[QUOTE=ewmayer;129722]Putting aside all the obfuscatory hoohawing about "historical precedent" and "enfranchisement of smaller states", It's really very simple: Do you believe in the principle of "One person, One vote"? Well, do you?[/QUOTE]

Actually, no. Idiots and the ill-informed should be turned away. Of course, that's as likely to happen as the demise of the electoral college.

Now you'll probably ask if I believe in the principal of "One non-idiot, at-least-modestly-informed person, one vote?". Sure, but I don't mind if it gets aggregated in somewhat peculiar ways along the way to a final outcome.

[QUOTE=Prime95;129725]Actually, no. Idiots and the ill-informed should be turned away. Of course, that's as likely to happen as the demise of the electoral college.[/QUOTE]

How do you feel about idiot, ill-informed electors?

[QUOTE=Prime95;129715]That's like saying that in a 9-8 baseball game the 8 runs for the losing team didn't count. But the record books show the runs were faithfully recorded in a losing effort. And in a 7-game World Series you can easily outscore your opponents and lose the series - yet no fans complain "Unfair - our runs weren't counted!"[/QUOTE]

Prime95,

I'd just like to point out that I said what you said, except I said it first, more succinctly, and better. :devil:

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;129703]Ah, but you have to count them before they don't count.[/QUOTE]


Good one. There's a "Schroedinger's Cat" joke in there someplace, but I guess until I observe it, it doesn't exist...


Norm

[QUOTE=Spherical Cow;129736]Good one. There's a "Schroedinger's Cat" joke in there someplace, but I guess until I observe it, it doesn't exist...[/QUOTE]
It's [probably] to be found [not found] next to "Schrödinger's Umlaut".

To put a tax-season spin on this side of the argument: If I make sure to count my tax dollars before giving them to the IRS, do I still get to spend them?

[QUOTE=ewmayer;129722]It's really very simple: Do you believe in the principle of "One person, One vote"? Well, do you?.[/QUOTE]

This was the stance of the large states at the Constitutional Convention. The little states took the stance that the United States was to be a union of sovereign states, and hence the rule in national matters should be "one state one vote." Roger Sherman, first mayor of New Haven, had a hand in the Connecticut Compromise, which made the Senate one way and the House the other way. The Electoral College is an artifact of that same compromise - a middle ground on whether the US is a nation of people or a nation of states. Not exactly middle since its 435 vs 100 - more like a quintile ground - so we are about 80% a nation of people and 20% a nation of states. Works for me.

William

Why the Electoral College is still a good idea!
 

[quote=R.D. Silverman;129672]Does anyone else know the reason behind the use of the electoral college???[/quote]Discover magazine's November 1996 issue had an excellent article, "Math Against Tyranny" by Will Hively. It's the best defense I've personally found.

[URL]http://discovermagazine.com/1996/nov/mathagainsttyran914[/URL]

Also, there's a whole Web zine devoted to "Resources, References & Stories about the much maligned U.S. Electoral College": [URL]http://www.avagara.com/e_c/index.htm[/URL]

Before I read Hively's article, I had about the same attitude I think you have: there're some good reasons both against and for the Electoral College. Since reading it, I am a solid supporter of the EC.

(to be continued/extended in a while, but I have to pause now -- Just go read the article yourselves.)

[quote=Spherical Cow;129680]From the article pointed out by[/quote]cheesehead

[quote]above:[/quote]

- - -

[quote]The argument against that, of course, is that she won those states against another Democrat. What's really important is whether she would win those big electoral states against the Republican nominee.[/quote]... and she's more likely to do that than the other Democrat would be, as demonstrated by her greater-than-the-other-Democrats popularity -- so goes the argument.

BTW, I already addressed that second sentence in detail earlier in this thread.

[quote]Personally, I consider the electoral college system to be outdated[/quote]Read the "Math Against Tyranny" article!

[quote]based on arbitrary, artificial geographic boundaries[/quote]... as are _almost all aspects of our current legal system_, so that's not much of an argument against the EC, unless you mean to abolish states, counties, municipalities, townships, private ownership of designated areas of land, zoning regulations, street numbers on houses, and so on ...

... and countries, too, so that we have One World government. Ready for that?

[quote]Contrary to the politically correct "Every vote counts" statements, every vote simply doesn't count in that system.[/quote]... nor does it in the popular vote system. Read the article !!!

[quote=ewmayer;129698]I fear it was more the "tyranny of the unwashed masses of people who are not rich white landowners" which they were afraid of.[/quote]Okay, but that's not the only reason.

[quote]The "tyranny of the majority" argument is a non sequitur in the context of a public election.[/quote]On the contrary, public elections are [I]exactly[/I] where the "tyranny of the majority" argument applies!

[quote]Hello? Whatever happened to "One person, One vote"?[/quote]Read the "Math Against Tyranny" article!

[quote=ewmayer;129700]Not true - winner-take-all means that by definition the votes of the 49.999% of the voters of state X who didn't vote for the winning candidate [who got 50.001% of the vote] do not count - they get exactly ZERO electoral college votes. If 100% of the state had gone for the winner, the EC vote total would be exactly the same.[/quote]Popular vote winner-takes-all in a national election means the same thing -- the 49.999% of voters [I]in the entire country[/I] who didn't vote for the winning candidate "do not count". They get ZERO President.

It's precisely the same argument on a national scale that you set forth on a state level, Ernst, except that instead of three-or-more Electoral College votes per state, there's [U]only ONE National vote per country[/U]. Instead of a 280-258 result or a 398-140 result or a 534-4 result, we'd get nothing but 1-0 results.

Except, of course, for the ties (popular vote 99,888,777 to 99,888,777, for instance). If you think Florida 2000 was a mess, you'd better sit down before contemplating what would happen if the national popular vote were, say, as close as it was in 1960. Then, _every_ "hanging chad" in _every_ state and DC would be contested -- Florida 2000 times 51. (And, no, the decision would _never_ go to the House of Representatives -- the side(s) that thinks it(they) won would never agree that there was a tie for the House to break!) ... Unless you like the idea that whichever party had appointed the majority of sitting Supreme Court justices as of the time of election would win the next Presidency.

The "Math against tiranny" article and the Natapoff theorem are based on the single fact that you have one representative for the diversity of a large body of people. I saw (but do not remember the sources) a mathematicall proof that : the more levels of power (one body elects another, that in turn...) the more the system will favor those in power and a status quo. I favor a sytem that let decisions be decided by consensus, or lacking a concensus by at least a majority. No governing coalition with each party having to compromise its election promises (and a party is already a compromise). Each issue is discussed and decided on its merrits, not on the basis of previous horsetrading.

To sum it up : how can one person represent a nation ?

Jacob

[quote=S485122;129856]The "Math against tiranny" article and the Natapoff theorem are based on the single fact that you have one[/quote][I]leader[/I] (President), not representative

[quote]for the diversity of a large body of people.[/quote]Well, the Natapoff theorem applies to public elections for any office, not just a president. The article applies it to our presidential election.

[quote]To sum it up : how can one person represent a nation ?[/quote]The U.S. Constitution specifies that we have 1 leader of the executive branch and many representatives of states or districts in the legislative branch. That's how.

Also, there's a distinction between the roles of head-of-state (attends ceremonial openings or funerals, for instance) and head-of-government (who gives the orders for the country's executive or administrative branch).

In the U.S., the President carries both roles, so the Prez has to waste time at some ceremonies. In the U.K. and many other countries, those roles are divided: the Prime Minister is head-of-government, but the royal ruler or someone else is head-of-state for all the ceremonial chores -- which I think is a better division of labor. Note that this division is [I]not[/I] tied to only parliamentary systems -- it's just that those more naturally expess it.

Head-of-state doesn't [I]have[/I] to be royalty. (Shucks, royalty used to be both heads, plus legislative and judicial branch combined.) Some countries have both a President and Prime Minister (or they may have other titles), who may not have a pure division of labor, but usually one is more executive than the other (indeed, one may appoint the other), and the "other" is the one detailed to funerals and bridge-openings.

Back in the late 1960s, the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions was exploring potential new U.S. constitutions, and early-on decided to separate head-of-state and head-of-government into separate offices, which is what enlightened me.