cities. They all do come here to raise money though! Califonia and New York is a lot that way too, except for the democrats. So the fight for the votes isn't in the big cities or the states with the most Electoral votes as one might expect.

I think the political parties like the system the way it is. The can concentrate thier resources in states where they have a more even mix of democrats and republicans, like Ohio, Michigan, Florida. Otherwise, running a national campaign where you had to have staffs buy TV and radio time, hire pollsters, etc. would be so expensive that it would be prohibative, if it isn't already. Estimates are that this election cycle will total more than $1 Billion in total campaing spend.

Keep in mind too, that only 3 times in our history did the winner of the Electoral vote not win the popular vote.

Just some thoughts

Message edited by author 2008-01-09 17:08:27.

FireBird

01/09/2008 06:57:37 PM · #18

I kinda get tired of hearing "red" and "blue" states. It reminds me of a time when there were "blue" and "gray" states. Lots of people died. Let's just have states. It might be a bit early to be talking about Electors. Maybe we should be talking about delegates. If I read properly, even though Hillary "won" in NH, because of "Super" delegates Obama took one more delegate from NH than Hillary did. There is a big wild card this election cycle that has not been seen in a very long time. Over half the states moved their primaries up sooner on the calender. Both parties have stripped delegates from these states as punishment. The states expect to gain them back at the conventions, but who knows if that will happen?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

01/09/2008 08:27:18 PM · #19

Originally posted by fir3bird:

Why should Iowa and New Hampshire always determine who the nominees are?

I used to donate to the candidate I liked. Now, when they call, I tell them any donation I might consider making is on "hold" pending the return of Michigan's delegates.

01/09/2008 09:50:53 PM · #20

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Why should Iowa and New Hampshire always determine who the nominees are?

Because people are sheep. And the media promote it.

R.

01/10/2008 01:09:31 PM · #21

what really bugs me about the electoral college is that it seems that effectively, a minority chooses the candidates since each state has a different day for their electoral college vote.

01/10/2008 01:10:52 PM · #22

Originally posted by frisca:

what really bugs me about the electoral college is that it seems that effectively, a minority chooses the candidates since each state has a different day for their electoral college vote.

I'm not following this reasoning; can you expand on that?

R.

01/10/2008 01:13:51 PM · #23

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by frisca:
what really bugs me about the electoral college is that it seems that effectively, a minority chooses the candidates since each state has a different day for their electoral college vote.

I'm not following this reasoning; can you expand on that?

R.

Well, it seems to me that once a handful of states do their vote, it really creates a situation where the effect of the vote of other states, which come later, is rather diminished and is affected by the outcome of the votes of the earlier states.