Electoral College

[Mumbles]

Okay so I'm not really sure what a Communist's view on this question would be, so I'm asking... which is kinda obvious.

Okay so today I asked my history/government teacher why there was an electoral college and he said because if there wasn't politicians would only campaign in heavily populated areas.

So my question is basically what all does that imply and is it right or wrong?

And I know, or at least think I know :blushing:, that it'll be different for a communist society, but for what is currently happening, how would a communist respond?

[Psy]

The problem with your teachers answer is it ignores parliamentarian systems where the party with the most number of seats wins.

[Hexen]

Electoral Colleges is basically how bourgeoisie democracy (Republic) works (Democracy for the Rich/Wealthy) which is evidence that the US is not really democratic which alot of people in the US seem to misunderstand....

[Martin Blank]

First of all, your government teacher is parroting an old and false line that's already been proven wrong by historical experience. Candidates jockey around for electoral votes from a handful of big states (California, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, New York, Illinois, Ohio, etc.) in order to reach 270. This is a non-argument.

The real reason for the Electoral College is to keep the selection of the chief executive of the United States out of the hands of the voting population. You don't vote for the president or vice president when you go to the polls. Rather, you vote for a slate of "Electors" who then gather in Washington a month or so after the election to cast their votes for the two positions. In between those two dates, state governments have the ability to alter who the Electors are, if necessary, and overturn the result of the popular election.

To put it another way: If a revolutionary workers' party was to somehow make it past the restrictive ballot access, media and debates lockout, slander and libel, dirty tricks and sabotage, and ballot fraud and disenfranchisement, and actually win a presidential election by popular vote and Electoral College, the legislatures in any one of the states where that party won could overturn the entire election legally by refusing to certify the popularly chosen electors and selecting a more "acceptable" slate ... from one of their own parties.

This is what the Electoral College is for: making sure the voting population doesn't do something the ruling class considers to be "out of line", like vote for a party that reflects their interests.

[ZombieGrits]

he said because if there wasn't politicians would only campaign in heavily populated areas

That's pretty much a non-issue these days, what with mass media and ultra-fast communication and all, and so it should be replaced with direct democracy (even from a bourgeois point of view there aren't many arguments left against direct democracy). Tell yer history teacher t' stick that up his ass and smoke it! :redstar2000:

[Demogorgon]

The reason for the electoral college is mostly that the framers of the Constitution wished the State legislatures (composed of the elite) to choose the President and having each choose a certain number of electors based on a pre-agreed formula seemed the simplest way of doing so.

The system of voters choosing electors is the result of changes in state law regarding the elections. The idea originally was that candidates (or their supporters more accurately) would lobby members of state legislatures for support. Actually to be even more accurate, they thought that the electoral college would end in deadlock more often than not and the idea was that Congress would choose the President according to the strange system specified in the constitution.

The notion that it had anything to do with not wanting Campaigning to be focussed in certain areas is absurd, because first of all that kind of campaigning wasn't possible in the Eighteenth century and secondly the electoral college causes concentration of campaigning rather than avoids it. After all Candidates will only focus on swing states, there is no point ion putting in resources where they cannot win (or for that matter where they cannot lose). In elections with direct votes, every vote has value and so candidates need to spread out their campaigning.

[mikelepore]

I asked my history/government teacher why there was an electoral college and he said because if there wasn't politicians would only campaign in heavily populated areas.

That's an after-the-fact rationale, something like saying: why does a human being have a nose? Answer: Because it helps to hold eyeglasses. The original reason isn't being explained.

The original reason was that in the 1780s the less populated colonies hesitated to ratify the constitution and to form a new country in the first place. The more populated colonies made this concession to make the idea of starting a new country more attractive to the less populated colonies.

For example, the numbers today are something like this: a heavily populated state may have one representative in the House of Representatives, and one electroral vote, for every 400,000 population, while a less populated state may have one representative and one electoral vote for every 200,000 population.

This original reason is now moot, because it's no longer necessary to convince the more rural states to join in creating the new country; however, now we're stuck with it.

It's a bad system because it's makes the political power of actual human beings more unequal, in order to make the power of _states_ more equal. People who think that there is such a thing as "the interest of a state", for example, "what's good for South Carolina", may like the system. People who realize that the good of a state only an abstraction, and that human beings are the genuine reality, should dislike it.

The explanation that, without the electoral college, candidates would only campaign in the more populated states, has an additional defect. That explanation makes it sound as though campaigning itself is carried out for the good of the voters, which it not true. The campaign is held only for the candidate to _persuade_ the voters. If a voter chooses to support a particular candidate due to agreement with the candidate's platform, that's a separate issue. But it's not in the interest of the voter to be _persuaded_ to support the candidate because the candidate is giving away free balloons and bumper stickers.

[syndicat]

The reason for the electoral college is mostly that the framers of the Constitution wished the State legislatures (composed of the elite) to choose the President and having each choose a certain number of electors based on a pre-agreed formula seemed the simplest way of doing so.


State legislatures have nothing to do with the electoral college. it seems you're confusing this with the original scheme of election of senators.

the electoral college was needed in order to be consistent with the way the upper house, the senate, is doled out. In the senate there are 2 senators irrespective of population of the state. thus in election of senate residents of Wyoming have 36 times as much voting power as residents of California.

Now, one of the reasons this scheme was instituted was to ensure that the southern states would not be outvoted by states less dependent on a large slave workforce. the other part of the original constitution for that purpose was the clause granting 2/3 of each slave person for calculating representation, even tho slaves couldn't vote.

the constitution's amendment process makes it impossible to eliminate that undemocratic feature of the senate. that's because it specifies this can only be changed by the unanimous agreement of all states...which would never happen.

however, some people have proposed to get around the undemocratic feature of the electoral college as follows: Have the state legislatures in the more populous states agree that all their electoral votes will go to whoever gets the majority of the popular vote. that would essentially nullify the advantage of the smaller states in the present undemocratic arrangement. this would really be the only way to get rid of the undemocratic feature of the electoral college for practical purposes, that is, short of revolution.

the reason the electoral college vote is undemocratic is that each state gets a number of votes equal to its total representation in both the lower and upper house of congress. since the representation in the senate is undemocratic, so too is the electoral college vote.

[SandiNeesta]

I remember finding out in high school that 3 (now 4) candidates won the popular vote yet lost the election and trying to figure out how that could possibly be considered "democratic".

[mikelepore]

The original reason was that in the 1780s the less populated colonies hesitated to ratify the constitution and to form a new country in the first place. The more populated colonies made this concession to make the idea of starting a new country more attractive to the less populated colonies.

I should have added: It had already been agreed that there wouldn't be a U.S. at all unless at least 9 of the 13 colonies would ratify the constitution. If 8 or fewer colonies voted to ratify it, then the proposal to establish a federal government would fail, and the 13 colonies would be 13 independent countries. The federalists didn't have enough votes, so they came up with this idea to persuade people in the reluctant colonies to change their minds.

[syndicat]

Except that it wasn't "people" in the colonies who they needed to persuade. The constitution was only submitted to the state legislatures. The people didn't get to vote on it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In between those two dates, state governments have the ability to alter who the Electors are, if necessary, and overturn the result of the popular election.

Don't some states have some sort of "robotic Electors" law in place? As in, these Electors are already valid, and they can't change their votes like some Dems tried to do in 2000.

[chegitz guevara]

State legislatures have nothing to do with the electoral college.

Wrong, state legislatures decide how electors will be apportioned. Nearly every state legislature decided upon an all or nothing, but Maine, for one, apportions its electors based on who wins in per congressional district, plus two at-large for the two extra electors. There was an attempt in Colorado a few years ago to apportion them proportionally, but it failed at the polls.

Ultimately, however, state legislatures still have to ratify the electors the people have chosen, and they are completely within their Constitutional authority to ignore the popular will.

Also, your teacher was not only wrong, but the opposite is true. Get rid of the electoral college, and every state comes into play. Right now, the small states are pretty much ignored, because they aren't worth the money and they usually vote solidly one way or the other. If a state is 1/3rd Democratic voters, their votes almost never count, so if you're a Democratic candidate, why bother? Same with hitting certain states that are a lock for one side or the other. Democrats spend no money in Texas, and Republicans don't bother with New York. Get rid of the EC, and both states become battle grounds, since you have to fight for every vote.

[chegitz guevara]

Don't some states have some sort of "robotic Electors" law in place? As in, these Electors are already valid, and they can't change their votes like some Dems tried to do in 2000.

Yes, but it's probably unconstitutional. If it ever affects an election, we'll find out.

[Comrade B]

People who think that politicians campaign in rural areas have never lived in rural areas.

[syndicat]

Wrong, state legislatures decide how electors will be apportioned. Nearly every state legislature decided upon an all or nothing, but Maine, for one, apportions its electors based on who wins in per congressional district, plus two at-large for the two extra electors. There was an attempt in Colorado a few years ago to apportion them proportionally, but it failed at the polls.

Ultimately, however, state legislatures still have to ratify the electors the people have chosen, and they are completely within their Constitutional authority to ignore the popular will.



Okay, you're right here but my point was that the electoral college is not chosen by the state legislature. But, yes, they do set the rules for their assignment. That's why, as I pointed out, some people have proposed to "reform" the electoral college by getting the state legislatures in big states to say that all their state's electors will go to whichever candidate who gets a majority of popular vote nationwide.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ultimately, however, state legislatures still have to ratify the electors the people have chosen, and they are completely within their Constitutional authority to ignore the popular will.

I wonder if the state legislators themselves can be non-ratified, assuming any third party wishes to employ a grassroots-local-state-federal strategy.

[Demogorgon]

State legislatures have nothing to do with the electoral college. it seems you're confusing this with the original scheme of election of senators.

No, check your history. The Constitution does not specify the method of choosing the electors, but initially it was taken for granted the state legislatures would mostly do it. If you look at the early Presidential elections, what you see is the majority of States having the electors chosen directly from the legislatures, others using complicated systems of voters creating a shortlist from the legislatures to choose from, others electing their own electoral college to choose members of the federal electoral college and so on. Only a minority directly elected the college.

[chegitz guevara]

I wonder if the state legislators themselves can be non-ratified, assuming any third party wishes to employ a grassroots-local-state-federal strategy.

We non-ratify our state legislators by not re-electing them. :p

[syndicat]

The Constitution does not specify the method of choosing the electors, but initially it was taken for granted the state legislatures would mostly do it. If you look at the early Presidential elections, what you see is the majority of States having the electors chosen directly from the legislatures, others using complicated systems of voters creating a shortlist from the legislatures to choose from, others electing their own electoral college to choose members of the federal electoral college and so on. Only a minority directly elected the college.

when people vote for president, they vote for a list of electors who are pledged to a particular candidate for president. maybe you're talking about how the lists of electors are chosen. these are not chosen by state legislatures.

what the "founders" did believe is that the electors would hold some chummy meeting and decide among themselves who would actually become president. it was intended to be a way for the elite to control who the president was. but it never worked out the way they intended.

[syndicat]

I wonder if the state legislators themselves can be non-ratified, assuming any third party wishes to employ a grassroots-local-state-federal strategy.

both US Congress and state legislatures do control conditions for admission of members. This has been used historically to exlude leftwing members. For example, during World War 1, this was used to not ratify US Congress members elected on Socialist ticket, and used by state legislatures (e.g. New York) to refuse to seat elected Socialists.

[CartCollector]

You mean like how Eugene Debs got 6% of the popular vote in 1920 but 0 electoral votes?

[Mumbles]

Thank you all for the replies and info. It's good to gain knowledge and get out of the dark. :thumbup1:

I'll have to present this new information and ask him what his views are on the new arguments against the electoral college.

[Demogorgon]

when people vote for president, they vote for a list of electors who are pledged to a particular candidate for president. maybe you're talking about how the lists of electors are chosen. these are not chosen by state legislatures.

what the "founders" did believe is that the electors would hold some chummy meeting and decide among themselves who would actually become president. it was intended to be a way for the elite to control who the president was. but it never worked out the way they intended.The point isn't what the system has evolved into but why it emerged in the first place. The reason the Constitution specifies an electoral college is because the framers intended it as a mechanism for state legislatures to choose the President.

The current system emerged for different reasons, but that is not why the system of the electoral college existed in the first place.

Remember also that the electoral college does not meet and was never intended to (another reason for the system emerging of course was they needed something that would work on a continental basis in the eighteenth century). Each state's electors convene together to cast a ballot. The ballots are verified and sent securely to Washington where they are counted by Congress and if nobody gets an absolute majority the House of Representatives elects a President by a means that heavily favours the smaller states.

The notion that it was intended the strange system of voting for the President by name but having it counted by State is trying to apply twentieth century practice to the Eighteenth century. Even in the Nineteenth century when direct election had become the norm, candidates for President did not appear anywhere on the ballot, rather a list of candidates for the electoral college were listed and the voter was expected to choose as many as the state had votes. The election posters would inform them which electors to vote for.

As late even as the 1960s some of the Southern States were still electing unpledged electors in an effort to force after election negotiations to try and win concessions for the segregated South. Like I say trying to simply look at what exists today when trying to explain why it exists is a non-starter.