In the US, should the electoral college be eliminated?

[Lord MJ]

Right now the states have no power over the executive branch. The electors are totally independent of state interest and primarily are based on party interest.

The states as political entities have no power over the executive branch, even with the electoral college. The states do have the power to decide how electors are chosen, but curiously, they chose a way that gives the actual state no power over the electoral college!

If you truly wanted a system where the states elect the president, then why not have the state governments cast the states votes? As it is the electors have no connection to a state.


Under my compromise (proportional Electoral College) the people of the state will decide the president, and that would not be a monolithic voice, but a proportional voice. As a result, 100% of California's vote wont go towards a Democratic candidate even though say 35% voted republican.

[Aeolus]

Right now the states have no power over the executive branch. The electors are totally independent of state interest and primarily are based on party interest.

The states as political entities have no power over the executive branch, even with the electoral college. The states do have the power to decide how electors are chosen, but curiously, they chose a way that gives the actual state no power over the electoral college!

If you truly wanted a system where the states elect the president, then why not have the state governments cast the states votes? As it is the electors have no connection to a state.


Under my compromise (proportional Electoral College) the people of the state will decide the president, and that would not be a monolithic voice, but a proportional voice. As a result, 100% of California's vote wont go towards a Democratic candidate even though say 35% voted republican.

The winner take all system is what gives the states the "power"

[SirNitram]

The winner take all system is what gives the states the "power"

I'd love to hear the explanation of how you came to that conclusion.

[z020898]

Lord MJ, even accepting that the electors are not essential for the concept of federalism eliminating them because to have the states choose electors is an unfair way of choosing the president is a direct attack on federalism. This logic for the action you advocate denies that the states can represent their people at the national level and thus the moral and logical justifications for federalism. If you desire a reform of the way electors are chosen in individual states, at the discretion of those states, then your reforms are not hostile to federalism. If you intend to impose national changes on the electoral system based on the logic outlined above then you are hostile to federalism.

[Aeolus]

The winner take all system is what gives the states the "power"

I'd love to hear the explanation of how you came to that conclusion.

The majority of the people in a given state are considered the state. yes it is entirely to democratic but that is how the states have chosen to pick there electors.

[Andrew J.]

Great idea. Because as we all know, the United States is exactly the same from coast to coast, and the people in California should have a say in, say, criminal law in Nebraska, or the speed limit in New Hampshire. There's exactly one right way to do everything, and Washington is the best place to decide how everyone in the country does it.

I'm glad to see that you agree with me, but the way you would execute my idea seems flawed. I, for, example, certainly wouldn't have the federal government micromanage everything; it's busy enough as it is. And the idea that widely differing places should have the same laws is just stupid. Town, city, and province governments would still have control over local laws, so long as they don't contradict federal law or the Cobstitution. Really, I jist want to stop calling them states and get rid of the electoral college. Everything else can stay exactly the same.

[RedImperator]

Great idea. Because as we all know, the United States is exactly the same from coast to coast, and the people in California should have a say in, say, criminal law in Nebraska, or the speed limit in New Hampshire. There's exactly one right way to do everything, and Washington is the best place to decide how everyone in the country does it.

I'm glad to see that you agree with me, but the way you would execute my idea seems flawed. I, for, example, certainly wouldn't have the federal government micromanage everything; it's busy enough as it is. And the idea that widely differing places should have the same laws is just stupid. Town, city, and province governments would still have control over local laws, so long as they don't contradict federal law or the Cobstitution. Really, I jist want to stop calling them states and get rid of the electoral college. Everything else can stay exactly the same.

Ah, so either you're backpedaling or you don't know a damned thing about how the Federal system actually works, else you wouldn't claim that if we "stop calling them states and get rid of the electoral college", states would be reduced to the status of provinces.

News flash: outside of its Constitutional mandate, the Federal government has to bribe the states to go along with it--the 55 mph speed limit and the 21-year drinking age was/is enforced by the states because adopting them was/is a prerequisite for recieving Federal highway money. The No Child Left Behind Act, Dubya and Ted Kennedy's little turd on front porch of every school district in America, pulls Federal money for school from states that don't comply. And in cases where the states don't cooperate, the Feds can't do dick--witness California and Arizona openly defying the Federal ban on marijuana by allowing cancer and AIDS patients to smoke it medicinally. Federal agents are still making busts in those states, but with zero cooperation from state law enforcement. The states are hardly administrative districts of the Federal government with no say in their own policies, save whatever autonomy Washington grants. Either you want to reduce them to this status (in which case, you'd better have a damn good reason why), or you're just annoyed that they're called states for no reason I can discern.

[Andrew J.]

News flash: outside of its Constitutional mandate, the Federal government has to bribe the states to go along with it--the 55 mph speed limit and the 21-year drinking age was/is enforced by the states because adopting them was/is a prerequisite for recieving Federal highway money. The No Child Left Behind Act, Dubya and Ted Kennedy's little turd on front porch of every school district in America, pulls Federal money for school from states that don't comply. And in cases where the states don't cooperate, the Feds can't do dick--witness California and Arizona openly defying the Federal ban on marijuana by allowing cancer and AIDS patients to smoke it medicinally. Federal agents are still making busts in those states, but with zero cooperation from state law enforcement. The states are hardly administrative districts of the Federal government with no say in their own policies, save whatever autonomy Washington grants. Either you want to reduce them to this status (in which case, you'd better have a damn good reason why), or you're just annoyed that they're called states for no reason I can discern.

Those are all either cases where it's just easier to bribe them or just let it go. Enforcing laws with military force is a lot of trouble, so a lot of times the Feds just roll their eyes and and go "Let the baby have his bottle." The last time a state tried to defy the government on a really big issue was school integration in the '60s. IIRC, the President had to send in the army to insure that the black children attended school safely.

[Perinquus]

Those are all either cases where it's just easier to bribe them or just let it go. Enforcing laws with military force is a lot of trouble, so a lot of times the Feds just roll their eyes and and go "Let the baby have his bottle." The last time a state tried to defy the government on a really big issue was school integration in the '60s. IIRC, the President had to send in the army to insure that the black children attended school safely.

That's because in that particular case on of the states was attempting to do something that violated the Constitution - specifically the equal protection clause. There are areas where federal law supersedes state law. None of that erases the fact that certain powers of government are reserved to the states, and the federal government cannot force the states to go along with its will in these matters, it can only cajole, persuade, or bribe.

[Andrew J.]

That's because in that particular case on of the states was attempting to do something that violated the Constitution - specifically the equal protection clause. There are areas where federal law supersedes state law. None of that erases the fact that certain powers of government are reserved to the states, and the federal government cannot force the states to go along with its will in these matters, it can only cajole, persuade, or bribe.

Okay, you're fight and I'm wrong. I concede. You are far mor knowledgeable of Constitutional law than I (me?).

[Aeolus]

News flash: outside of its Constitutional mandate, the Federal government has to bribe the states to go along with it--the 55 mph speed limit and the 21-year drinking age was/is enforced by the states because adopting them was/is a prerequisite for recieving Federal highway money. The No Child Left Behind Act, Dubya and Ted Kennedy's little turd on front porch of every school district in America, pulls Federal money for school from states that don't comply. And in cases where the states don't cooperate, the Feds can't do dick--witness California and Arizona openly defying the Federal ban on marijuana by allowing cancer and AIDS patients to smoke it medicinally. Federal agents are still making busts in those states, but with zero cooperation from state law enforcement. The states are hardly administrative districts of the Federal government with no say in their own policies, save whatever autonomy Washington grants. Either you want to reduce them to this status (in which case, you'd better have a damn good reason why), or you're just annoyed that they're called states for no reason I can discern.

Those are all either cases where it's just easier to bribe them or just let it go. Enforcing laws with military force is a lot of trouble, so a lot of times the Feds just roll their eyes and and go "Let the baby have his bottle." The last time a state tried to defy the government on a really big issue was school integration in the '60s. IIRC, the President had to send in the army to insure that the black children attended school safely.

If the Federal Gov. tried to force the states to do something without a VERY good reason they would be in a lot of trouble. The states collectively have a lot of firepower.

[MKSheppard]

The states collectively have a lot of firepower.

Doesn't Texas have the 4th largest army in the world or somefink?

[Aeolus]

The states collectively have a lot of firepower.

Doesn't Texas have the 4th largest army in the world or somefink?

6th largest economy. The Texas Guard is big but I don't know the full size.

[The Dark]

The states collectively have a lot of firepower.

Doesn't Texas have the 4th largest army in the world or somefink?

6th largest economy. The Texas Guard is big but I don't know the full size.

No, California is sixth largest economy. Texas is largest cattle ranch (and I say that only semi-facetiously, since I believe Florida is second in that ).

[Aeolus]

Doesn't Texas have the 4th largest army in the world or somefink?

6th largest economy. The Texas Guard is big but I don't know the full size.

No, California is sixth largest economy. Texas is largest cattle ranch (and I say that only semi-facetiously, since I believe Florida is second in that ).

California has the 4th largest economy Texas the Sixth. Texas is FAR more urban than you seem to think

[The Dark]

No, California is sixth largest economy. Texas is largest cattle ranch (and I say that only semi-facetiously, since I believe Florida is second in that ).

California has the 4th largest economy Texas the Sixth. Texas is FAR more urban than you seem to think

We're both wrong. Forbes.com says CA is fifth-largest. I can't find a website that says where Texas is on the list. And Texas is a large cattle producer. Much like Florida, the urban areas are quite well developed, but the areas between the cities are extremely sparsely populated, with large agriculture/ranching areas in those "empty" regions.

[MKSheppard]

Except texas has several armored brigades in her national guard...

[Aeolus]

No, California is sixth largest economy. Texas is largest cattle ranch (and I say that only semi-facetiously, since I believe Florida is second in that ).

California has the 4th largest economy Texas the Sixth. Texas is FAR more urban than you seem to think

We're both wrong. Forbes.com says CA is fifth-largest. I can't find a website that says where Texas is on the list. And Texas is a large cattle producer. Much like Florida, the urban areas are quite well developed, but the areas between the cities are extremely sparsely populated, with large agriculture/ranching areas in those "empty" regions.

Well of course Texas is a large cattle producer. But look up the population. I get so sick of nontexas acting like Texas is a backwards rural state. It's not, it's population is almost entirely urban and suburban. Only California and I believe New York have larger populations. As to size of economy It's not far behind California.

[Aeolus]

Here are a few statistics

"Population

Texas' population reached 21,779,893 in 2002, according to the latest estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau. The 2000 Census indicates that 82.5 percent of Texas' population lives in metropolitan areas. Texas is predominantly an urban state. This is underscored by recent population growth trends—the state’s metropolitan areas accounted for over 91 percent of Texas population growth between 1990 and 2000. Growth in the state’s metro areas, however, is not evenly distributed. It is concentrated in the large metropolitan areas of Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, and Austin. Austin added 403,536 people during the 1990s, increasing its population by nearly 50 percent. Other areas with significant growth are metros located along the Mexico border, such as McAllen, Brownsville, and Laredo. One of the fastest growing regions in the state is the Lower Rio Grande Valley. It houses two adjacent metros in the Valley—McAllen and Brownsville. Together they added 261,025 people between 1990 and 2000—about the same as the increase for the entire San Antonio metro area during the same period."



http://www.bidc.state.tx.us/overview/2-2te.htm

[Aeolus]

And

Gross State Product

The Texas gross state product (GSP) is forecast by the Comptroller of Public Accounts to reach $924.55 billion (in current dollars) in 2005. Since the 1986 recession, the Texas economy has been steadily diversifying. The service sector's share of GSP increased from 14.7 percent in 1986 to 20.5 percent in 2001, while manufacturing fell slightly from 14.1 percent of the economy in 1986 to 13.1 percent in 2001. Mining's share of Texas GSP (i.e., primarily oil and gas extraction) has been as high as 19.6 percent in 1981. Mining declined from 8.8 percent in 1986 to 6.2 percent in 2001

http://www.bidc.state.tx.us/overview/2-2te.htm

[Lord MJ]

Lord MJ, even accepting that the electors are not essential for the concept of federalism eliminating them because to have the states choose electors is an unfair way of choosing the president is a direct attack on federalism. This logic for the action you advocate denies that the states can represent their people at the national level and thus the moral and logical justifications for federalism. If you desire a reform of the way electors are chosen in individual states, at the discretion of those states, then your reforms are not hostile to federalism. If you intend to impose national changes on the electoral system based on the logic outlined above then you are hostile to federalism.

So you're saying I'm hositle to Federalism because I think the implementation of the presidential election sucks?

Let me add that to my new list of logic fallacies....

[Lord MJ]

Furthermore, the States do NOT represent the people at the national level. The States have NO power at the national level, ever since Senators were chosen to be directly elected.

In the case of the House, representatives are chosen to represent the people of thier district, and while senators represent the state in a manner of speaking, the actually represent the people that elected those senators, not the state as a political entity. The state has no power over the federal legislature, nor should it. If the legislature does something that goes against the interest of the state's people then the populace can simply not vote for the same representatives the time around.

The electoral college is in fact the most undemocratic part of the system because of the winner take all system.

Consider this: The house is represented based on districts. So if a majority of the people are republicans, then the state will have majority republican representatives, but not all.

The Senate works more like state representatives, because they have to win the popular vote of the state, but the state really has no control over those senators. In fact the state can kiss the senators ass as long as the people of the state support those senators. Originally, the senators were supposed to represent the state as a political entity, but as you know that was changed by constitutional amendment.

The EC: Whichever candidate gets the most votes, get's the ENTIRE representation in the EC. So if there are 4 candidates, can one candidate won 35% which was the highest. Then the electors are representing only 35% of the states population, wheras in a proportional system, only the remaining 65% of the electors would represent the rest of the population.


The way our federal system works, is that the state is only concerned with what goes on within it's borders. It has no say on what goes on Federally. The people in our legislatures represent the people of the state, not the state itself.