Issue: Elections: Electoral College

[Gee]

How could you oppose somethinf the Founding Fathers wanted? A direct vote would make us a democracy, and give too much power to the federal government. We are not and never will be a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. I love the electoral college and would defend it until the end.

The founding fathers didn't have our current technology. It could be abolished and replaced with a system which did not purely depend on popular vote. Maybe some sort of mixed state/people system like the congress/senate.

 

[USPatriot36]

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/electoral-tally/

Originally, there were no Party's and the people were not suppose to vote for a President. State legislatures would decide the methods for choosing electors in their respective states. In most states the people would select one person from their own part of the state as their elector. Someone they actually knew. Hopefully it would be someone the people felt was well informed, wise and honest.

As Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68 http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm
"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. "

Eventually the Party's became so powerful that they convinced the public that the people needed more direct election of Senators and the President - thus undermining the difusion of power that the founders so carefully created.

 

[LibertyBelle]

Founding Father quotes:

A democracy, inluding popular vote, always leads to oppression...read the following:

'In a democracy, 51% of the people always have power over the other 49%.'

'A democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what to have for dinner. A republic is two wolves and a well armed lamb.'

Going by popular vote would be a disaster. The Electoral College prevents majority rule.

 

[White Knight]

http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/electoral-tally/

Originally, there were no Party's and the people were not suppose to vote for a President. State legislatures would decide the methods for choosing electors in their respective states. In most states the people would select one person from their own part of the state as their elector. Someone they actually knew. Hopefully it would be someone the people felt was well informed, wise and honest.

As Hamilton wrote in Federalist #68 http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012601.htm
"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. "

Eventually the Party's became so powerful that they convinced the public that the people needed more direct election of Senators and the President - thus undermining the difusion of power that the founders so carefully created.

They should of kept it that way. I also HATE the Seventeenth Amendment, which allows direct election of Senators by the people of a state rather than their election or appointment by a state legislature. Boy, does that ever need to be repealed.

 

[Bradley in DC]

The beauty of the Electoral College is that it reflects our federalist nature. The states decide for themselves how to allocate their votes. While nearly all do so by "winner take all" by state, Maine and Nebraska give two the winner statewide and one each to the majority winner in each Congressional District (in practice they have never split).

State legislatures could choose to go with proportional representation or IRV or other types of allocation of votes. . . and not force their choice on any other state!

Those who oppose the system do not see its beauty.

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

 

[RonPaul4President]

Those who oppose the system do not see its beauty.

Which, technically, is the very reason it MUST exist.

 

[CJLauderdale4]

One other thing to recognize:

The post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution, which not all passed with a full quorum of States represented from the South, is what ultimately destroyed any power States had left. In particular, the 14th Amendment.

This amendment now introduced the concept of the all ecompassing designation of the "U.S. Citizen" and that all "citizens" are to be provided "Equal Protection under the Law" as defined by the Federal Government, no matter what the State Law said. Thus, the shoot down of the Texas sodomy law by the Supreme Court.

Prior to that, laws varied widely from State to State, depending on the views and desires of the local people residing and voting there.

The 17th Amendment then followed, and thus went any say by the States.

With this gone, the Electoral College doesn't hold its appeal anymore, even though it is essential to the process of a Constitutional Republic.

 

[foofighter20x]

One other thing to recognize:

The post-Civil War amendments to the Constitution, which not all passed with a full quorum of States represented from the South, is what ultimately destroyed any power States had left. In particular, the 14th Amendment.

This amendment now introduced the concept of the all ecompassing designation of the "U.S. Citizen" and that all "citizens" are to be provided "Equal Protection under the Law" as defined by the Federal Government, no matter what the State Law said. Thus, the shoot down of the Texas sodomy law by the Supreme Court.

Prior to that, laws varied widely from State to State, depending on the views and desires of the local people residing and voting there.

The 17th Amendment then followed, and thus went any say by the States.

With this gone, the Electoral College doesn't hold its appeal anymore, even though it is essential to the process of a Constitutional Republic.

I see what you are thinking in the bolded portion, but your argument doesn't take history into account.

The intentionally misleading Constitutional lesson taught since Restoration was that "States were never given the power to secede by the Constitution." That line of thinking is entirely wrong as the federal nature of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment itself said that the federal government was only given the powers expressly enumerated. In other words, so long as the Constitution does not say that a State can't leave, a state is entirely within its right to do so!

In fact, the very course of history gave a precedental nod to this very belief in that the federal government required the rebelling States be readmitted. Think about it: How could the States be forced to go through the process of readmission if they never had the power or authority to leave in the first place? Because they did have the power to leave!! Turns out it WAS a "War of Northern Aggression."

As the North recognized de facto this lawful power of a State to leave, then the requirement of a 3/4 approval of all the States only applies to the States that remained. As of the end of the war, only 25 states had remained in the Union. Thus, only 19 States were needed to ratify. The ratification threshold number increased to 20 when Tennessee re-entered the Union and was 3d to approve the amendment. Technically, the amendment reached the ratification point when Pennsylvania ratified. This was well before any State that had already ratified withdrew its ratification (a power I say States have so long as the amendment never passed the ratification point before they withdrew).

Additionally, if you discount the effect of West Virginia's ratification due to their questionable method of admission to the U.S., the 14th still technically passed upon PA's approval (with 25 states, the number needed was only 19, not 20--TN is still counted, but WV is not).

 

[CJLauderdale4]

No, you and I are on the same page. That was the irony that I was pointing out. States had rights, the record of the Fed shows it, but since these amendments were passed, there isn't much representaion of the rights of the State.

At this point, what's the difference between Ted Kennedy and John McCain other than one is from Mass and the other is from Arizona. After all, illegal immigration is really affecting Boston Harbor like is is in Nogales, AZ, right??

 

[Mr. Green]

The Electoral College vs. Mob Rule

by Dr. Ron Paul

Today’s presidential election is likely to be relatively close, at least in terms of popular vote totals. Should either candidate win the election but lose the overall popular vote, we will be bombarded with calls to abolish the Electoral College, just as we were after the contested 2000 presidential election. After all, the pundits will argue, it would be “undemocratic” to deny the presidency to the man who received the most votes.

This argument is hostile to the Constitution, however, which expressly established the United States as a constitutionally limited republic and not a direct democracy. The Founding Fathers sought to protect certain fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech, against the changing whims of popular opinion. Similarly, they created the Electoral College to guard against majority tyranny in federal elections. The president was to be elected by the 50 states rather than the American people directly, to ensure that less populated states had a voice in national elections. This is why they blended Electoral College votes between U.S. House seats, which are based on population, and U.S. Senate seats, which are accorded equally to each state. The goal was to balance the inherent tension between majority will and majority tyranny. Those who wish to abolish the Electoral College because it’s not purely democratic should also argue that less populated states like Rhode Island or Wyoming don’t deserve two senators.

A presidential campaign in a purely democratic system would look very strange indeed, as any rational candidate would focus only on a few big population centers. A candidate receiving a large percentage of the popular vote in California, Texas, Florida, and New York, for example, could win the presidency with very little support in dozens of other states. Moreover, a popular vote system would only intensify political pandering, as national candidates would face even greater pressure than today to take empty, middle-of-the-road, poll-tested, mainstream positions. Direct democracy in national politics would further dilute regional differences of opinion on issues, further narrow voter choices, and further emasculate political courage.

Those who call for the abolition of the Electoral College are hostile to liberty. Not surprisingly, most advocates of abolition are statist elites concentrated largely on the east and west coasts. These political, economic, academic, media, and legal elites overwhelmingly favor a strong centralized federal government, and express contempt for the federalist concept of states’ rights. They believe in omnipotent federal power, with states acting as mere glorified federal counties carrying out commands from Washington.

The Electoral College threatens the imperial aims of these elites because it allows the individual states to elect the president, and in many states the majority of voters still believe in limited government and the Constitution. Voters in southern, midwestern, and western states – derided as “flyover” country – tend to value family, religion, individual liberty, property rights, and gun rights. Washington elites abhor these values, and they hate that middle and rural America hold any political power whatsoever. Their efforts to discredit the Electoral College system are an open attack on the voting power of the pro-liberty states.

Sadly, we have forgotten that states created the federal government, not the other way around. The Electoral College system represents an attempt, however effective, to limit federal power and preserve states’ rights. It is an essential part of our federalist balance. It also represents a reminder that pure democracy, mob rule, is incompatible with liberty.

November 2, 2004

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html

Ron Paul is so SMART! :o

 

[Gee]

How could you oppose somethinf the Founding Fathers wanted? A direct vote would make us a democracy, and give too much power to the federal government. We are not and never will be a democracy. We are a Constitutional Republic. I love the electoral college and would defend it until the end.

The founders mostly wanted it because they didn't have things like radios, televisions or computers. The circumstances are much different now. Even if we did go to a pure democratic system, it would not have affected many votes throughout history at all. You could easily replace it with a direct system which was weighted with a number of votes per state "equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress" (article 2, section 1).

He is flat-out opposed to changing this. Ron Paul would never alter anything in the original Bill of Rights. That's blasphomy for any libertarian.

He's stated he wants to get rid of birthright citizenship, at the least. The amendment process was added for a reason, so the constitution could be changed, not worshiped.

 

[DrKevorkian]

First of all to say that because the founders supported the electoral college, that it is an unquestionable part of our government is dogmatic. There are parts of the founders beliefs that even ron paul doesn't subscribe to. In the same speech in which George Washington famously denounced entangling alliances, he warned of the dangers of forming political parties. Ron paul can't with any integrity agree with this completely. But returning to the electoral college, my main beef with it is that the result is an arbitrary redistribution of power between people. All of the states recognize that the best way of deciding who their vote goes to is to let the people decide. However, we end up with a roundabout and inefficient method of doing so which leads to inevitable injustice. People living in different states end up with different shares of the vote. To me the value of a vote should not change depending on what side of a state boundary line you live on.

 

[literatim]

He's stated he wants to get rid of birthright citizenship, at the least. The amendment process was added for a reason, so the constitution could be changed, not worshiped.

Birthright citizenship is not original in any fashion.