How big of a vote gap would it take for you to drop the Electoral College?

[Dill]

(04-08-2019, 10:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: further findings:

The book also quotes one historian as noting that the EC "was cobbled together nearly at the last minute and adopted not because the framers believed it would work, but because it was less objectionable than two more obvius alternatives... it had no positive advantages of its own"

another notes that it "was merey a jerry rigged improvisation which has subsequently been endowed with a high theoretical content", which seems to match the influx of justifications for the EC which are not rooted in any of the actual debates at the convention.

He also quotes Madison as saying that small states do not need protection from large states as the large states were diverse in location, economy, and religion, suggesting they were more likely to be rivals than form a coalition against small states.

LOL and I just quoted Madison saying large states have the advantage in selecting candidates, small states in selecting a president from them in the contingency plan.  Why the talk of large and small states here?

And no one is arguing the EC was the result of some plan from the get go, set out to balance the imbalance in population. So far as I know, every side in the literature on the debate agrees that the EC was cobbled together. Longley and Peirce say it was the first choice of few but the second choice of many.  A compromise: set in motion by the concern that congressional selection would violate the separation of powers, and upon which the proportional issue weighed again and again, and in the final solution.

[BmorePat87]

(04-08-2019, 10:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Whoa! Edwards' book was copyrighted in 2004, five years after the publication of the Primer 2000. And notice he leaves out the quote by Madison: "the result of compromise between the larger and smaller states, giving to the latter the advantage of selecting a President from the candidates, in consideration of the former in selecting the candidates from the people." (Though it reappears 3 paragraphs down, on p. 2017.) I recognize a number of quotes in previous paragraphs as well.

 And notice there is a superscript reference to a text note, which we can't access. Probably that reference is to Longley and Peirce. That would still be plagiarism, since Edwards takes their exact wording but doesn't use quotation marks. LOl can we trust this guy? Where are Yale's editors?

No one here is claiming the electoral college was supposed to be a "bulwark" for states rights.  My claim was that the concern for proportion pressed on the debate at all stages. It was a problem that had to be managed somehow. And I see no evidence the smaller states ever stop worrying about that.  The delegates compromise, anticipating a power sharing arrangement in which proportional elector voting throws up candidates which, in case of a tie, turns to the one-state-one vote resolution. And when it comes to electors, a vote in RI or VT has more weight than one from VA. Why that resolution if it is not about small-state buy in?  

Apparently they're basically the same series of books from Yale. Longley and Peirce died, so Edwards, who is a well known political science author, continued the series. 

With regards to the Madison quote, I'd point you to the distinction drawn in the book where they clearly saw the second stage (in the event of a tie) as the actual compromise for small states. To answer your question at the end, the resolution is rooted in a need to give slave states a reason to accept this. Representation in Congress > voting population for states with 15-40% slaves. 

Also, the argument of states rights has come up here. I know you didn't, but I wanted to point it out. 

[BmorePat87]

(04-08-2019, 10:52 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL and I just quoted Madison saying large states have the advantage in selecting candidates, small states in selecting a president from them in the contingency plan.  Why the talk of large and small states here?

I do not think anyone here is defending the part of the EC where ties going to the HoR at 1 vote per state. 

Quote:And no one is arguing the EC was the result of some plan from the get go, set out to balance the imbalance in population. So far as I know, every side in the literature on the debate agrees that the EC was cobbled together. Longley and Peirce say it was the first choice of few but the second choice of many.  A compromise: set in motion by the concern that congressional selection would violate the separation of powers, and upon which the proportional issue weighed again and again, and in the final solution.

A compromise based on needs that no longer exist, despite the desire to attribute contemporary concerns to the founding fathers. 

[Dill]

(04-08-2019, 11:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: LOL and I just quoted Madison saying large states have the advantage in selecting candidates, small states in selecting a president from them in the contingency plan.  Why the talk of large and small states here?

I do not think anyone here is defending the part of the EC where ties going to the HoR at 1 vote per state.

A compromise: set in motion by the concern that congressional selection would violate the separation of powers, and upon which the proportional issue weighed again and again, and in the final solution.

A compromise based on needs that no longer exist, despite the desire to attribute contemporary concerns to the founding fathers. 

My reference to large and small states was not about defending the House contingency plan; it was to note how that plan was a response to a very specific pressure.

Whether those "needs" still exist is, I guess, what this thread-debate is about.

This discussion has been going pretty well, I think. At this point we can go back over what has already been written and get a better idea of where we really do and do not disagree, and the grounds of our disagreement.

The central issue now, as I see it, is whether the electoral college is in any way structurally embedded in our political system such that it cannot be eradicated without 1) changing the nature of system--specifically its constitution as "two governments," and 2) altering the current balance of power between large and small states.

I am of the mind that getting rid of the EC will do both.  This is not generally a "leftist" position; I hold it because, like many people who grew up in big (geographically) states with small populations, I worry about how little power such states have vis a vis the federal government. I don't think of states as part of the U.S. government. And I am concerned that state power has been eroded on a number of fronts--most recently regarding Montana, by the Citizen's United decision which overturned Montana's Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, which forbid corporate funding of political campaigns.  Montana had that act because its people took control of their state AWAY from corporations. The motivations for the act, and the legal precedents, came from other then-small states like Oregon and Nebraska, whose citizens could not be stuck into the proverbial corporate pocket. https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/FSFP%20release%20on%20MT%20ruling%20123011.pdf

My concern is that the system of states is a counter weight to the federal gov. especially when they can act together with common interests.  State land is state land, and not government land. And the EC gives them a bit more weight than the otherwise would have, when facing down big-staters who think it only makes sense that Montana's coal and forests belong to "the nation."

So I am wondering what others think of this. I guess SSF is on my side here--though he comes from the biggest, most liberal state in the universe. Why doesn't he see direct popular vote as a big advantage? Then there is Bpat, who comes from little MD, but is ok siding with the big-state bullies .   And Bels, staunch defender of big government .  And all the rest. Can we examine this without referring to Trump--just looking at principles or "what is right" for everyone?  Who else has something to say? 

I think the first counterargument to my position might be that, could the Federal gov. not trump state laws, we would still have segregation. This is a substantive, not a procedural objection, though.  One could as easily argue we had segregation in the first place because a supreme court decision backed it.

[Belsnickel]

(04-09-2019, 07:42 PM)Dill Wrote: My reference to large and small states was not about defending the House contingency plan; it was to note how that plan was a response to a very specific pressure.

Whether those "needs" still exist is, I guess, what this thread-debate is about.

This discussion has been going pretty well, I think. At this point we can go back over what has already been written and get a better idea of where we really do and do not disagree, and the grounds of our disagreement.

The central issue now, as I see it, is whether the electoral college is in any way structurally embedded in our political system such that it cannot be eradicated without 1) changing the nature of system--specifically its constitution as "two governments," and 2) altering the current balance of power between large and small states.

I am of the mind that getting rid of the EC will do both.  This is not generally a "leftist" position; I hold it because, like many people who grew up in big (geographically) states with small populations, I worry about how little power such states have vis a vis the federal government. I don't think of states as part of the U.S. government. And I am concerned that state power has been eroded on a number of fronts--most recently regarding Montana, by the Citizen's United decision which overturned Montana's Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, which forbid corporate funding of political campaigns.  Montana had that act because its people took control of their state AWAY from corporations. The motivations for the act, and the legal precedents, came from other then-small states like Oregon and Nebraska, whose citizens could not be stuck into the proverbial corporate pocket. https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/FSFP%20release%20on%20MT%20ruling%20123011.pdf

My concern is that the system of states is a counter weight to the federal gov. especially when they can act together with common interests.  State land is state land, and not government land. And the EC gives them a bit more weight than the otherwise would have, when facing down big-staters who think it only makes sense that Montana's coal and forests belong to "the nation."

So I am wondering what others think of this. I guess SSF is on my side here--though he comes from the biggest, most liberal state in the universe. Why doesn't he see direct popular vote as a big advantage? Then there is Bpat, who comes from little MD, but is ok siding with the big-state bullies .   And Bels, staunch defender of big government .  And all the rest. Can we examine this without referring to Trump--just looking at principles or "what is right" for everyone?  Who else has something to say? 

I think the first counterargument to my position might be that, could the Federal gov. not trump state laws, we would still have segregation. This is a substantive, not a procedural objection, though.  One could as easily argue we had segregation in the first place because a supreme court decision backed it.

I don't think ridding ourselves of the EC and moving to a direct, national popular vote would infringe upon the idea of "two governments." We aren't talking about moving towards a parliamentary system. In fact, by making the position not dependent on the EC, which is based on Congressional apportionment to get its numbers, it makes it more likely that the executive and the legislature will have less in common. It would also effectively remove Congress from any potential decision making with regards to president as the likelihood of a tie would become extremely slim.

Your other concern with regards to the balance between large and small states is something I see as misplaced with the office. As the Madison quote Pat used implies, the president is an official of the people, not the states. It is a simpler way of stating my point in several places within this thread that the president is not a leader of the states. The office is to head an executive branch and is not a chief governor. The states should, and do, have representation in the legislature but if there is any branch that is about the federal government being the big central government and representing the people as a whole and not the states, it is the executive.

This is not to dismiss the importance of the states as a counterweight to the federal government. I am more of a proponent of states' rights than most would realize, preferring my bigger government ideals being done at the lowest level possible rather than at the federal level. However, this is why Congress is the most important branch, why it was listed first. Their role as a check on the president is huge. One of their most important roles is oversight of the executive. I know they have been falling down on the job as of late, but apart from passing our laws, that is their biggest job and that is where the power of the people in their respective states remains a counterweight to an overreaching federal government.

[BmorePat87]

(04-09-2019, 07:42 PM)Dill Wrote: My reference to large and small states was not about defending the House contingency plan; it was to note how that plan was a response to a very specific pressure.

Whether those "needs" still exist is, I guess, what this thread-debate is about.

This discussion has been going pretty well, I think. At this point we can go back over what has already been written and get a better idea of where we really do and do not disagree, and the grounds of our disagreement.

The central issue now, as I see it, is whether the electoral college is in any way structurally embedded in our political system such that it cannot be eradicated without 1) changing the nature of system--specifically its constitution as "two governments," and 2) altering the current balance of power between large and small states.

I am of the mind that getting rid of the EC will do both.  This is not generally a "leftist" position; I hold it because, like many people who grew up in big (geographically) states with small populations, I worry about how little power such states have vis a vis the federal government. I don't think of states as part of the U.S. government. And I am concerned that state power has been eroded on a number of fronts--most recently regarding Montana, by the Citizen's United decision which overturned Montana's Corrupt Practices Act of 1912, which forbid corporate funding of political campaigns.  Montana had that act because its people took control of their state AWAY from corporations. The motivations for the act, and the legal precedents, came from other then-small states like Oregon and Nebraska, whose citizens could not be stuck into the proverbial corporate pocket. https://freespeechforpeople.org/wp-content/uploads/archive/FSFP%20release%20on%20MT%20ruling%20123011.pdf

My concern is that the system of states is a counter weight to the federal gov. especially when they can act together with common interests.  State land is state land, and not government land. And the EC gives them a bit more weight than the otherwise would have, when facing down big-staters who think it only makes sense that Montana's coal and forests belong to "the nation."

So I am wondering what others think of this. I guess SSF is on my side here--though he comes from the biggest, most liberal state in the universe. Why doesn't he see direct popular vote as a big advantage? Then there is Bpat, who comes from little MD, but is ok siding with the big-state bullies .   And Bels, staunch defender of big government .  And all the rest. Can we examine this without referring to Trump--just looking at principles or "what is right" for everyone?  Who else has something to say? 

I think the first counterargument to my position might be that, could the Federal gov. not trump state laws, we would still have segregation. This is a substantive, not a procedural objection, though.  One could as easily argue we had segregation in the first place because a supreme court decision backed it.

I think ultimately the idea of big states versus small states is not truly a significant force. I'd have to win every vote in the 10 biggest states to be elected. As we both showed, that concept only was considered with regards to the contingency plan, which no one here is considering.

It's a matter of shifting the election away of only valuing swing states and not allowing a minority of voters to overrule a majority.

I'd also argue that reform doesn't require the abolition of the EC, but even if it did, the system is so far bastardized from the original intent that it would not be this awful move away from the intentions of the founding fathers as many suggest. It would not destroy federalism either.

[Dill]

Following a discussion of state's power within our federal system looks like a good place to put this.
I have a bad feeling about this; it seems a bad precedent--even thought I generally support ridding our government of Trump.


Illinois Senate Issues An Ultimatum to Trump: Release Your Tax Returns or You Won't Be on the 2020 Ballot
https://www.theroot.com/illinois-senate-issues-an-ultimatum-to-trump-release-y-1834008106

The Illinois Senate has put its foot down strong in the paint. On Thursday, the Democratic-led Senate proposed a deal that anti-Trump fans can get behind—either Trump releases five years’ worth of his personal income tax returns so they can see how many rubles he received from Russian oligarchs or he won’t appear on the state’s presidential ballot next year.

National Public Radio reports that this is the crest of a movement by Democratic states to force the president to stop playing the “I would love to but I’m being audited right now” game with his tax returns.

[JustWinBaby]

How is this still a thread?

If CA wants free healthcare and free college, then why not just do it? State rights don't matter any more?!? States have no power?!?

Start another thread, because some of us already know the answer but others are going to need a map [with crayons].....

[BmorePat87]

(04-17-2019, 04:08 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: How is this still a thread?

If CA wants free healthcare and free college, then why not just do it?  State rights don't matter any more?!?  States have no power?!?

Start another thread, because some of us already know the answer but others are going to need a map [with crayons].....

Should I draw you a straw man with crayons?