I think our governmental structure was designed independently of communication technology. It represents a balance of state's rights and individual rights. Hence the two houses of Congress are of roughly equal power. The House is proportioned based on population, and in the Senate, each state has equal representation. The Senate is more powerful on executive actions, e.g., approval of presidential appointments and treaties. The House presumably has more power on taxation. The electoral college carries that model to selection of the CEO of the US. The popular vote has the greatest impact, but small states still have a minimum of 3 votes. Of course, states have a great deal of leeway in how their districts are drawn, and segments of the population can be disenfranchised by gerrymandering; however, our courts have taken action to remedy the grossest violations. The college also provides a mechanism for resolution of ties without having to go through another election.

Of course, over the years the dates for various actions have changed to reflect improvements in communication.

John

 

zero for the direct answer. Today, there are plenty that like the influx of commercial income from campaigns. The History of the Electorial College illustrates why it was done that way. If we went to popular vote, as suggested by many, there will be an economic downturn for the one segment of this country. The rural areas would be cast aside in favor of the metro areas.

In 1787, the smaller states were getting screwed with the lower house being apportioned by population, but the upper house was equal. We set up a conflict so the larger states couldn't run over the smaller states. Rhode Island has one representative, California has something like 55. In the upper house they both have two. The drive to consensus is the only way things get done in DC.

What is your reference to 1847? Are you referring to Colorado's state legislature appointing the electors vice holding an election because they didn't have time for an election as a newly admitted state?

The "electoral college" term may be new, but the selection of the electors have been around since 1788 with the approval of the Constitution of the U.S.

The three branches of government are suppose to be equal. I can remember Senator Schuman of NY raising the "advise and consent" of the senate argument with respect to approving Judges and other top officials. I thought he protested too much as that became a political tool in the future from both sides with him complaining when it was used while his party was in power.

 

If we abandoned the electorial college and go with the popular vote, only the major metro areas need to be motivated to get out the vote and the politicos would concentrate their resources there. A class D radio station in BFE would not have a good financial year and the major metros would be all political commercials 24/7 during the presided tial campaigns.

There is a reason why our elections were set up with the college.

I don't get how the electors solve this problem. Aren't they just appointed by the party?

 

What is your reference to 1847? Are you referring to Colorado's state legislature appointing the electors vice holding an election because they didn't have time for an election as a newly admitted state?

1847 was when it was written into Federal law. From Wikipedia " Although the United States Constitution refers to "Electors" and "electors", neither the phrase "Electoral College" nor any other name is used to describe the electors collectively. It was not until the early 19th century that the name "Electoral College" came into general usage as the collective designation for the electors selected to cast votes for president and vice president. It was first written into federal law in 1845 and today the term appears in 3 U.S.C. § 4, in the section heading and in the text as "college of electors."[16]"

I was taught in civics class that the elector system was made because in those early days there was no way that people could communicate or travel fast enough to do it any other way.

 

The electors are selected by the party as they are elected under the name of the person running.

Yes, there is a very slim to none chance they will change their vote, after all, the people selected the actual person they wanted and the electorial should cast the vote accordingly.

Very few electors didn't vote the way they were suppose to.

Look under the names of your selection. You should see the electors name.

All the parties select those on the ballot to be electors. If your person wins, that's the elector who wins.

The electors are no more than your proxy.

 

It goes back to the beginnings. You only get one elector for each member in the legislature. That is in the articles of the Constitution.

Yes, the electors met in time for the President to assume office prior to the new fiscal year (July).

I guess they wanted a fancy name, like the cardinals in the Catholic church., so they codified it in the USC.

Some have won the election on the plurality of the vote and not the majority of the vote. It's a damm good thing we adont have to meet a quorum for someone to ascend to the presidency.

If we went to a pure democracy, the majority will hardly be met. When was the last time a president won the majority of the voting population? I mean other than George Washington.

Can we achieve a majority of the eligible voters when less than 70% vote?

If we called a constitutional convention, wwho knows what they would change, as it zazll would be up for debate.

 

Feel the slime - Only 11 minutes till the next one!
Oh boy, oh boy!

 

Here's how "reaching across the isle" works.

 

Since it is important to us, our family and these are the people who will lead us to being the number one again. But I am afraid lookinhg at the quality of candidates contesting, its gonna hurt real bad. Many analysts have already graced with the decision of economic outlook about to ruin in the face of elections. Hope the best and good one wins instead of some fool.

 

Good luck with that. Since "citizens united", each crop of both parties gets worse.

 

Here's how "reaching across the isle" works.

But notice one HUGE difference between the problem they were trying to come to agreement on and most political problems. In the Jet Blue case, there were three possible outcomes (once they narrowed it down to the final two choices). The first two outcomes were free tickets to one of two resort destinations and even if you feel strongly about one, most people would still be willing to take the tickets to the other and view it as a win. The third outcome would be no free ticket at all. No one is motivated to stand their ground if it is going to result in that outcome when they can still win, just not as much, by caving in and going with the majority. In the worst case, you lose nothing by agreeing to go with the majority even if you've already decided that you will not go to that destination even for free.

In political (and many other) situations where a consensus is sought, there simply is no win-win outcome. Instead, you have choices between various options and some fraction of the people not only feel strongly that some options are much better than others, but more importantly feel strongly that some options are disastrously bad. Most people are willing to compromise and accept less than what they feel is the best solution. Similarly, few people are willing to compromise and accept what they feel is a solution that significantly worse than no solution at all.

Imagine tweaking that Jet Blue experiment just a little bit by requiring that, if a consensus is reached regarding a destination, that everyone has to pay 10% of the ticket price whether they use the ticket or not (and, just as in the actual experiment, people don't have to participate at all -- so the only participants are the people that have agreed, up front, to purchase the ticket for 10% if a consensus is reached). If no consensus is reached, no one gets any tickets, but no one has to pay anything, either. Now all it would take is one person that knows they have no desire to go to either of the final two destinations and, for them, no solution is better than either proposed solution. So they will vote to spoil the unanimous consensus. Similarly, if you have one person that has no desire to go to the first destination and another person that has no desire to go to the second.

 

@WBahn

Knowing the conflicts are by design in our Constitution, consensus is difficult at best. Even when consensus is reached, it may not last long.

The conflicts still exist, only when they reach a consensus, they are also reaching into constituents pockets.

 

@WBahn

Knowing the conflicts are by design in our Constitution, consensus is difficult at best. Even when consensus is reached, it may not last long.

The conflicts still exist, only when they reach a consensus, they are also reaching into constituents pockets.

Which they have no problem with -- and they know that they can get reelected just by promising that someone else will have to pay for the goodies.

 

Which they have no problem with -- and they know that they can get reelected just by promising that someone else will have to pay for the goodies.

They get re-elected because there's no alternative and it won't make any difference who's elected to office.

Re-elect an existing corrupt politician or elect a brand new corrupt politician. Obama promised "change" and we got change. However that change was the middle class going further down hill.

By the way, the middle class isn't getting all that many "goodies" either, but the middle class is getting royally hosed on taxes and government fees. If things keep going the way they are now, the middle class will become part of the bottom class.

 

It very much does make a difference who's elected to office. You may not like what you get from either side, but you are going to get different things (by and large).

 

It very much does make a difference who's elected to office. You may not like what you get from either side, but you are going to get different things (by and large).

These are an example of some of those different things:
Bush II - Started the war in Iraq
Obama - Continued the war In Iraq and started a new one in Syria.

Here in California, we're getting tons and tons of different things like increased corporate welfare, increased welfare for government employees, increased welfare for the real estate and construction industry, and increased taxes, fees and surcharges.

 

I figure we are one post away from shutting down this thread. When you start talking specifics, and names, not processes, you have stepped over the line. No two people ever see things quite the same, and this has turned from conversation on how our constitution words to something else.

 

I figure we are one post away from shutting down this thread.

I couldn't tell. It's been over my head for about 20 posts.

 

I figure we are one post away from shutting down this thread.

Please don't. There are outsiders (like me) among us that find threads like this quite enlightening.

I'm no mod, but I haven't seen anyone here becoming passionate and/or personal in their arguments.

 

The USA has two primary parties (currently Democrats and Republicans) with a host of other small political parties. This is not in the Constitution, but how the Constitution was written tends to encourage a two party system, though parties can change or evolve over time.

Where I draw the line concerning politics is when you start putting descriptions on parties or presidents, both past and present. Like I said, no two people see things quite the same, and a common result is one side thinks the other is an idiot for believing as they do. This starts heated arguments (as opposed to discussions) which almost inevitably leads to flames. So we don't go there.