A Refutation of Judo Guy's stance on the Electoral College

[Pit Dog]

Judo Guy gave a very compelling argument how the electoral college is a good thing, because it gives a fair and proportional allocation of representation across the nation.

He said, were it not for the electoral college, candidates would not have to campaign nationwide but instead would focus their efforts on major cities only, just to capture a majority vote, and completely ignore smaller, more rural segments of our population. (My apologies if I did not encapsulate your beliefs accurately, JG.)

In my opinion this viewpoint is incorrect.

The idea that "regions" matter ... or that "states" matter ... as if they are sentient beings or something ... is one of two major problems here. The idea that all people should be campaigned-to personally is the other.

First of all, there really is no such thing as a state, or a region, they are merely CONCEPTS that help us make sense of our world. There is no "state" that is benefitted or detrimented by certain presidents, there are only people within the state who are. And, yes, if a certain state has a tiny amount of people by comparison to another, why should a candidate waste his time campaigning to it personally?

This brings us to the second flaw in Judo Guy's logic. We have this amazing invention called Television, where anyone from any state can utilize this device to watch a prospective candidate if he is so inclined. Therefore, there is no need for any candidate to waste time and money traveling to the tip of Alaska to give a speech to three people when his time would be better-served speaking in Los Angeles. The three people in Alaska can watch the speech on TV.

Furthermore, there is no reason why three people in Alaska should matter in the slightest, beside their own rightful individual votes, in the overall scheme of things.

Basically, the electoral college is a sham. There should be only one vote, and that is the popular vote. It is the way things were intended to be and it is the true, pure form of democracy. There are no "states" and there are no "regions" in the meaningful sense of being affected by votes, only the people in them. And their views and needs should matter to the overall scheme of things precisely in relation to their percentage of the overall population.

Thanks for reading.

[Ronin]

Professor Pit Dog ?????!!!!!

Pit, do you realize how far down I had to drag myself to trade mud-balls with your alter ego, Joe Manco?

I'm not sure if I can cope with this new, erudite persona!

My own personality will start to fragment if this keeps up.

[judo guy]

Pit,

Well, my argument wasn't really about campaigning it was about addressing the concerns of the people within a state or region. Certainly radio, television and now the internet have changed the politics and have made information more accessible to all of those that care. So a candidate can get his message to anyone. But candidates will always be pressing the flesh in campaigns because it is an effective form of persuasion.

If the concerns and needs of the people throughout the country were homogenous, I certainly agree that the popular vote is appropriate. The popular vote is how we elect our state representatives and senators. I see nothing wrong with that at all.

I see too many problems with a popular vote election of a president. I think it would further alienate and divide the nation more than it already is. Take a look at the electoral map and you will see a clear disconnect of values and political agendas between most of the country.

My cynicism is based partially on a belief that politicians will do just about anything to get elected. I believe the rights and benefits that accrue to people in small areas of the country would be diminished under a popular vote system.
Politicians love to rob Peter to pay Paul. I believe it would be even more egregious under a popular vote system.

I think the electoral college is an appropriate check and balance on the mischief that can be created by popular vote elections. Can I be wrong about that? Sure, but it has worked pretty well for the last 200 years.

In regards to this most recent election, bear in mind that both candidates ran campaigns based on achieving an electoral victory. There is no proof that Gore would have beaten Bush if they had run campaigns based on winning the popular vote. So we don't know what the people's will would have been if it had been a popular vote election.

Also Gore hasn't won the popular vote yet. There are over 1 million absentee ballots still uncounted in California. Those ballots are mainly from Orange County and San Diego County. Both lean very much toward the Republican Party.

The electoral college is not perfect and I'm not gonna try to defend its weaknesses. I just think it is better than the popular vote given the geographical considerations we have in this country.

[Gargoyle]

Though I agree with Pit Dog’s conclusion, I disagree with his reasons.

The founding fathers had a profound mistrust of the competency of the average citizen. They considered them easily bamboozled by a clever public speaker, and so would be susceptible to being whipped up into a fury by a sufficiently powerful personality.

The Founding Father’s also recognized the necessity of the President to be elected by people, and not some inane notion of heredity or divine decree. He must be elected by people.

Who else? Congress?

To put the vote in the hands of Congress would upset the balance of power between the legislative and the executive branches of government. The president, in effect, must solicit the vote of the legislators, which would leave him vulnerable to the invisible strings of puppetry, by the hands of a congress he must please.

Who else? The electorate.

The rural areas need to have a voice. The Founding Fathers realized that the population would be focused in big cities, and so by giving each state the power of an electorate, the individual concerns of each region must be considered.

The United States of America is more than its people.

The agricultural community, for instance, represents unique concerns and needs. These are the people responsible for feeding the hungry and vast majority in the major cities. They believed that by giving individual electoral power to regions we define as states, those particular and peculiar needs of the individuals representing those needs would be slaked.

Furthermore, the notion of collecting, computing and reporting the individual ballots of the hundreds and thousands of rural citizens in a coherent vote was fraught with problems. They must have representation, because it would be impossible to guarantee a legitimate election with such ripe opportunities of fraud.

They also decided that each individual state would decide how it’s electoral votes would be cast. Only two states vote that the electorate don’t all have to vote for the same president. It’s become a given that most states will cast all of their electoral votes on a given president.

Also, why should the concerns of minorities be considered? They are minorities and, therefore, will have minimal effect on the general election. The little guy gets trampled.

That’s my understanding of the basis of the Electoral College as we know it. Now, I will smash each supposition, valid at the time – anachronistic in our modern era.


[Edited by Gargoyle on 11-11-2000 at 03:58 AM]

[Gargoyle]

If you look at the “little guys” like Montana, and compute their percentage representation in the electoral college, it ain’t much. I think it’s 5 parts in 365, which would give it about 1.3% representation.

Not that much…not much better than the individual voters as a percentage of the general population, but it is less; however, the real needs of the country tend to add more credibility to their needs, so it’s in the country’s best interest and makes a candidacy more compelling if the issues are championed. Furthermore, the presence of those states is pronounced by their senatorial representation – they get two guys in the office despite their diminutive size.

Conclusion? The breadbasket states have no advantage using the electoral college than they would have as individual voters.

Minorities? The reality of today’s elections are that the minorities can spell the difference in an election. Adhering to their particular needs gives the edge that can win the coveted prize of the White House. There is no advantage at all to having a general election or an electoral college vote with respect to minorities.

As far as collecting the votes, we are technologically advanced enough that problems of collecting the common vote are non-existent.

I will now illuminate the gross injustice perpetrated by the Electoral College.

[Gargoyle]

Suppose California, representing about 100 million people (I’m guessing) vote such that there is a majority of one measly vote. The winner gets all 54 of California’s electoral votes! You tell me, how have the minority causes been adequately represented? How has the will of the people been heard? The tyrannical majority, precisely that carnivorous entity the Founding Father’s feared, have gained all the power, so there’s a gross misrepresentation of the intent of California voters!

And why should I vote Republican, as a citizen of California, knowing that my vote means nothing for the election of a president, given that my state is hopelessly mired in the victim hood that keeps the Democratic Party alive? It’s a waste of my time.

As an example of truly thwarted efforts, consider the Floridians in the pan-handle region of the state, mostly Republican: they are in a different time zone from the east coasters, and so their ballet closed an hour later than the rest of the state. The media declared, “Vice President Gore is the winner”, so the people waiting in line to vote, those stuck in traffic and waiting in car to cast their ballots drive home. Why vote? The state has spoken.

If their vote had inherent value, and the fungal media would have no sway in their eyes to quit.

And if the big cities are evenly split, the difference will be in the rural areas…in fact, the ace of the rural areas under the sleeve will produce the trump card of the election. The causes of the rural areas would be championed as campaign promises, ensuring needs met by those outside the big cities.

Everyone’s needs are seen, understood, politicized and met.

The Electoral College is an artifice, once useful, now an appendix in the body politic that is the Democracy of the United States of America.

It, clearly, should be dismantled and abolished.

[judo guy]

Gargoyle,

First of all it is the republic of United States, not the democracy of the United States.

Secondly the United States consists of 50 different sovereignities in the form of individual states.

The electoral college ensures that a majority in just one sovereignity cannot control the destiny of the other 49.

The converse argument of your California 1 vote argument is an overwhelming majority in just one state (or city for that matter)deciding for the entire nation of 50 sovereign states who the chief executive would be. This would have happened when Tilden won the popularity vote but was destroyed in the electoral college. It is my opinion that the latter is far more egregious.

I find it interesting that one of your arguments for protection of the citizens of a particular sovereignity is that they have the same number of Senators as the bigger states. Well, under your thesis why should they have the same number of Senators? Why shouldn't California have 14 senators if the majority of the popular vote is there? Wouldn't that be more representative of the total popular vote? Better yet, since you seem to think that we are one big homogenous nation why shouldn't all the people have a ballot where we choose the 100 senators and 438 representatives from throughout the country?

Congress is an expression of the will of the people through the various state sovereignities. It is my opinion that the Executive office should be the same.

Also this election is the third election in a row where the president was a elected with a plurality of voters, not a majority. No matter if Gore or Bush wins both candidates will have been elected with a bigger percentage of the popular vote than Bill Clinton. Where were all you majoritarians in 1992 and 1996? Does this mean that Bill Clinton should not have been elected president because he did not get a MAJORITY of the votes cast for president?

Here is a link to a less rambling convuluted expression of my opinion by George Will. I'm not a big fan of his, but he puts it better than I did.

http://www.sacbee.com/voices/national/will/will_20001102.html

Here is an excellent link that tells the history of the electoral college and arguments pro and con about it.

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

[Edited by judo guy on 11-11-2000 at 11:24 AM]

[judo guy]

This is slightly off topic, but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.

Do you think the closeness of this election is harmful to the development of 3rd parties in the United States?

In a close election, would it make you more reluctant to vote for a 3rd party candidate even if you felt they were the most compelling choice?

Personally, I don't vote so it wouldn't affect me. Just wanted to get other opinions on it.

[Mr. Miyagi]

I agree with Pit Dog 100%.

[Ronin]

I agree with Judo Guy...90%.

I think it's too early to scrap the electoral college system.

The Founders weren't perfect, but damn were they smart!
The system works. It's gotten us this far.

[Linden]

Judo Guy,

You brought up a good point about the third party situation.

Even though I think the electoral college is all in all wise, it is basically designed for a two party system. Being someone who voted for a third party, I don't think it's fair to have a third party vote wreck another parties vote under the electoral college system.

I do believe that the electoral college is ingenius until it comes to something like what we are experiencing now.

I feel that States have their own voice when electing a local, federal representative. I believe that the election should be decided by majority vote, and each state is given its voice by senatorial or congressional representation.

However, I am concerned about the electoral colleges effect on third parties, and am as equally concerned about the possibility of fraud in a straight election.

I disagree with you on the Republic issue, and feel that although our basic rights should be defended as a whole, we need a more democratic process.

This is a good discussion though, and I have yet decided on what the best thing to do is. But I do think we need to look at the current system, and ask ourselves whether it is acting fairly.

Again, my concern is for the third party, which I am very staunch about having be relevant in elections.

[Joe Manco]

Judo Guy said,
"Well, my argument wasn't really about campaigning it was about addressing the concerns of the people within a state or region. Certainly radio, television and now the internet have changed the politics and have made information more accessible to all of those that care. So a candidate can get his message to anyone. But candidates will always be pressing the flesh in campaigns because it is an effective form of persuasion."

RESPONSE:
Well, my argument still applies. Anyone can become informed via our "amazing inventions," and therefore anyone can become informed via TV, etc., and so the candidate who gets the most real live votes should win.

Judo Guy said,
"If the concerns and needs of the people throughout the country were homogenous, I certainly agree that the popular vote is appropriate. The popular vote is how we elect our state representatives and senators. I see nothing wrong with that at all."

RESPONSE:
This is absurd, my friend. The concerns of a STATE population are no more "homogenious" than they are nationwide. Therefore I am left dumbfounded at how you recognize the beauty of the popular vote statewide, but not nationwide. There is nothing at all that should change at the national level, because there is TRUTH in a popular vote ... whereas there is the potential for falsity in an electoral vote. The beauty of Truth and Reality is that it always works, which is why the popular vote should always be used, and at every level.

Judo Guy said,
"I see too many problems with a popular vote election of a president. I think it would further alienate and divide the nation more than it already is. Take a look at the electoral map and you will see a clear disconnect of values and political agendas between most of the country."

RESPONSE:
Then the problem is with your vision. Your glasses. The way you "see things." The use of a real, live totality of voting would do just the opposite. Instead of an inherent mistrust of an artificial "system" (i.e., the electoral college), with a true popular vote there would be a sense of THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN ... not "the college may have been tweeked and the wrong man elected" as exists today.

Judo Guy said,
"My cynicism is based partially on a belief that politicians will do just about anything to get elected. I believe the rights and benefits that accrue to people in small areas of the country would be diminished under a popular vote system. Politicians love to rob Peter to pay Paul. I believe it would be even more egregious under a popular vote system."

RESPONSE:
Again, your belief is hypothetical, fantasy. The true exploitation is going on right now with the electoral college superceding the true totality of the people's votes. Further, not everyone who lives in the city will vote anti-rural. Many people living in a metropolis "wish" they lived rural, or at the very least are environmentally/agriculturally aware, and vote pro-ecology/farming. Politicians are either corrupt or they're not, but at least a true popular vote bespeaks the Will of the People, not the Slant of the College.

Judo Guy said,
"I think the electoral college is an appropriate check and balance on the mischief that can be created by popular vote elections. Can I be wrong about that? Sure, but it has worked pretty well for the last 200 years."

RESPONSE:
You answered your own question. Yes, you can be (and IMO are) wrong about this. Horse and buggy also worked for much more than 200 years, but the change to cars sure worked better.

Judo Guy said,
"In regards to this most recent election, bear in mind that both candidates ran campaigns based on achieving an electoral victory. There is no proof that Gore would have beaten Bush if they had run campaigns based on winning the popular vote. So we don't know what the people's will would have been if it had been a popular vote election.

Also Gore hasn't won the popular vote yet. There are over 1 million absentee ballots still uncounted in California. Those ballots are mainly from Orange County and San Diego County. Both lean very much toward the Republican Party."

RESPONSE:
True, but that isn't the point. This election brought the flaw of the electoral college out into the light, regardless who would have won, and as such it should be abolished for the next election.

Judo Guy said,
"The electoral college is not perfect and I'm not gonna try to defend its weaknesses. I just think it is better than the popular vote given the geographical considerations we have in this country."

RESPONSE:
Again, there is no such thing as "geopraphical considerations." There is no "geography" that is a sentient being that has the right of consideration. There are only PEOPLE who opt to live in certain geographical areas, and their votes should not gain any sort of artificial "boost" through an electoral college. The fundamental flaw in logic of the electoral college lies here.

[Pit Dog]

Oops!

I meant to post as Pit Dog

But let me address your statement:


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"This is slightly off topic, but I wanted to get everyone's opinion.

Do you think the closeness of this election is harmful to the development of 3rd parties in the United States?

In a close election, would it make you more reluctant to vote for a 3rd party candidate even if you felt they were the most compelling choice?

Personally, I don't vote so it wouldn't affect me. Just wanted to get other opinions on it."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Yes, this is ANOTHER reason why the electoral college should be eliminated.




[Edited by Pit Dog on 11-11-2000 at 05:19 PM]

[judo guy]

Pit,

No, I think that your statements that there are no geographical considerations are ridiculous. Any reading of an almanac will tell you that there are large differences in regional economies, resources, etc. These things have a heavy impact on voting considerations of the electorate. Besides, every person semiliterate on our political structure understands that the union is a federation of 50 sovereign states.

Again your statement about a majority of the people having spoke is ridiculous. There has been no majority of the people electing a president in the last 3 elections. 57 percent of the people voted against Bill Clinton in 1992. There has been a plurality. Bill Clinton ran his presidency with far fewer votes and percentage than either Gore or Bush. Was his presidency a sham? Not in my opinion.

Now it is conceivable under a popular vote that we could have numerous 3rd parties that fragment the vote until the winning candidate has the favor of only a small percentage of the population. How does that benefit the people? I don't think it does. Ross Perot a third party candidate collected 19 percent of the vote in 1992 but 0 electoral votes. The electoral college is a safeguard against mischief that can be created by 3rd parties.

But this debate has come down to nitpicking on the pros and cons of both systems of voting. I take for granted that the electoral college is not perfect. I take for granted that the popular vote is not perfect. When I weigh all the considerations in my mind, I still prefer the electoral college which is really nothing more than a popular vote being honored in 50 different sovereignities.

[judo guy]

Linden,

I too agree like Jefferson that a democracy (will of the majority) is the highest form of Republican government. That said, Jefferson also believed that it worked in smaller geographical areas. I think that the electoral college is in fact a popular vote among 50 different sovereignities. Whoever wins the popular vote in a state is declared the winner of that state's electoral votes. So the candidates are encouraged to seek a more widely distributed section of votes than they might be under a direct election of the candidates by popular vote on a national basis. I can't help but think that is a good thing.

I think that the electoral college benefits 3rd party candidates while preserving the best interest of the nation. Ross Perot most certainly cost George Bush the election in 1992 and most likely Bob Dole in 1996. It looks like Nader can cost Gore the election this year. So the third parties made a powerful statement the last 3 elections in my opinion.

But imagine if presidential elections were won by pluralities without any validation like the electoral college. We could end up as a country with 10 or more political parties all trying to win the hearts of 15% of the electorate. This happens in places all over the world today. It doesn't make for very stable governments.



[Edited by judo guy on 11-11-2000 at 05:57 PM]