US population and electorial votes

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Actually, the original reason for the Electoral College was to allow voters to vote for local electors that they were familiar with to cast their proxy vote for president rather than for a presidential candidate they knew very little about.

Do you have any evidence of this 'fact?' Perhaps something in the Federalist Papers? Which states allowed the people of the state to choose their electors in the election of 1789? Which of these did so in order to allow 'proxy' voting based on some supposed 'ignorance' on the part of voters?

 

[Salty]

What I am arguing for is a CHANGE in the way we elect the president. I believe that the president SHOULD be elected by the people and that everyone's vote should count equally. I was not arguing that that's the way it is today. Understand? I didn't post factual errors. I posted a call for a change.

Suppose that did happened. Then where would candidates normally campaign -The top 10 population cities:
1. 8.2 million New York City
2. 3.3 million LA
3. 2.8 million Chicago
4. 2.2 million Houston
5. 1.4 million Philly
6. 1.5 million Phoenix
7. 1.3 million San Antonio
8. 1.2 million Diego
9. 1.2 million Dallas
10 1.0 million San Jose

Total 24 million - just under 10% of the US population

just a side note the population of Dallas does not include Fort Worth or Arlington - which have a combined total of another 1 million citizens.

Why would someone go to the Dakotas, Idaho, NM, ect where there are so few citizens

Also keep in mind, the country was founded by States.


Bottom line, for the most part, I like th system we have now. The only change I would like to see would be the Electoral College and House members selected by proportional representation

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

The only change I would like to see would be the Electoral College ... selected by proportional representation

Fair enough, but that would up to the states to decide.

 

[alatide]

Do you have any evidence of this 'fact?' Perhaps something in the Federalist Papers? Which states allowed the people of the state to choose their electors in the election of 1789? Which of these did so in order to allow 'proxy' voting based on some supposed 'ignorance' on the part of voters?

This isn't definitive by any means but comes from mone source:

The Electoral College
Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:
• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

(snip)

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.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

This isn't definitive by any means but comes from mone source:

The Electoral College
Excerpt from an original document located at Jackson County, MO Election Board
http://www.uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/INFORMATION/electcollege_history.php
In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:
• was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
• contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
• believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
• felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office.").

(snip)

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.

Okay - where did you get the idea of these ignorant men casting votes for their proxies? At the beginning the people did not vote at all, not even for the electors. States decided how electors would be chosen.

That is all the constitution says - it says nothing about this 'vote for my smart neighbour since I am such an idiot.'

There was never a concept that the people would choose the president from the very start. The concept was considered, but there were fears of too much power for the populous states.

Also, I am not certain the the Jackson Co, MO elections board's opinion is any better than mine.

 

[carpro]

Fair enough, but that would up to the states to decide.

It won't happen.

Ever.

A constitutional amendment would be required and less populous states will not give up their voice.

 

[Salty]

Fair enough, but that would up to the states to decide.

and currently 2 states (Maine and Neb) do use that provision! :thumbs: based on Congressional districts. Personally, I prefer a straight % by statewide popular vote.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

It won't happen.

Ever.

A constitutional amendment would be required and less populous states will not give up their voice.

You are looking at my points our of context - I said proportional choice of electors is up to each state and should not be a national decision. State already have the right to decide how electors are chosen and Maine and Nebraska (?) have done so.

 

[windcatcher]

Actually, it was never the intention of our founding fathers that we have a majority rule nor that rule be consolidated in any one person or group of people.

Our most basic law, from which all subsequent laws should be judged, is our constitution. It has established the boundaries for government and set a standard by which the people can judge their rule and challenge when their rulers exceed the boundaries established.

The constitution was written with the intention that it could be equally applied to all people and all circumstances of rule established by the central government, and keep the power of the people and the government to the concerns and control of smaller entities of government which were closer to the people and under their more immediate control.

The republic form of government was set up to minimize the power of rule of the people and to minimize the disproportionate effects of a strict majority rule which could have power to oppress a minority with discrimanating laws and enforcement. The more detail and exactment of law, enforced upon the individual or group of individuals, was meant to be made and enforced closer to or within the community level. The smallest rule considered is within the home. A slightly larger rule might be the neighborhood association into which a person chooses to live and buys property, recognizing they are contracting with the association to abide by certain agreements of conformity, whereby they also agree to variously spelled out conditions of enforcement, and give up certain specified rights of individual expression, which would normally follow with property rights. Then one has the various sub-guvernments of counties, municipalities and cities, districts and states. Where the rule is most specific, it is subject to more majority control, but is also more responsive to observation of cause and effect, repeal or ammendments. As the tier of government goes up to include larger areas of influence, the rule was meant to be more generalize with a broader outline of standards and goals which give some direction to establishing priorities, and creates a format for some standardization accross boundaries of communities which are necessary to enable the free movement of people and commerce.

Now, returning to the issue of the election of the President: It was never our founding fathers intention that one man hold the office with such a confidence in a majority of power that he could dictate. Likewise, the original plan of our founders in the way senators were to be elected and the delegation of elections to the states and recognition of their individual and contrasting constitutions, was designed with the intent to keep the power of government closer to home and responsive to the people and communicate with the people regarding their rule.

If our founders were here today........ I think there is very little which they would recognize in our present government. I think they would recognize the origianal documents..... and the destructive consequences of unbrideled human nature when apathy and neglect allows others with less principals and more ambition to lead.



A thought for the next elections?
When was the last time you heard a politician campaign on changing laws by repealling unneccessary or destructive laws? They complain about what others have supported and passed before them....... and tell us what new things they are going to do..... But is it MORE that we need...... or would we be better with less?

 

[Salty]

A thought for the next elections?
When was the last time you heard a politician campaign on changing laws by repealling unneccessary or destructive laws? They complain about what others have supported and passed before them....... and tell us what new things they are going to do..... But is it MORE that we need...... or would we be better with less?

Actually, that was part of my campaign when I ran for State Assembly. And I would start with unnecessary and unneeded govt regulations.

Who else will get on the band wagon and make a difference next year.?

 

[alatide]

Okay - where did you get the idea of these ignorant men casting votes for their proxies? At the beginning the people did not vote at all, not even for the electors. States decided how electors would be chosen.

That is all the constitution says - it says nothing about this 'vote for my smart neighbour since I am such an idiot.'

There was never a concept that the people would choose the president from the very start. The concept was considered, but there were fears of too much power for the populous states.

Also, I am not certain the the Jackson Co, MO elections board's opinion is any better than mine.

What evidence have you cited for your position?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

What evidence have you cited for your position?

The historical fact that it was well into the 19th century before every state chose electors by popular vote.

 

[alatide]

The historical fact that it was well into the 19th century before every state chose electors by popular vote.

That's another statement, not evidence.

 

[carpro]

You are looking at my points our of context - I said proportional choice of electors is up to each state and should not be a national decision. State already have the right to decide how electors are chosen and Maine and Nebraska (?) have done so.

Sorry I misunderstood, but my point remains pretty much the same.

The Electoral College will not go away and most states will not dilute their clout by apportioning their electors.

IMHO

Better? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

That's another statement, not evidence.

Your statement that I disagree with was about the original intent that the electors cast proxy votes. Here is some evidence to the contrary. Of course, as historians we all are going to see history from our own bias.

SOURCE

Writing in 1826, Senator Thomas Hart Benton admitted that the framers had intended electors to be men of “superior discernment, virtue, and information,” who would select the President “according to their own will” and without reference to the immediate wishes of the people.

HERE is an example of a state (New York) where the state legislature chose the electors in 1788.

 

[saturneptune]

Every state has the right to decide how their electors are chosen. Forty-eight states have the winner take all electoral vote provision, and two award some of their electoral votes by congressional district and overall popular vote.

Several years a proposal was brought up in California to award its 54 electoral votes to the winner of the national vote. It is bizarre, but they can decide how to choose their own electors. The states have made the choosing of electors pretty standard, but the bottom line is each state decided to do that.

I like Salty's idea of proportional representation for awarding electoral votes, but the bottom line is to become nationwide, it would take 50 seperate decisions to do so. In theory, each state could choose to elect electors in a manner not the same as other state. Now wouldn't that be funny to watch the news geniuses on election night try to figure out the results if each state had a different method.

 

[Salty]

I like Salty's idea of proportional representation for award electoral votes, but the bottom line is to become nationwide, it would take 50 seperate decisions to do so. In theory, each state could choose to elect electors in a manner not the same as other state. Now wouldn't that be funny to watch the news geniuses on election night try to figure out the results if each state had a different method.

Should that be the case, It would be the Fall verison of the Super Bowl!

 

[alatide]

Suppose that did happened. Then where would candidates normally campaign -The top 10 population cities:
1. 8.2 million New York City
2. 3.3 million LA
3. 2.8 million Chicago
4. 2.2 million Houston
5. 1.4 million Philly
6. 1.5 million Phoenix
7. 1.3 million San Antonio
8. 1.2 million Diego
9. 1.2 million Dallas
10 1.0 million San Jose

Total 24 million - just under 10% of the US population

just a side note the population of Dallas does not include Fort Worth or Arlington - which have a combined total of another 1 million citizens.

Why would someone go to the Dakotas, Idaho, NM, ect where there are so few citizens

Also keep in mind, the country was founded by States.


Bottom line, for the most part, I like th system we have now. The only change I would like to see would be the Electoral College and House members selected by proportional representation

So you think it's proper in a democracy (I know really a Republic) that someone's vote in one location is worth more than 3 times as much as another person's vote in another part of the country because you have a bias against cities? I don't see how you can call that a democracy. Should we support a government in Iraq that makes a citizen of Baghdad's vote worth 1/3 that of anyone else's vote in the country? Why? Would that be a democracy? Is that worth fighting and dying for?

 

[Salty]

So you think it's proper in a democracy (I know really a Republic) that someone's vote in one location is worth more than 3 times as much as another person's vote in another part of the country because you have a bias against cities? I don't see how you can call that a democracy. QUOTE]

First, I do not have a bias against cities. I am simply make a statement of fact. Actually, it would be the politicians who would have a bias against the rural areas. In simple terms, if you were a door to door salesman, would you prefer to go door knocking in the country where each farm house is a mile away, or in the suburbs, where there would be some 100 houses in a one mile stretch.?

I do not call the USA a democracy, because, as you said, it is NOT a democracy, we are a republic.
If you want a true democracy, then everyone should be allowed a vote, from the day you are born! Even those who are serving prison time.

 

[targus]

So you think it's proper in a democracy (I know really a Republic) that someone's vote in one location is worth more than 3 times as much as another person's vote in another part of the country because you have a bias against cities? I don't see how you can call that a democracy. Should we support a government in Iraq that makes a citizen of Baghdad's vote worth 1/3 that of anyone else's vote in the country? Why? Would that be a democracy? Is that worth fighting and dying for?

Under the system that you are proposing a majority as thin as one more vote than the minority could vote to take away the rights of the minority.

Then you should also be rejecting the concept of the Congress and the President who take actions without getting a vote from all citizens first to make sure that it is what the majority want.

While we are at it, you should be rejecting the Supreme Court that makes decisions that may not be the will of the majority of citizens. Perhaps we should be holding national votes on all the cases heard by the court.