Electoral college

[fccool]

What in a world is a purpose of the electoral college if the popular vote will decide how many "votes" a state gets?

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2008/certificates-of-vote.html

To this day only 25 certificates were sent, yet the president has been already announced. What if people in the electoral college voted otherwise? If they did not, then why even have electoral college?

[Dr. Shane]

The electoral college was set up to make sure small states have a voice in deciding who the President is. If it was not for the electoral college presidential candidates would only focus on large metropolitan areas like LA, Chicago, New York, Houston, Miami, etc.

[John317]

Yes, that's one reason. Another reason for the Electoral College is that the Founding Fathers set it up so that if the popular vote elected a demagogue, there would be a way of preventing such an individual from taking office. They did not entirely trust the masses. There were also real fears that someone could win an election and take the country back into the arms of Britain.

Quote:

To be brutally honest, the Founding Fathers did not give the American public of their day much credit for political awareness. Here are a few relevant quotes from the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

"A popular election in this case is radically vicious. The ignorance of the people would put it in the power of some one set of men dispersed through the Union, and acting in concert, to delude them into any appointment." -- Delegate Gerry, July 25, 1787

"The extent of the country renders it impossible, that the people can have the requisite capacity to judge of the respective pretensions of the candidates." -- Delegate Mason, July 17, 1787

"The people are uninformed, and would be misled by a few designing men." -- Delegate Gerry, July 19, 1787.

The Founding Fathers had seen the dangers of placing ultimate power into a single set of human hands. Accordingly, they feared that placing unlimited power to elect the president into the politically naive hands of the people could lead to a "tyranny of the majority." In response, they created the Electoral College system as a process to insulate the selection of the president from the whims of the public.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa102200a.htm

[phkrause]

Isn't that the say President Kennedy was elected. Not positive but I kind of remember something like that. Thought that I recall that Nixon had won the popular vote but Kennedy the electoral vote. I'm probably wrong!!!!! What do I know? Have already been called a liar on one of the other threads!!! So maybe this will be linked to that also.

pk

[Neil D]

Isn't that the say President Kennedy was elected. Not positive but I kind of remember something like that. Thought that I recall that Nixon had won the popular vote but Kennedy the electoral vote. I'm probably wrong!!!!! What do I know? Have already been called a liar on one of the other threads!!! So maybe this will be linked to that also.

pk

You may hear people say that Richard M. Nixon received more popular votes in the 1960 election than winner John F. Kennedy, but official results showed Kennedy with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646.

And PK, if someone calls you a "liar", let me know....Even if he's a moderator...Oh, I might call you "mistaken" , but a liar...naw....that's just not nice....

[John317]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Isn't that the say President Kennedy was elected. Not positive but I kind of remember something like that. Thought that I recall that Nixon had won the popular vote but Kennedy the electoral vote. I'm probably wrong!!!!! What do I know? Have already been called a liar on one of the other threads!!! So maybe this will be linked to that also.

pk

You may hear people say that Richard M. Nixon received more popular votes in the 1960 election than winner John F. Kennedy, but official results showed Kennedy with 34,227,096 popular votes to Nixon's 34,107,646.

Nixon may have lost the election because of "irregularities" that took place in Chicago, where Joseph Kennedy paid money for votes. If Nixon had won Chicago, he may have won the whole state of Illinois and hence the election. It was one of the closest elections in history. Kennedy didn't know he won until early the next morning when someone said, "Good morning, Mr. President."

If you're interested in that election, here's some interesting info---

Quote:

Many Republicans (including Nixon and Eisenhower) believed that Kennedy had benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, of which Lyndon Johnson was Senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine. These two states are important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have won the election in the electoral college. Republican Senators such as Everett Dirksen and Barry Goldwater also believed that vote fraud played a role in the election, and they believed that Nixon actually won the national popular vote. Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results in both these states at the time—as well as in nine other states. David Greenberg wrote in Slate, "The thought that Nixon was cheated out of presidency in 1960 has almost become an accepted fact." Some journalists also later claimed that mobster Sam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate played a role in Kennedy’s victory in Illinois.

Nixon's campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of Kennedy's victory in several states, especially in Illinois, Missouri and New Jersey, where large majorities in Catholic precincts handed Kennedy the election. However, Nixon gave a speech three days after the election stating that he would not contest the election. The Republican National Chairman, Senator Thruston Morton of Kentucky, visited Key Biscayne, Florida, where Nixon had taken his family for a vacation, and pushed for a recount. Morton did challenge the results in 11 states, keeping challenges in the courts into the summer of 1961. However, the only result of these challenges was the loss of Hawaii to Kennedy on a recount.

Kennedy won Illinois by less than 9,000 votes out of 4.75 million cast, or a margin of two-tenths of one percent. However, Nixon carried 92 of the state's 101 counties, and Kennedy's victory in Illinois came from the city of Chicago, where Mayor Richard J. Daley held back much of Chicago's vote until the late morning hours of November 9. The efforts of Daley and the powerful Chicago Democratic organization gave Kennedy an extraordinary Cook County victory margin of 450,000 votes—more than 10% of Chicago's 1960 population of 3.55 million—thus barely overcoming the heavy Republican vote in the rest of Illinois. Earl Mazo, a reporter for the pro-Nixon New York Herald Tribune, investigated the voting in Chicago and claimed to have discovered sufficient evidence of vote fraud to prove that the state was stolen for Kennedy.

[John317]

Yes, you're right about that. It has happened two other times.

In 1876, Tilden won the popular vote but lost the election to Rutherford Hays. And in 1880, Cleveland won the popular vote but ended up losing the election to Benjamin Harrison.

Quote:

Bush narrowly won the November 7 election, with 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266 (with one faithless elector abstaining in the official tally). The election featured a controversy over who won Florida's 25 electoral votes (and thus the presidency), the recount process in that state, and the unusual event that the losing candidate had received more popular votes than the winner. It was the closest election since 1876.

[fccool]

The same went for Gore and Bush. But that was not what my question was all about. I'm asking on practical - operational level. Why do you even have to have a delegate vote if the winner is announced by the news regardles of their final votes cast?

The votes are still going by the state majority vote, and not the elected delegates vote. I would understand if there would be a split vote within the delegates for the state, but the WHOLE STATE is going to a certain candidate. How is it any much different than a popular vote? Some delegates still have not submitter their delegate votes yet... as only 25 states did. And Obama will be sworn in shortly.

[Woody]

Isn't that the say President Kennedy was elected. Not positive but I kind of remember something like that. Thought that I recall that Nixon had won the popular vote but Kennedy the electoral vote. I'm probably wrong!!!!! What do I know? Have already been called a liar on one of the other threads!!! So maybe this will be linked to that also.

pk

Yes pk. If a moderator calls you a 'liar' there is a process for that abuse. Granted ... you have to locate and have 4 moderators and 1 admin to certify and verify that you were called a liar before it can be deleted. But hey ... it is a process. Look into it. There is a time limit ... so get on it.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: pkrause

Isn't that the say President Kennedy was elected. Not positive but I kind of remember something like that. Thought that I recall that Nixon had won the popular vote but Kennedy the electoral vote. I'm probably wrong!!!!! What do I know? Have already been called a liar on one of the other threads!!! So maybe this will be linked to that also.

pk

Yes pk. If a moderator calls you a 'liar' there is a process for that abuse. Granted ... you have to locate and have 4 moderators and 1 admin to certify and verify that you were called a liar before it can be deleted. But hey ... it is a process. Look into it. There is a time limit ... so get on it.

It still only requires one moderator to take care of the problem that PK has mentioned.

Please go back and re-read the rules regarding the appeal to the moderators. Those rules apply only if a member believes that he has been treated unfairly by a moderator and he wants to appeal a decision made by a moderator. The case PK is talking about does not involve that. I don't believe PK is saying a moderator called him a liar.

A member does not need to locate 4 moderators and 1 administrator to certify anything. If a member believes that he has been been mistreated, etc., by a moderator, all he needs to do is contact one moderator.

[John317]

... that was not what my question was all about. I'm asking on practical - operational level. Why do you even have to have a delegate vote if the winner is announced by the news regardles of their final votes cast?

The votes are still going by the state majority vote, and not the elected delegates vote. I would understand if there would be a split vote within the delegates for the state, but the WHOLE STATE is going to a certain candidate. How is it any much different than a popular vote? Some delegates still have not submitter their delegate votes yet... as only 25 states did. And Obama will be sworn in shortly.

There's a delegate vote-- or vote by the College of Electors-- simply because it is required by the U.S. Constitution. In most elections, the Electors are not critical because the winner is self-evident. Only on occasion does the vote cast by the Electors change the outcome, and that is when the elections are very close, as in the case of 2000.

Some states have laws that require delegates to vote the way they were elected to vote. Other states permit the delegates freedom to vote for anyone who fulfills the qualifications for president. But these always vote for their party's candidate because if they don't vote for the candidate, the delegate can be punished by his party. Very few delegates become "unfaithful."

So, to answer to your question directly, the reason for the delegate vote this year is really only a Constitutional requirement, as there is no doubt who won the election.

[John317]

I think you may find this information about the Electoral College very interesting. I used to favor abolishing it but I've changed my mind and now want to see it retained.

Arguments in favor of the Electoral College

Prevents an urban-centric victory

Proponents of the Electoral College claim the Electoral College prevents a candidate from winning the Presidency by simply winning in heavily populated urban areas. This means that candidates must make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply had to win the national popular vote.

Maintains the federal character of the nation

The United States of America is a federal coalition which consists of component states. Proponents of the current system argue that the collective opinion of even a small state merits attention at the federal level greater than that given to a small, though numerically-equivalent, portion of a very populous state. The system also allows each state the freedom, within constitutional bounds, to design its own laws on voting and enfranchisement without an undue incentive to maximize the number of votes cast.

For many years early in the nation's history, up until the Jacksonian Era, many states appointed their electors by a vote of the state legislature, and proponents argue that, in the end, the election of the President must still come down to the decisions of each state, or the federal nature of the United States will give way to a single massive, centralized government.

Enhances status of minority groups

Far from decreasing the power of minority groups by depressing voter turnout, proponents argue that, by making the votes of a given state an all-or-nothing affair, minority groups can provide the critical edge that allows a candidate to win. This encourages candidates to court a wide variety of such minorities and interest groups.

Encourages stability through the two-party system

Many proponents of the Electoral College see its negative effect on third parties as a good thing. They argue that the two party system has provided stability through its ability to change during times of rapid political and cultural change. They believe it protects the most powerful office in the country from control by what these proponents view as regional minorities until they can moderate their views to win broad, long-term support from across the entire nation.

Death or unsuitability of a candidate

The Constitution grants each state the right to appoint electors in a manner chosen by that state. While it is common to think of the electoral votes impersonally, as mere numbers, the Electoral College is in fact made up of real people (usually party regulars of the party whose candidate wins each state) with the capacity to adapt to unusual situations. That capacity might be particularly important if, for example, a candidate were to die or become in some other way unsuitable to serve as President or Vice President. Advocates of the current system argue that these electors could then choose a suitable replacement (who would most likely come from the same party of the candidate who won the election) more competently than could the general voting public. Furthermore, the time period during which such a death or the onset of such an unsuitability might call for such an adaptation extends, under the Electoral College system, from before Election Day (many states cannot change ballots at a late stage) until the day the electors vote (the first Monday after the second Wednesday of December). Thus, until the electors cast their votes, it is not a federal issue, per se, but a state's rights issue and state laws (should) regulate the situation. In Virginia, for instance, the law clearly states that the electors must vote for the name of the candidate whom they represent on the ballot, and therefore these electors are not able to adapt to unusual situations, unless they are willing to violate the law, and suffer the penalties for so doing.

In the election of 1872, Democratic candidate Horace Greeley did in fact die before the meeting of the Electoral College, resulting in Democratic disarray; the electors who were to have voted for Greeley split their votes across several candidates, including three votes cast for the deceased Greeley. However, President Ulysses S. Grant, the Republican incumbent, had already won an absolute majority of electors. Because it was the death of a losing candidate, there was no pressure to agree on a replacement candidate. There has never been a case of a candidate of the winning party dying.

In the election of 1912, after the Republicans had renominated President Taft and Vice President Sherman, Sherman died shortly before the election, too late to change the names on the ballot, thus causing Sherman to be listed posthumously. That ticket finished third behind the Democrats (Woodrow Wilson) and the Progressives (Theodore Roosevelt), and the 8 electoral votes that Sherman would have received were cast for Nicholas Murray Butler.

Isolation of election problems

Some supporters of the Electoral College note that it isolates the impact of any election fraud, or other such problems, to the state where it occurs. It prevents instances where a party dominant in one state may dishonestly inflate the votes for a candidate and thereby affect the election outcome. For instance, recounts occur only on a state-by-state basis, not nationwide.

Neutralizes turnout disparities between states

There are factors that affect the turnout around the country. Weather can vary greatly across a large nation, rain or winter storms can impact voter participation in affected states. In addition, when a state has another high profile contest, such as a hotly contested Senate or gubernatorial race, turnout in that state can be affected. Because the allocation of electoral votes is independent of each state's turnout, the Electoral College neutralizes the effect of all such turnout disparities between states.

Maintains separation of powers

The Constitution separated government into three branches that check each other to minimize threats to liberty and encourage deliberation of governmental acts. Under the original framework, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by the people, with members of the Senate chosen by state legislatures, the President by the Electoral College, and the judiciary by the President and the Senate. The President was not directly elected in part due to fears that he could assert a national popular mandate that would undermine the legitimacy of the other branches, and potentially result in tyranny.

[Dr. Shane]

Why do you even have to have a delegate vote if the winner is announced by the news regardles of their final votes cast?

Each party has their own delegates. For example: if Minnesota has eight electoral votes than the Democratic Party will elect eight delegates and the Republican party will elect eight delegates. If the Democratic candidate carries the state than all eight Democratic delegates go to the electoral college to vote and the Republican delegates stay home and don't get to vote. So it is very predictable how the delegates are going to vote before they actually vote.

[phkrause]

I shouldn't say that they said liar directly but it was implied. And thanks for the update on the election info.

pk

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

Yes pk. If a moderator calls you a 'liar' there is a process for that abuse. Granted ... you have to locate and have 4 moderators and 1 admin to certify and verify that you were called a liar before it can be deleted. But hey ... it is a process. Look into it. There is a time limit ... so get on it.

It still only requires one moderator to take care of the problem that PK has mentioned.

Please go back and re-read the rules regarding the appeal to the moderators. Those rules apply only if a member believes that he has been treated unfairly by a moderator and he wants to appeal a decision made by a moderator. The case PK is talking about does not involve that. I don't believe PK is saying a moderator called him a liar.

A member does not need to locate 4 moderators and 1 administrator to certify anything. If a member believes that he has been been mistreated' date=' etc., by a moderator, all he needs to do is contact one moderator.

[/quote']

Look John ... I am on dangerous grounds here. I am not free to even speak of rules referring to mods. But if there is a procedure for getting an abusive post deleted that was written by a moderator ... that does not require the approval of 4 mods and 1 Admin. ... I would like to be show that particular part. For I do not see it with my limited skills.

[phkrause]

Let me clarify Redwood, I didn't mean to say it that way but it came out that way. It was implied. Thanks for your concern though.

pk

[Woody]

Thanks for clarifying pk. But the issue of what to do is a good issue. Moderators are human. They could possibly post an abusive post. Does this post then have to go through 4 mods and 1 Admin ... all within a three day period. Wow! Wouldn't that be something if the posts from the rest of us had that level of scrutiny.

[phkrause]

It wasn't a moderator if that's what you were thinking.

pk

[Woody]

I had no idea. But the issue is an important one in my view.

[phkrause]

Thanks again for the concern.

pk

[John317]

If a member feels that a moderator has written him an abusive post, the member should make an attempt to solve the problem first with the moderator who wrote the post.

If the member feels that the issue was not taken care of in the right way, he can contact a different moderator. That moderator will look at the problem and determine if the member's problem should be taken to all the moderators. If he decides it should be considered on the moderator's forum, he must have a second moderator agree with him before the issue is actually introduced on the forum for all the moderators.

So all a member has to do is contact one moderator. The member himself isn't expected to locate 4 moderators and 1 administrator. That's done by the moderator.

[Woody]

Exactly. The point is that it requires 4 mods and 1 admin to approve it within 3 days before it can be deleted. Thank you for sharing that rule with us . That is exactly my point.

[John317]

Thanks for clarifying pk. But the issue of what to do is a good issue. Moderators are human. They could possibly post an abusive post. Does this post then have to go through 4 mods and 1 Admin ... all within a three day period. Wow! Wouldn't that be something if the posts from the rest of us had that level of scrutiny.

Not all "abusive posts" would need to go to the moderator's forum. That process should only be used if the issue can't be solved in a way that seems right to the member. The process is intended to be for "appeals" after a moderator has made a decision which the member as well as two moderators believe is wrong.

If you're talking about an "abusive post" such as the one PK was talking about where someone called him a "liar," I am sure the moderator would have no trouble deleting it. There's no reason to think-- at least as far as I can see-- that such a post would require the appeals process for it to be deleted.

The rules haven't really changed how moderators function on their various threads as far as deletions and editing are concerned.

[Woody]

I am not so sure what is so complicated about the issue. But just for clarification for all those who are reading ...

If a moderator posts an abusive post whether it is directed at you or just a General Post ... if the moderator refuses to delete it ... then you have to have 4 mods and 1 admin who are willing to review it and decide that it is abusive ... vote that it be removed ... and then coordinate that it be deleted ... all within 3 days of the report or it will not be deleted.

I think we now have this down pat and no more confusion. I sure hope so.

[John317]

If a moderator posts an abusive post whether it is directed at you or just a General Post ... if the moderator refuses to delete it ... then you have to have 4 mods and 1 admin who are willing to review it and decide that it is abusive ... vote that it be removed ... and then coordinate that it be deleted ... all within 3 days of the report or it will not be deleted.

The process should be completed within 3 days. It doesn't mean that if it is not completed in that time, the post won't be deleted. The process may be completed well before 3 days. I would hope it could be completed much sooner. But the rule does not state or intend that if it is not completed in 3 days, the post cannot be deleted.