Talk:United States Electoral College/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

In most states, the names of the electors do not appear on the ballot at all; instead, a notation on the ballot indicates that voters are selecting the "electors for" followed by the names of the candidates for office. In all but two states, the party that wins the most popular votes selects that state's electors, essentially a winner-take-all.

What Two States are we talking about in the paragraph above??? Someone who knows please put that in there.

That has been done (Maine and Nebraska)

We said, "The House had to vote thirty-five times before Alexander Hamilton declared his support for Thomas Jefferson..." Anyone know why the house had to vote 35 times? --PSzalapski 16:54, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've not looked very closely (not a subject that interests me), but it seems that Electoral college already covers most of this and what will be here in the future. --Camembert

Fixed. Electoral college is now a redirect. -- Gregory Pietsch

Are there non-US "electoral college"s to be disambiguated against? Should both words be capitalized or not? --Brion 18:27 Sep 16, 2002 (UTC)

I don't know if any other country uses this system of voting. If there is such a country, let me know. -- Gregory Pietsch

Not knowing of one, I'd suggest moving the article back to the original location at Electoral college. --Brion

Although I do not know if there are any other functioning electoral colleges, the idea is not entirely unique to the US -- I believe that Napolean instituted, or proposed to institute, something similar in function when he first took power. (needless to say the institution, if it was ever implemented, was very short-lived!) Slrubenstein

The point about the 10 largest cities being the swing in a large election, was changed to the 10 largest states, this is a mistake. I think it should be returned. The entire point about majority rule is that large population centers (not states, but the cities themselves) can exert a tyranny over the smallest states. Where I live, the population of New York City is more than twice as large as my entire state - making this a very real worry.


Yeah, but New York City doesn't get an electoral vote. Electoral votes go to states, not cities. Of course it is also true that nowadays states with large electoral votes tend to have large cities, but back when the system was created in the 18th century there were no metropolises of the size we know today, and almost all states were mostly rural. The focus of the system is on states, not cities per se. soulpatch
I know NYC doesn't get electoral votes, that's the point - the difference between the college and a direct election where a strict majority (or usually) a plurality rules. I don't want that because the cities will always out vote me and my rural compatriots. Dobbs 18:34 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)
I wasn't wasn't trying to debate the merits of the Electoral College in this case (although I have to admit it seems bizarre to me to argue that rule by minority is preferable because the majority might vote on something you don't like--to which I say, duh! That's the way majority rule always works!). But that's not the point I was making. I was simply stating that the Electoral College was invented at a time when almost everyone was a rural voter, so it wasn't even designed around the issue of cities versus countryside; it is totally focused on states, not cities. If you have two states with identical, mostly rural population densities, but one is 10 times the size of the other, then the voters in the smaller one get more say proportionally on the election outcomes than the other one. That is how the electoral college functions. It may or may not correlate with the urban population of respective states. But it most certainly doesn't have to. soulpatch
I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but really. THE POINT IS THIS. 1) GORE DIDN'T WIN A MAJORITY, he won a PLURALITY. 2) AND AS SOMEONE WHO SUPPORTS THE COLLEGE I DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT BEING PREFERABLE TO BE RULED BY A MINORITY.
Yes you do. You are opposed to majority rule. You say as much below., where you specifically argue against majority rule, when you complain that the majority will vote in ways you don't like. You said, " If, as the detractors of the college argue, we should go to a strict majority rule for the election - the voters in the 10 largest cities could forever and ever outvote the Western United States (excepting the coastal cities of California - exactly my point)." In other words, you are opposed to majority rule. So instead, you want the minority of voters in the rural areas to have the right to select who the President is. What the alternative to giving the majority the right to select the President? Well, duh--the alternative is giving the MINORITY the right to choose the President. It's called democracy. I'm sorry that you detest majority rule, but those of us who think that it is preferable to minority rule feel differently. soulpatch
Yes, I am opposed to democracy. DEMOCRACY IS EVIL INCARNATE. Democracy is mob rule. If everyone votes to execute redheads (a sure minority) then democracy gives them the RIGHT to do so. This is why the founders were against majority rule. We live in a representative Republic - NOT A DEMOCRACY! The representative Republic we live in provides for control of the majority, proportional representation AND state by state representation - in order not to have the tyranny of the large over the small. This is the reason for the college. Yes, it is certainly anti-democratic, and thank god for that.
Oh give me a break. The alternative to having the majority select the winner of an election is having the minority select it. The key word that appears repeated in what you just wrote is "representation" -- that means that the winners of an election "represent" the majority of voters. Anything else represents tyranny of the minority. SOMEBODY has to choose the winner of an election--the question is who will select it--the majority, or a minority? I favor the majority giving the right to choose who governs them. You don't. It's as simple as that. soulpatch
That assumption that all non-Majority Elections are Minority Elections is wrong. The Electoral system is a Representative Election - as stated above. It is not only possible, but very common for a Representative Election to have the same outcome as a Majority Election. It is also possible, but far less common, for a Representative Election to have the same outcome as a Minority Election. It is also important to point out that when the US Constitution was written, there were large cities with populations that exceeded that of the rural areas. It is also important to point out that those allowed to vote were highly concentrated in the cities as most of the rural workers were not allowed to vote. So, there was some degree of urban/rural conflict in the very beginning. Kainaw 18:48, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To state that because I am for protecting the rights of the small is to say I would not prefer there to be broad concensus in this country on the choice of leader (especially in times of crisis), is completely wrong. But if a person has a majority in this country - it is very difficult to lose the presidential vote anyway. And if someone loses in this fashion (not as in the 2000 election where no one received a majority), the result is so close, that it is difficult for anyone to say that a mandate was granted or denied to anyone - winner or loser. Given that the result would be so tight, I would take the guy who was supported throughout the land - not the regional or metropolitian winner. Dobbs 05:30 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
To claim that a person who minority support of the electorate has "broad" support is use such an absurd definition of the word "broad" as to be meaningless. What you advocate is, in the absense of a landslide (which is rare in presidential elections), giving automatic precedence to rural voters over urban voters. It really isn't difficult to decide who has a mandate when there is a majority vote--it's the person with the majority! This attempt to give certain classes of voters more precedence than others is just plain absurd. Why stop a presidential elections? You could do the same thing for Senators and representatives--have rural counties more of a say than urban counties. But maybe you DO support such a system. If so, bully for you. But let's at least try to make this article objective rather than just a bully pulpit for th electoral college, which is initially was. soulpatch
Senators and Representatives have EXACTLY the same idea going for them. Representatives are proportioned by number of voters, giving large states (with the majority of people) a larger number of votes. Realizing that, in this way, Rhode Island would be forever outvoted by Virginia, this was an unworkable plan. Therefore, the Senate was created with 2 Senators per State. This allowed things that individual governments should agree to (such as declaring war, or sitting in judgement of the President) to the Senate, with all States created equal. But in matters of popular concern (if the President should be impeached at all) the House with the majority well represented get the ability. The same holds for the election of the President via the electoral college. Strict majority rule would keep Rhode Island from having a say in the executive.
The attacks on me for not providing an objective article is misplaced. I think this sort of system, for contentious topics is *MUCH* better than having myself, or yourself write the entire article (for example) and characterize the opposition. I provide positive reasons for the college as a way to balance regional voting blocks vis-a-vis the overall spread of people across the country. The detractors side states its arguments as mischaracterizations of what supporters believe - not positive reasons why majority rule is more fair to people and the political process in the country as a whole. THAT seems biased to me. But at least that side was written by a supporter - if that's how you feel the argument should be framed - then good for you. But if I started writing "Detractors of the college feel that majority rule by cities to ensure the health of urban centers by aggregation of political power to be preferable to power sharing with rural voters, much as in Communist China today. Supporters of the College find that is nothing more than laying the groundwork for a future mountain, rural, and agrarian revolution against the urban centers. Just as in Communist China today." you would be justifiably pissed.
So, how about this. I write your side, you write mine - and we see how it comes out. It might take some of the vitriol out of this debate. The old idea of you divide, I pick? <GRIN> I want the article to be good, balanced, and NPOV - really - I PROMISE.
Sorry for the screaming, but my points made as a SUPPORTER of the college are constantly being misrepresented by detractors of the college and that is not fair to the goal of the NPOV. Majority rule - OR PLURALITY RULE AS WAS THE CASE IN THE 2000 ELECTION - is my point. IT IS THE 10 LARGEST CITIES. If, as the detractors of the college argue, we should go to a strict majority rule for the election - the voters in the 10 largest cities could forever and ever outvote the Western United States (excepting the coastal cities of California - exactly my point). The idea of rural vs. cities wasn't on their mind when they wrote it, but it is exactly the same idea as small states being forever outvoted by larger states. They wished to place the same balance that provided proportionality in the House with equality with in the Senate. Dobbs 03:38 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
No, it isn't exactly the same. You are using an article about cities versus towns that has nothing to do the reasons behind the founding of the article. The college is a relic from a bygone era. As as for NPOV, now you have managed to add huge amounts of pro-electoral college arguments into this article, so that it is totally tilted in favor of the system, and you complain about NPOV? Give me a break. Thanks to your changes, there are now five pro-electoral college paragraphs, and just one against. So much for NPOV. soulpatch
Please add additional arguments that illustrate why direct election is better. Because you are for a plurality winner in votes as opposed to a majority winner in the other ways? OK, but it is difficult for me to do so, as I cannot logically support that in any other way than what has already been said - detractors think it is outdated and undemocratic. I was willing to provide a specific example, which adds to Wiki and (hopefully) increases understanding by making issues relate to the real world. Dobbs 05:10 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
No, I am no for a plurality winner. Once again, you draw conclusions without having anything to back it up. I am completely opposed to giving the election to a plurality winner--I believe that majority vote should determine the winner-either through runoff elections, or better still instant runoff voting. soulpatch
As a resident of one of those ten largest cities that you're trying to disenfranchise, naturally I don't agree that a balance of everyone else's votes is preferable. But, to each his own. ;) --Brion 03:43 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
You're not being disenfranchised at all. Candidates will always come to the cities to campaign and try to win. What do they say when they campaign? That they will address your concerns. No one will EVER address my concerns again (as a Presidential candidate) if we have direct election. Traveling over, what about 30% of the countries land mass for &lt; 6% of the votes? Nope, sorry, I'm irrelevant. How can you say that addressing my concerns disenfranchises you in any way? I can see how it would screw me, but you? Look at the bottom of the page. Gore certainly did not get a majority of votes. And Bush received a majority of every other way you could cut it. This disenfranchises you how? You were competed for like crazy. You were promised things. But in a direct election I would have nothing to give. And Gore would get another 2% or so and magically have more legitmacy? That's strikes me as a perfect prescription to divide the country, and create regional parties looking out for their stuff only. And we know how well that works out in other regions of the world, don't we? Yep - Afghanistan run by Pashtuns or Tajiks for the last 20 years, screwing the other guy when they ever got into power. No thanks. Everyone feeling like they are part of the greater whole? Anytime. Dobbs 05:01 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
That's right, let it all out, you'll feel better. (pat pat) --Brion 05:19 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
I might add that the system was also invented when people were less mobile than they are today, and tended to have more of an identity as a citizen of a state. I have lived, in my life, in many states, both big states and in small ones. I vote the same basic way pretty much wherever I live, yet simply by virtue of moving to a certain state I magically and inexplicitly get more or less a proportional say in a Presidential election. I haven't changed much in those situations, my votes haven't really changed, yet the Electoral Collge somehow assumes that when I pack up my belongings and move to another state I somehow will change what I consider my interests to be and vote differently. This is all nonsense, of course, but this is what happens when you take a convoluted 18th century voting mechanism and try to apply it to the 21st. soulpatch
I am a Coloradan more than I am a U.S. citizen in many more real ways that effect my day to day life. You are not concerned with local issues, because you travel and do not stay around long enough to be concerned with what are temporary benefits or inconviences of the system you have to live under. But when people like you (permament travelers), combined with people - say in Los Angeles or New York City - in a direct election can come up with ideas that don't work where I live (and hope to return to after my temporary travels), too bad for me. It is not all nonsense. California is attempting to turn the southern half of my state into a desert by taking all of my Colorado river water. I'm certain that those city living people who only see pictures of my beloved Rocky Mountains don't really give a damn about that, but MY INTERESTS are certainly based on where I live. And detractors of the college making assumptions about why I feel these ways and changing supporters edits does not improve the goal toward a NPOV. OK, got the bile out. I'll be better behaved from now on. Dobbs 03:38 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
Your assertion that I am not concerned with local issues is false. Your claim that I "travel and do not stay around" is also false. You don't know me, so you are making personal statements about me based on no knowledge whatsoever. I have lived in my current area for nine years. I am deeply concerned with local issues. I am also not a NIMBY voter. My interests are the best interests of the nation and the planet, not simply whatever concerns my own backyard. Because I am not a NIMBY voter, I actually think you raise a valid point about Colorado water, even though I am a Californian.
"I have lived, in my life, in many states, both big states and in small ones. ... I haven't changed much in those situations, my votes haven't really changed ... when I pack up my belongings and move to another state I somehow will change what I consider my interests to be and vote differently." You stated it. I made personal statements about you based on the knowledge you provided me. I feel my inference about your not being concerned in response to local conditions to be well supported by your own statements - don't get mad at me for drawing those conclusions based on what's above.
I can understand your confusion--you apparently equate "local interest" voting with NIMBY voting, and you assume that everyone takes this same narrow view of what is right. But some of us actually concern ourselves with what the right and just thing is for everyone when we are involved in local politics. soulpatch

Just another point: When the system was instituted, popular vote was not even mandatory, read your constitution:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

There is no reference to the popular voters, it is all in the hands of the state legislature.--AN

On the title of the page. Upon looking for other systems that used the Electoral College system, I found there weren't any. I vote (<GRIN>) to return it to Electoral College - that's how people are going to look it up anyway. Dobbs 17:57 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

I found that the spanish expression Colegio Electoral that would translated as Electoral College is used in some spanish speaking countries to designate the citizens in charge of a voting site. I don't know if somebody is going to write an article about it, and what should be the title if it were, but I point it out just that you know.--AN