State of the US Electorate

[CaptainHaplo]

Now I am going to be clear - I was told this is a quote by a Czech citizen, but I have no way to confirm it. However, regardless of who said it, for many here it rings true. Others will disagree vehemently. I will only say if you think the US electorate is wise and thus disagree with this statement, what did the last mid-cycle election mean then? If it IS true (because your a republican and anti-Obama) should you find solace in the last election?

When I read it - my jaw dropped. WOW! So without further introduction:

""The danger to America is not Barack Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama Presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their President. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fool,s such as those who made him their President."

[TLAM Strike]

I think I read somewhere that if you ask a sufficiently large group of people a question the majority answer is inevitably the correct answer...

[Sailor Steve]

This is why we have elections every four years, so no one can gain a monopoly, and the bad ones go away quickly. The Founders were smart enough to realize that.

Though the Confederates may have had the better idea: One six-year term and you're done. Period.

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

I think I read somewhere that if you ask a sufficiently large group of people a question the majority answer is inevitably the correct answer...

"Does history record any case in which the majority was right?"
-Robert A. Heinlein

My biggest question is:
Why can this electorate vote outway popular votes?
Say every voter says no to Obama when voteing.
But the electorates say Yes.
WTF?
Do we need to hang them all or what?

[razark]

Originally Posted by privateer

My biggest question is:
Why can this electorate vote outway popular votes?

Because the unwashed masses don't really deserve the right to choose their leaders. They wouldn't be able to select the right person. The uneducated, poor, non-landholding, non-white, non-males don't actually count. Take that up with the guys that wrote the Constitution.

It's an outdated concept, and needs to be removed.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by privateer

My biggest question is:
Why can this electorate vote outway popular votes?
Say every voter says no to Obama when voteing.
But the electorates say Yes.
WTF?
Do we need to hang them all or what?

It doesn't work that way. The Electoral College was originally appointed by the state legislatures, and there was no popular vote. Since the Constitution stipulates that Electors are appointed "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct", over the years the states decided that the best way to appoint the Electors was by popular vote. Early on if the states were divided Electors were appointed by proportion. The "whole state goes one way" thing came later.

If the popular vote in one state has 51% for one candidate, then the whole state goes that way. This means that on more than one ocassion a candidate has won the popular vote but lost the election.

Then there was 1824, when Andrew Jackson won both, but not by the necessary margin, so it went to the House of Representatives for a decision. They handed it to John Quincy Adams.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by razark

Because the unwashed masses don't really deserve the right to choose their leaders. They wouldn't be able to select the right person. The uneducated, poor, non-landholding, non-white, non-males don't actually count. Take that up with the guys that wrote the Constitution.

The guys who wrote the Constitution didn't see it that way at all. In their eyes a Representative represented the people of his district, and was elected by them. A Senator represented the state itself, and was elected by the State Legislature. The President represented the people and the states, and his function was mainly limited to representing us all to outsiders, so Foreign Policy was his main job. The Electoral College was meant to keep him from owing favors to any one faction.

It's an outdated concept, and needs to be removed.

You may be right there.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

The guys who wrote the Constitution didn't see it that way at all.

Well, it's not my fault that history doesn't conform to the way I remember it.

I really do need to go a re-learn that stuff. It's been a long time since I studied early American history, and all I've got to go on if half-remembered bits and pieces picked up along the way. It's my country, I should know a lot more about how it was founded than I do.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

You may be right there.

That's what I've been trying to tell people for years!

[tater]

Originally Posted by razark

Because the unwashed masses don't really deserve the right to choose their leaders. They wouldn't be able to select the right person. The uneducated, poor, non-landholding, non-white, non-males don't actually count. Take that up with the guys that wrote the Constitution.

It's an outdated concept, and needs to be removed.

The Electoral College is not outdated at all and makes far more sense than direct, popular vote. The reason Democrats frequently talk about eliminating it (it would take a Constitutional Amendment, luckily, since that ain't gonna happen) is that if it were pure popular vote, the large cities and populous urban states would own the Presidency forever. The rest of the country would be entirely disenfranchised for electing the President.

That is what anyone against the Electoral College is really asking for. The EC forces Presidential candidates to have to appeal to a much broader range of Americans in both large and small states, and is a significant, moderating influence.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

The Electoral College is not outdated at all and makes far more sense than direct, popular vote. The reason Democrats frequently talk about eliminating it (it would take a Constitutional Amendment, luckily, since that ain't gonna happen) is that if it were pure popular vote, the large cities and populous urban states would own the Presidency forever. The rest of the country would be entirely disenfranchised for electing the President.

That is what anyone against the Electoral College is really asking for. The EC forces Presidential candidates to have to appeal to a much broader range of Americans in both large and small states, and is a significant, moderating influence.

So, to understand your point, the electoral college is important so that one party remains viable through minority rule based on districting and policy. Essentially, that's what you're saying.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

So, to understand your point, the electoral college is important so that one party remains viable through minority rule based on districting and policy. Essentially, that's what you're saying.

We're talking about an under 1% difference here. The reality is that urban centers would dominate under a strict popular vote, the EC weights smaller states to have very slightly more impact than they would have just based upon population (the only difference being the 2 senatorial electoral votes per state, regardless of size). The entire point of the republic is for States to matter. Smaller states need to have a say. That's the point of equality in Senatorial power, AND in the EC.

This has been true since the Constitution was written. So arguing against the EC is arguing against the ability of a minority party—any minority party at whatever point in time—from being shut out. This is fundamental to the US system, and always has been.

You prefer single party rule?

Your statement "so that one party remains viable through minority rule based on districting and policy" suggests that this is new. This was true since day one, and is exactly the point. Ideally to many of the Founders there would be less "party" and more "State" allegiance, but the results are much the same. The goal was for the less populous areas to have more of a shot at power than they would have solely based on pop—and the current difference is quite small compared to 200 years ago when the EC was actually more grossly slewed to smaller states due to nationally lower populations. When a State was big with 900,000 people, it would have 5 electoral votes, now that would be a tiny state. So as the country has grown, the +2 votes skewing has become smaller and smaller. Growth will eventually make it noise anyway.

Regardless, you'd have to amend the const. for this to get changed, and that simply will not happen since it is not in the interest of the smaller States, and they'd need 3/4 ratification.

[tater]

VA was an electoral powerhouse in 1800. It had a population of under 900,000. That's 5 E-votes. RI had only 1 House seat (a pop under 70,000), so 3 E-votes. 60% of the weight of VA with 1/13th the population.

Now VA has 13 and RI has 4. Just 30% of VA's weight instead of 60%. (8 million pop in VA vs 1 M in RI.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by tater

We're talking about an under 1% difference here. The reality is that urban centers would dominate under a strict popular vote, the EC weights smaller states to have very slightly more impact than they would have just based upon population (the only difference being the 2 senatorial electoral votes per state, regardless of size). The entire point of the republic is for States to matter. Smaller states need to have a say. That's the point of equality in Senatorial power, AND in the EC.

This has been true since the Constitution was written. So arguing against the EC is arguing against the ability of a minority party—any minority party at whatever point in time—from being shut out. This is fundamental to the US system, and always has been.

You prefer single party rule?

Your statement "so that one party remains viable through minority rule based on districting and policy" suggests that this is new. This was true since day one, and is exactly the point. Ideally to many of the Founders there would be less "party" and more "State" allegiance, but the results are much the same. The goal was for the less populous areas to have more of a shot at power than they would have solely based on pop—and the current difference is quite small compared to 200 years ago when the EC was actually more grossly slewed to smaller states due to nationally lower populations. When a State was big with 900,000 people, it would have 5 electoral votes, now that would be a tiny state. So as the country has grown, the +2 votes skewing has become smaller and smaller. Growth will eventually make it noise anyway.

Regardless, you'd have to amend the const. for this to get changed, and that simply will not happen since it is not in the interest of the smaller States, and they'd need 3/4 ratification.

Truthfully, I never paid much attention to the electoral college argument, so I was simply trying to understand your perspective. In relation to my question your explaination is essentially, yes, it is designed to make a minority party viable. That's all I wanted to know.

[joegrundman]

i think i got that as a spam email about 7years ago, but with the name obama replaced with bush.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by joegrundman

i think i got that as a spam email about 7years ago, but with the name obama replaced with bush.

I did not got that spam mail, but your replacing of names immediately came to my mind when reading the starting post's message. Bush junior not only got elected - he even got elected TWICE. Making the same mistake even twice - what does that tell me about an electorate?

And every couple of years voluntarily agreeing to make the same silly show circus about choosing between plague and cholera - how is about that, what does that tell me about an electorate...?