Electoral College

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Here are the thoughts of the founding Fathers according to the FEC.

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups (though they are not, of course, based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental. Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons.


While the system might not seem perfect it undoubtedly is better then many other schemes. Leave it alone.
 

rraley

New Member
Do you believe that the people in the modern world today are not able to make informed decisions regarding the candidates with the presence of 24-hour news channels, telephones, and continuous new cycles? I mean the reason they had the college back then was because people did not receive news for months at a time. That is not the case anymore. Why should we keep this antiquated system in place?
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Originally posted by rraley
Do you believe that the people in the modern world today are not able to make informed decisions regarding the candidates with the presence of 24-hour news channels, telephones, and continuous new cycles? I mean the reason they had the college back then was because people did not receive news for months at a time. That is not the case anymore. Why should we keep this antiquated system in place?
Well when you recall what happened in Florida in 2000, where select groups gathered elderly from the nursing homes and assisted living facilities, took them to the polls, and instructed them how to vote, and they still screwed it up, I would say no. The worry that the founders faced would be even more severe today when each state would have their favorite son/daughter running for the office and no one would get the required majority.

On an aside, how many sides of your neck do you talk out of? In another thread you said we have been holding elections for over 200 years and know what we are doing and now you are saying that we aren’t doing it right, which is it?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by rraley
Do you believe that the people in the modern world today are not able to make informed decisions regarding the candidates with the presence of 24-hour news channels, telephones, and continuous new cycles?
You're kidding, right? :confused: I will suggest it's BECAUSE of the spin the media puts on news that people can't make an informed decision. Most people are flat not interested in politics and they don't pay much attention to the candidates. Yet they trot out on election day and vote just like they know what they're doing because they heard Jennifer Aniston say that Bush is an azzhole.

Plus, considering the majority of news sources are liberal biased, people who aren't paying attention are only hearing what the news guys WANT them to hear.
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
I disagree with your premise:
Originally posted by rraley
Rather, I think that abolishing the Electoral College will cause Republican candidates, who don't give a rat's ass about getting votes in cities, to reach out towards the cities, and will cause Democrats to reach out to rural areas where they have done very poorly.
There's two reason why pols hit the road...to collect votes and campaign funds. Repubs do hit the big cities for "dinners" and, I guess, campaign successfully in the rural areas. The Dems do the cities, but you'll have to tell me why they "do poorly in rural areas".

Maybe because they don't give a rats ass about getting rural votes (??)
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Originally posted by vraiblonde
I will suggest it's BECAUSE of the spin the media puts on news that people can't make an informed decision. Most people are flat not interested in politics and they don't pay much attention to the candidates.

Democracy assumes that people are smart enough to make their own decisions. If some people aren't smart enough or don't care to educate themselves, then that's their problem, and there's nothing that government or society can do to change them. And if they don't bother to vote or to make an informed choice, then they have no justification to complain when elected officials do things they don't like.

I think there's a certain social Darwinism implicit in democracy. I don't think government should try to counteract that through welfare. But I also don't think goverment should try to help that process along by placing most of the tax burden on wages instead of investment, which is what Bush's tax plan has done. That's why I favor eliminating all income taxes in favor of a national sales tax with no exemptions.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by Tonio
If some people aren't smart enough or don't care to educate themselves, then that's their problem, and there's nothing that government or society can do to change them.
No, it's OUR problem because that's how some of the more...unique...candidates get in office, which affects us all. Do you think Ted Kennedy would win a national election? Hint: we already know he wouldn't because he's lost every time he tried. Yet he gets a Senate seat term after term after term. And he gets to vote on things like budgets and foreign policy - things that affect everyone in the US, not just the folks in MA.

Look at some of the more outlandish Congresspeople we have out there. A majority of the people in her district ELECTED that babe that wants the UN to oversee our elections. People in Cynthia McKinney's district elected her. Maxine Waters. Look at all the people who voted for Mel Carnahan for Senator, knowing full well he was dead and his inexperienced wife would be taking his place.

My brilliant idea, which I might have posted on here before, is to forget the candidates and get away from name-recognition. Voters must take a basic citizenship and awareness test ("Do you realize this candidate is dead?"). If they fail, they go no further. If they pass, they take a quiz on the issues. At the end of the issues quiz, the computer will tell you who you voted for.

I'm tired of being held hostage by ignorant people who don't know anything about what's going on, yet pull the lever anyway.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Ken...

...thanks for the Founders thoughts post!!!

Their words on what they did and why are far better than my opinion any day.

Answers the question in the best possible way.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Originally posted by Ken King
While the system might not seem perfect it undoubtedly is better then many other schemes. Leave it alone.
I'm with you Ken. The system may not be perfect, but there are no perfect systems. The EC system works fairly well (how many Presidents got the EC vote, but not the popular?). It just is not worth the time, effort, and money to change it. There are far more important issues facing the world.
 

ylexot

Super Genius
Originally posted by vraiblonde
My brilliant idea, which I might have posted on here before, is to forget the candidates and get away from name-recognition. Voters must take a basic citizenship and awareness test ("Do you realize this candidate is dead?"). If they fail, they go no further. If they pass, they take a quiz on the issues. At the end of the issues quiz, the computer will tell you who you voted for.
I like the idea of making voting a privilage for people that can pass a fairly simple test. As for the other part, that could be pretty tough since I still can't figure out what Kerry is for/against :biggrin:
 
Top