 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
Responses:
Subject: Electoral College
From: Sue H
Date: 04 Apr 2000 6:50 PM
The time has come to do away with the electoral college. Its purpose has long become outdated, especially now, where we live in a society where news and information is available instantly. Our presidents must be elected solely by popular vote. After all, can anyone think of any kind of election for public office that is determined by so few individuals, other than for president of the United States? If my memory is correct, didn't Richard Nixon want to do away with the electoral college? If I'm wrong about that, feel free to correct me. Thank you.Sue H
Subject: Abolishing the Electoral College
From: Joanne
Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:52 PM
There has always been discussion about abolishing the Electoral College especially in the light of developments in modern methods of communication. However, since it was established by the Constitution, it would require an amendment to do so. I wonder how easily that would be achieved especially for the reasons you enumerated in your comment. I think that as long as the electoral vote continues to reflect the popular vote, the American people will be content to leave the EC in place. However, let the electoral vote contradict the popular vote and you can be sure that the EC would be abolished with the speed of the repeal of Prohibition.
Subject: the Electoral College: an argument for retention
From: John
Date: 04 Apr 2000 4:26 PM
In this day and age of instant communication and web voting, there's more of an opportunity for participation than ever. However, there's also a greater opportunity for voter fraud that would make the late Mayor Daley of Chicago look like a small-time grifter by comparison. The Electoral College, though not intended for that purpose, acts as a counterweight to wholesale ballot box stuffing. You may rest assured that it would be easy to do so on a national basis if the president were elected strictly on a popular vote; doing so in each of 50 states and the District would be substantially more difficult.Furthermore, there have been instances in which a president has served with an electoral majority but a popular minority: e.g., Benjamin Harrison. I believe that while such a presidency would be mediocre at best, it would be tolerable; the result would be more or less coalition government, or government from the east end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Subject: Tricky Dick
From: Peter B. Thomas
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:08 PM
The fact that you suggest that Richard Nixon wanted to do away with the Electoral College is a good indicator that perhaps we should not. The Electoral College encourages coalition building and inclusive politics in all the states; this is an important intrinsic mechanism in a land of liberty where individuals tend to want to fly off on their own and would just as soon not want to have to have anything to do with any one else they didn't like.
Subject: Should we really let the people decide?
From: Charlie C
Date: 04 Apr 2000 3:32 AM
In Federalist 68, Hamilton writes:The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
As much as I'd like to see this distrust be a thing of the past, it seems to be alive and well in the year 2000. The community of voters is thought to be too easily affected by the ‘heats and ferments’ of big money advertising -- hence the recent efforts to reform the campaign finance laws. Public opinion seems to be so easy to mold, in fact, that there are an increasing number of people who earn their living “spinning” news stories. That such spin-masters exist is nothing new, but the fact that they are almost becoming an established profession and are such a part of our news coverage is. One can hardly watch a TV news program without hearing some analyst describing how a word or a phrase or a token gesture would be used by one candidate or another to sway the votes or opinion of a community. Instead of being astonished at the cynicism, most people just call it 'the News.'
It’s really a shame too. Getting rid of the electoral college might be just the thing to reverse the trend in voter turnout. It might elevate our public discourse. And, who knows? If we start treating our voters like thinking individuals, they just might ... think.
Subject: Electoral College a necessity
From: Winky
Date: 04 Apr 2000 10:06 AM
Despite the conditioning we get in schools, the United States is just that -- a series of states in a confederacy for mutual interest. Since 1865 it has not been popular to think in terms of secession, but I believe it is Constitutional, especially since the Federal Government is so intrusive at the turn of the 21st century. Each state is an individual entity and should be respected as such, though the Federal Government is steadily chipping away at the Tenth Amendment. A strictly popular vote would be representative of densely populated areas -- say, in New York, California, etc. while the man not elected might've carried the vote in many more states. The electoral college still gives some hope through its apportionment of electors that there will be more fairness in the election of a president for ALL the states. Generally, the Electoral College vote won't vary from the popular vote, and as the system stands more heavily populated states still have more sway in electing the president of all the states by their greater number of electors. But the EC has been effective before in guaranteeing that a president isn't elected simply because he is popular in pockets of heavy density. In the interest of fairness, the Electoral College must stay.
Subject: Popular Vote
From: S.L. Kaufman
Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:14 AM
One man, one vote. Would this not be reflective of the will of the people most accurately?
Subject: Electoral College
From: John Power
Date: 04 Apr 2000 1:36 PM
We wouldn't consider electing a city Mayor in the method we use to elect a President. It's my belief that, if a candidate for the highest office in the land cannot obtain a 50.1% plurality in the general vote, a run-off should be held between the top two vote winners. We HAVE to stop electing minority (popular vote) Presidents. The Electoral College made sense when communications were dreadfully slow, but it's an anachronism now.
Subject: Succession
From: Peter B. Thomas
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:01 PM
You say you "believe" succession is constitutional.I suspect then it is a matter of religious faith for you. If however you are not a cultist you must be willing to pay for the education which would replace faith with reason. How much would you be willing to pay to know for certain that the constitution mandates (yes, winky I can show you the print) a perpetual UNION?
Subject: Re: believing
From: Andy
Date: 04 Apr 2000 12:08 AM
In reply to Mr. Thomas' comments on the phrase "I believe."To say that one believes something does not necessarily imply that the belief stems from religious faith. It does distinquish the one who says it from those who announce that they "feel" something is true. One who believes something has made a judgement based on incomplete and/or imperfect information and is correctly making the distinction between their judgement and a mathematical truth which has been proved, a scientific fact that has been deduced, a truth made evident by empirical evidence, etc. In such cases one may say "I have proved" or "I have shown" or "I know." To say "I believe" is a lesser claim that is perfectly appropriate under some conditions.With regard to the particular question at issue here, I have no doubt that Mr. Thomas believes there is a part of the Constitution that mandates a perpetual union, but his belief does not make it so. In many instances, five or more Justices of the Supreme Court have believed that part of the Constitution meant something when others have believed differently. The meaning of the Constitution is impossible to establish to all people, particularly when so many nowadays seem to "feel" it does not mean what it clearly says in many instances.
Subject: electoral college
From: michele
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:44 PM
I believe that we have had a President elected by thecollege but NOT by the popular vote. I don't believethat we should stand for that in our day and age should it happen again. Does anyone have the info on this?
Subject: Electoral College
From: David
Date: 04 Apr 2000 2:13 AM
This is in reply to Michele's question about the Electoral College electing a president who was not elected by the popular vote. . . . A distinction must be made. The Constitution requires that an individual receive a majority (over 50%) of the Electoral College votes to be elected. If no one does, then the House of Representatives, voting by state delegations, must choose among the top three candidates. This happened in 1800, when Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied. The House, of course, chose Jefferson. Then in 1824, Andrew Jackson led John Quincy Adams in both the Electoral College and in the popular vote (it was the first election in which the popular vote was really significant). The House, however elected Adams, until now the only son of a President to become president. (The difference between John Q and George W being that John Q actually had considerable experience in government. Boy was qualified, you know.). . . . It is possible to have a majority in the Electoral College and less than 50% of the popular vote. Usually when this happens the winner has the highest popular vote, but less than 50% - there is a third party or independent candidate. I believe that in 1960 Kennedy had a little less than 46% and Nixon a little more than 45%, with most of the rest going to Sen. Harry Byrd, but Kennedy had a majority in the college. When this happens, it is said that the president is elected with a "minority" of the popular vote, although he came in first in the field. If memory serves, this also happened in 1912 (Wilson over T. Roosevelt and Taft), 1948 (Truman over Dewey, H. Wallace, and Thurmond), 1968 (Nixon over Humphrey and G. Wallace), 1980 (Reagan over Carter and Anderson), and 1992 (Clinton over G.H.W. Bush and Perot). It is no big deal.. . . . . What is a big deal is when the person who comes in second in the popular vote actually wins a majority in the Electoral College. This last took place in 1888 when Benjamin Harrison (grandson of a President - go figure) narrowly defeated Grover Cleveland in the Electoral College, although losing to him in the popular vote. Cleveland evened the score by becoming the only ex-President to be returned to office in 1892. . . . THAT is, in America, how we "don't stand for it" when bad things happen in politics: we get out the vote and do better next time, within the constitution. One other time, in 1876, the same thing happened, except that that time it was a big mess with a special commission and a very nasty deal to give Rutherford B. Hayes the Presidency, even though he had lost fair and square, in return for ending Reconstruction and effectively nullifying the 14th and 15th Amendments and dismantling the rights of African Americans in the South for the next 90 years. That is the kind of thing we should never "stand for": tearing up the Constitution to give the powerful their way. And no, I don't think it happens all the time.
Subject: Electoral College
From: Scott
Date: 08 Aug 2000 8:59 PM
the electoral college is a joke. when b.c. was "elected" in '92, they were calling it a landslide victory when in fact it was fairly close. this joke has to end. what happens if some day we actually get a popular 3rd party candidate that appeals to the majority but isn't able to pull states like NY and CA????
Subject: Electoral College
From: Scott
Date: 08 Aug 2000 9:09 PM
addendum - besides the election process has turned into one big popularity contest now, hasn't it? might as go with what the people want. maybe this will encourage people to go out and vote instead of saying (like in NY) "well it's predominantly democrats in NYC and they'll carry the state so why would my vote count if i voted any other way?" (of course, you can replace "NYC" and "democrats" with city and party of your choice - wouldn't want to offend anyone).
Subject: Electoral College
From: Penny Ruff
Date: 08 Aug 2000 8:11 AM
I understand the need for the Electorial College, but how does one get picked to be the voter for the College?
Subject: electors
From: anonymous
Date: 08 Aug 2000 10:23 AM
The Constitution does not say how the electors are to be chosen and originally they were appointed by state legislatures. In most states, electors pledge to vote for a certain candidate and are elected based on that. Electors do not have to vote the way they pledged to vote. Now, electors from each state vote in a block according to the popular vote from that state, and the position is largely ceremonial. Originally, individual electors voted as they pleased regardless of the popular vote. The system was designed that way because the writers of the constitution did not trust most people to vote for president.
Subject: Reply to Peter Thomas
From: Maurie
Date: 08 Aug 2000 1:28 AM
Peter, I don't think you can find in the constitution where the confederation of states under the constitution is in perpetuity. It was stated in The Articles of Confederation that the union was in perpetuity, but that document was superseded by our current constitution.
Subject: Why I voted
From: Deborah Kovac
Date: 11 Nov 2000 5:06 PM
This is the first year that my husband have ever voted. The reasons are varied, but the biggest one is this. Why should we vote when our vote doesn't really count for anything? We did so this year because someone informed me about electoral votes & how it "might" make a difference. I can honestly say that there are a lot of people out there with the same opinion. I don't think electoral votes are a fair way to run our country. It should be run by the rules that the majority of the people choose. It should not be run by a minority of any group just because they happen to live in a state with more electoral votes. This is not fair to our candidates or to our country. I want someone in the white house with high morals, strong convictions, & will make it a habit of putting the needs of our whole country a priority.We don't need one who only puts his own wants above the needs of our country. The United States was once a great country with Great leaders. If we can't have that back again, then there is something seriously wrong with the men we have placed in our government offices. We are supposed to be a nation of the people & for the people. That means that the majority of the people should have a say so about everything our country does as a whole, & that includes who we want to run our country. Most of the people in the united states that could vote, but don't, also believe as I do. We want to know that our voice will be heard for sure. We don't like the maybe's & we don't like the idea that someone could have over 50% of the votes overall in the country & still not be president. Unless that changes, there are many people who will not ever vote. I believe that the majority of the people should be allowed to vote on all the issues that are important to our every day lives & not leave them all entirely up to a government who may or may not be corrupt.
Subject: the electoral college
From: michele
Date: 04 Apr 2000 11:39 PM
in our information age and with the communications systemsthat we have access to, there is no need for an electoralvote anymore except for the purpose of "playing the game"politically speaking!
Subject: election 2000
From: kimberly murphy
Date: 08 Aug 2000 9:58 PM
i am so thrilled that so many people are becoming aware of the facts that democrats stand for the middle class, small businesses, and poor. the republicans on the other hand are for the wealthy, and big buisnesses only. looking forward to the debates...won't have to visit a snowy mountain to witness a landslide. gore has what it takes in every way to be the next president! i cannot wait to vote for him in the next election, as many others will also. GO DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!
Subject: re Kimberly's comments defining democrats
From: Maurier
Date: 08 Aug 2000 1:16 AM
Kimberly, why don't you consider what is good for the country as a whole? Pandering to clases causes divisiveness hence a lack of cohesiveness and unity necessary for a strong and powerful country which I would think should be our politicians' objective and ours. Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country. Remember?
