Expelling our Electoral College
My column for the Daily News is online. It’s called, “Expelling our Electoral College.”
The electoral college hasn’t served us as well as you say. A few times it has given the presidency to the candidate for whom fewer people voted. Nobody thinks that’s an ideal outcome, do they? Plus, if the system was so good why has it been changed twice before?
The EC system may benefit voters who live in battleground states. But it clearly disadvantages voters who live in other states. And it’s not clear to me at all why this would be a good thing. Republicans who live in California and Democrats who live in Wyoming are clearly disenfranchised. And for what? So people who live in Ohio, Florida and Montana can have undue attention given to their issues by candidates running for national office?
And if you think I’m a crazy radical for saying such things, hang on to your hats. What I’d really like to see is direct election of the president by citizens and an instant runoff style ballot. Now you know I’m a lunatic.
Posted by scott on February 23, 2010 at 1214 hrs
A few times it has given the presidency to the candidate for whom fewer people voted.
It was not intended that we vote for President in a national federal referendum. It always seems to perplex the lefter side when they come up against the fact that the nation was never meant to have an over arching and all powerful central government. We are a union of states… and most of the power was meant to reside with the states… I believe that might have been mentioned in the Constitution. That is why each state has a unique and individual election for president. The winner who takes the majority of the states is the president, not the one who takes the majority of the popular vote. It protects the smaller states from being overshadowed by the populations in the larger states. It was wise then, and it is equally wise now. It’s not a national vote…it’s a state by state vote.
The sad part is that this is no longer taught in the educational vacuum that is our public school system.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1246 hrs
It was not intended that we vote for President in a national federal referendum.
I don’t think anyone’s confused about that. I’m just saying I think it should be.
It protects the smaller states from being overshadowed by the populations in the larger states.
The way it protects Connecticut from Florida, for example? No, seriously. How does it protect small states from larger ones? Seems to me it “protects” swing states from not-so-swingy states, regardless of size. What’s the benefit of that I’d like to know?
Posted by scott on February 23, 2010 at 1253 hrs
Why should voters in states that have relatively few residents have a greater impact? Why should they matter more?
If we had had this in place, Bush would never have been elected.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1302 hrs
Swing states? Is that in the Constitution? Are you implying that we should arrange our electoral process based solely on the way politics stand at this moment in time? Have all the states always voted the same way they do now? Always? Do you not think that the leanings will change based on the times, the parties, and the candidates?
Ronald Reagan won 49 states. There was no swinging at all. Massachsetts just elected a Republican, but our modern system of labeling would call it a blue state. The real wisdom behind the electoral college is that it works in all times, and with all parties. States like California, Florida, and New York will not be able to swing an election by voting as a block.
A rough example. If the top 4 most populous states voted 80/20 for candidate X and the rest of the nation votes 65/35 for candidate Y, Candidate X wins. 46 states would have a president who did not win their vote. 32% of the population lives in those 4 states… the other 68% is out of luck
I believe that 270 electoral votes are required to win. At the very least, it requires the 11 top states to win 270 votes. That is nearly 60% of the population making the decision. A bit more equitable, and requiring a candidate who speaks to a broader segment of the nation.
A candidate would be a fool, under the strictly popular system, to spend a single moment worrying about the wishes of the lesser 45 states. The top 4 or 5 would always carry the election for you. That’s why those wise fellas came up with the system. I can’t understand why anyone would want to tear it down pointlessly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1313 hrs
During the time of the framers, individuals did not have access to the transportation and communications technology that we currently have, therefore, their rationale for limiting the power of the federal government no longer holds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1325 hrs
...rationale for limiting the power of the federal government no longer holds…
Therein lies the problem…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1354 hrs
The rationale for limiting the power of the federal government was not based transportation and communications, it was based on individual liberty, and holds up just as well today as ever.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1354 hrs
If we had had this in place, Bush would never have been elected.
Posted by Free Lunch on February 23, 2010 at 1302 hrs
As I look at the alternative all I can say is, “Amen brother, Amen!”
The person who lost that contest should be jailed for a world-wide scam he was/is using to enrich himself.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1457 hrs
“It was not intended that we vote for President in a national federal referendum.”
That’s right. Because the founders thought that the public, being mostly uneducated, were too stupid to make an informed decision about who best should be President. That’s why the public were only allowed to vote for electors, and these electors, who were the smart ones, would make sure only a qualified person would be President, and the runner up would be Vice President. I think that the public is a little better educated now than then.
From the Federalist #68
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.
How’s that working for you??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1502 hrs
Duke,
What scam? There is anthropogenic climate change. The evidence about that is clear. No scientists involved in the study of climate question whether it is happening. They point out that we are lucky in some way, the ocean is sequestering about half of the carbon dioxide we have released during the industrial era.
The folks who question it are the paid lobbyists of the carbon and hydrocarbon producers. They are doing exactly what Christopher Buckley mocked in “Thank you for Smoking”. They aren’t doing any more scientific studies than the cigarette lobby did. The lobbyists are lying to you and you have been persuaded to believe their lies.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1509 hrs
“Thank you for Smoking”
Heh, the question is “what are you smoking?”. I believe that a growing number of thinking people and honest scientists are seeing the unraveling of the Goracle web of lies and are starting to dismiss the lies that have been told so far. The kool-aid gulpers are still on board, but the rest of the average joes are done with the warming zealots.
@Pat Snipping one paragraph out of the Federalist Papers hardly proves anything. First, the sum of those writings is enormous and contains many conflicting opinions. Second, they ARE opinions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1518 hrs
“Second, they ARE opinions.”
As are yours.
But it shows the intent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1529 hrs
TheFamilyGuy-
The mechanism is simple:
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
2. The climate of earth was much warmer when carbon dioxide was substantially more prevalent in the atmosphere.
3. The carbon was sequestered in coal, gas, oil and limestone through natural processes.
4. Humans have released huge amounts of this sequestered carbon during the industrial era.
5. Roughly half of this newly-released carbon has stayed in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, the rest has been absorbed into the ocean.
No scientists involved in the study of climate change ever claim humans are the only cause of climate change. They do claim that human extraction of coal and hydrocarbons has caused the amount of carbon dioxide to increase in the atmosphere and that this has affected the climate. Our tracking of the climate has confirmed that this is happening.
Climate scientists also know of other causes of change and they know enough now to identify the actual effects. The models are fairly robust. They are better than any model any AGW denying lobbyist has ever developed, so there is no current reason to listen to the lobbyists.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1535 hrs
“Why should voters in states that have relatively few residents have a greater impact? Why should they matter more?”
The constitution did nothing except create a framework for already sovereign states to cooperate for joint governance in the limited enumerated fashion laid out in the document. Thus, it is an equality among the states that was the central focus of the election of the president.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1600 hrs
1. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.
CO2 is not a pre-cursor to warming, but rather it is a product of temperature variations, even natural ones. There is plenty of legitimate science to prove it. It is also an extremely tiny portion of the so-called greenhouse gasses, and the part of total CO2 that is made by human activity is about 1 part in 1000. I’d say that compared to a human brain, man made CO2 is equivalent to the three synapses that you used when developing your theory.
2. The climate of earth was much warmer when carbon dioxide was substantially more prevalent in the atmosphere.
There was much more CO2 because the earth was warmer. Many systems play into that warming and cooling… but most of is caused by the Sun…. you remember the sun, right?
3. The carbon was sequestered in coal, gas, oil and limestone through natural processes.
4. Humans have released huge amounts of this sequestered carbon during the industrial era.
I’ve seen some stupid comments made by followers of the Goracle before, but this might rank among the dumbest of the lot. You do understand that earth has been in a cooling phase for a long time, no? About 90% of geologic history occurred at higher ambient temperatures. I’ll stop here…I’ve heard plenty of the flock of warming faithful. I have about as much chance to change your mind as I would to have changed the minds of the Branch Davidians. Good Luck on your warming…. I suggest you head for the high Rockies before the water rises to far. I’m going to head out to the yard to burn some tires…. I’ve been feeling a bit of a chill.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1704 hrs
The Family Guy -
You have been misinformed about your first two claims. Carbon dioxide is not a result of high atmospheric temperatures. Please tell me who offered you these claims.
We agree that the earth was once warmer and was warmer for most of its history. After that, all you offered was a dismissive assertion that meant nothing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1721 hrs
Free, I’m not really going to go too deep into it with you. You are a believer, and I’d have no more luck trying to talk a man out of being a Moonie that one of the Goracle’s zealots. I’ll offer you a graph or two and a paper on the subject since I responded to your silly pseudo-religious science statement.
Here is a historical graph of temperature anomaly and CO2 level. Note that CO2 is, at best, a lagging indicator and not a precursor… at worst, CO2 does not correspond at all in some eras. That’s because it is a very poor greenhouse gas present in only infinitesimal quantities.
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm
Here is a much narrower sample showing the effect more clearly
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/lansner-image4.png
Here is a lovely paper on the subject. Of course, without deprogramming, you’ll get nothing from it… but it’s there anyway.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS Pre-industrial CO2.pdf
OK, now I’m done with it. I’ve wasted enough time on this silly idea of anthropogenic warming. Your saints are all turning out to be liars and the wheels are falling off the wagon.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1849 hrs
TFG,
Toss another tire onto the fire for me. While I don’t believe that our effect on the climate is very material, even if I were to grant it was so, I don’t see why we have to destroy our countries economy, while the third world cranks up their industrial output at our expense. Nor do I understand why some arbitrary temperature (that we have little or no effect on) is the right one.
Heck I live in Wisconsin, keep the global warming coming….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 1945 hrs
The reason for a loose federation of states is this: Never, in history has a strong central government amassed power and failed to eventually use it against their own people. The states were intended to be sovereign because the founders knew a small government best protects Liberty, but there is also safety in numbers. The President was to be and Executive, an Administrator. Not a King.
Posted by Steve on February 23, 2010 at 2012 hrs
TFG -
Feel free to insult if you like. That won’t make your claims accurate nor will it make them responsive.
Yes, carbon dioxide has a relatively low level in the atmosphere today. That level has roughly doubled as your documents showed. As you are aware, humans have not been responsible for any of the prior cycles. Carbon dioxide has been a reinforcing mechanism in each of the past events. Given that there is no recent experience with a causation of massive carbon dioxide buildup prior to the industrial revolution and that no one has claimed that only carbon dioxide affects climate, the charts don’t support your claims. On the other hand, physics tells us that carbon dioxide will work as a greenhouse gas and I have never seen any scientist claim otherwise. Have you?
The final paper could be interesting, but doesn’t seem to have passed peer review or been published anywhere, so I don’t know what to make of it. At least it wasn’t published in a Lyndon LaRouche vanity ‘journal’ like “21st Century Science and Technology” which showed up in “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time”, another supposedly scientific paper that Friends of Science has posted on their website.
Curt,
I guess you hate Florida.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 23, 2010 at 2105 hrs
Don’t read this Free Lunch….
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7039264.ece
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1141 hrs
Global Warming, begun by myopic pseudo-scientists who could not grasp the fact that 20 or 30 years of warming is barely a speck when compared to the millennial cycles that climate operates in.
Global Warming, grown and spread by people with agendas that had little to with the climate and far more to do with the anti-capitalist infection that spread throughout a segment of our culture during the 60’s and 70’s.
Global Warming, maintained now by the beard and sandal, wine sipping, non-judgmental, blame America liberal elitist types who seem to find some sense of self value in beaming with pride over their Prius, tsk tsking those who don’t bring a reusable sack to the store, and crowing over the joys of being green. I wonder what portion of those folks lack any sort of organized religion and belief in the here-after… perhaps that lack of belief was replaced by the new religion offered them by this Goracle fellow. Odd though, like many cult leaders, he sure has gotten rich off of the self deprivations of his flock.
There, Free Lunch, NOW you have been insulted. Thank you for playing.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1406 hrs
How did a meaningful discussion about states rights, sovreignty(thats spelled wrong), voter rights and a number of other good points turn to this crap about global warming and Al Gore? Get back to the point.
IMHO the discussion needs to be had but if you are going to tell me that WI voters would vote for Candidate X and because the nation as a whole votes for Candidate Y and we then have to support the popular vote then I say BS. If we decide to elect someone then we should be allowed to have our say.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1640 hrs
anon, no matter how scary and wrong it sounds to say “if everyone in Wisconsin voted X and the rest of the country voted Y…”, the practical upshot of passing these kinds of laws in enough state legislatures is that the person who gets the most votes nationwide would always win the national election. It also has the benefit of enfranchising red voters who live in blue states and blue voters who live in red states. And it no longer elevates the narrow concerns of swing voters in, say, Ohio to the utmost importance of the nation just because they happen to live in a purple state.
Down side? It’s been said that a popular vote (or making the EC work effectively like one) would undercut the interests of small states with fewer voters. But that presupposes that the EC as it is currently implemented consistently serves that interest in the first place—which it does not. I can’t for the life of me think what the EC is doing to protect the interests of Delaware, for example, over the interests of the much more populous Florida. Quite the contrary. And besides, there are other more effective ways to empower small states already in place, such as the Senate and powers given directly to states by the Constitution. So I don’t really SEE a down side.
Let’s not forget that the EC almost always is in agreement with the popular vote anyway. We’re talking about a major shift in electoral outcomes. The far bigger effect would be that disenfranchised voters in solid blue and solid red states would finally find themselves relevant again in presidential politics.
Posted by scott on February 24, 2010 at 1656 hrs
How did a meaningful discussion about states rights, sovreignty(thats spelled wrong), voter rights and a number of other good points turn to this crap about global warming and Al Gore?
Comments 9 and 11 were the off ramp. I was just following traffic, Officer.
it no longer elevates the narrow concerns of swing voters in, say, Ohio to the utmost importance of the nation just because they happen to live in a purple state.
No, it elevates the concerns of the larger states… do you even bother to read the arguments that others have made on this issue?
disenfranchised voters in solid blue and solid red states would finally find themselves relevant again in presidential politics.
How are you disenfranchised if you are on the losing side of an election withing your state? Just because you live in a Democrat state and you are Republican does not mean you are disenfranchised, does it? How did Reagan get elected in 49 states if all the Republicans were disenfranchised? Am I disenfranchised because I live in Milwaukee where no Republican could ever be elected to congress? Are Libertarians nationwide disenfranchised because they never win any elections? Please explain how one is disenfranchise for supporting a losing candidate?
I think “disenfranchised” is just the liberal buzz word of the week on this issue. It sounds so dramatic. Please though, feel free to explain how it’s true.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 1824 hrs
Just because you live in a Democrat state and you are Republican does not mean you are disenfranchised, does it?
Yeah, you kind of are. You know that your vote has virtually zero chance of impacting the outcome of the election. A hell of a lot less chance that someone just like you living in Ohio or Florida or Wisconsin. So yeah. You are.
m I disenfranchised because I live in Milwaukee where no Republican could ever be elected to congress?
Your district is heavily Democratic? I see. But no, that doesn’t make you disenfranchised. Everyone’s vote has equal weight in affecting the outcome. You’re just outnumbered. Too bad, so sad. What would make you disenfranchised is if you lived on a city block where 75% of residents were Democrats and then your representative gets elected by one collective block vote. Would you bother to show up on election day in a snowstorm? Why on earth would you? Your vote will not impact the outcome and you know it. Whether you and the one other Republican show up to vote or not, your block will vote for the other candidate. And then, given the mathematics of the thing, you can’t get either candidate to visit your neighborhood or acknowledge your unique concerns. Then you’d be disenfranchised.
I believe I’ve explained this position well enough for you to understand it. Disagree with it if you wish, but at least acknowledge that you understand what my argument is.
Posted by scott on February 24, 2010 at 1953 hrs
Your vote will not impact the outcome and you know it.
That is an accurate description of any Republican voter who lives in a predominantly African American congressional district. There will be a democrat in the office. While that is true of where I live, I am not disenfranchised, but rather, as you say, outnumbered.
The same goes for a presidential election. We vote for president as a state, and the results of the election within our state determines who we back. You are voting to determine who will get the electors, nothing more and nothing less. It is no different than voting for who will sit in my congressional seat, or who will be my dog catcher. If I am outnumbered, my wished will be ignored…. that is far from being disenfranchised.
I’ve seen this “disenfranchised” spin bandied about on the liberal talking head front, so clearly that is the mantra on this issue. It is really not true. I think that the greatest problem with that argument is that, if overused, it may cause real issues of disenfranchisement to be ignored…. just the way the overuse of racism and sexism have done.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 24, 2010 at 2026 hrs
I’m going to answer the 2 topics without calling someone a lefty, a misinformed idiot-or burning a tire
(can’t figure out how that would be a really good thing under any circumstance.)I believe in atmosphere change directly related to the junk we put in it.
I believe it because I am not an idiot.
You guys and girls can argue the calibration-but not doing something about it because it might hurt the very industries that pollute the atmosphere is the punchline to the old Steve Allen joke
Woman -“My husband thinks he’s a chicken.”
Friend - ‘Have he gotten some psychological help?
woman- “He would,but we need the eggs too much “
and I beleive the popular vote makes sense since we’ve changed all kids of things about elections since those wacky Deist’s drafted that starter set of rules for the new democracy.Jefferson thought the whole thing would be overhauled every 20 years or so.
He might be amused at all that “origional Intent” gibberish spouted by the President maker himself- Justice Scalia
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2010 at 0024 hrs
This is simple math; you need only to stop looking at the collectives and start looking at the individual. If you take one person’s ability to change the presidential election (that is, to be the one vote that makes the difference), it increases as you stack probabilities using smaller pools to being with.
A person has a higher chance of swinging an election at the local level, which then stacks onto the probability of their vote being the deciding factor on the State (electoral college) level, which then stacks on top of the probability of that electoral college vote being the deciding factor.
Popular election means that you (an individual) have a straight 1:N chance of swinging the election, where N is the number of voters nationwide.
I’ll take my chances with the electoral college system (pun intended).
Oh, and since I’m making jokes, TANSTAAFL, and TANSTAAGW. Science, bitches.
Posted by M Gallo on February 26, 2010 at 0922 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134034
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/24/2012 08:13 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 128
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/24/2012 08:50 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).