HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Date: 10 Nov 1992 00:25:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


|> SPECULATION != FACT
|> 
|> 
|>         YEAR    PRESIDENT        POPULAR VOTE
|> 
|>      1824    John Q. Adams           31%
|>      1860    Abe Lincoln             40%
|>      1912    Woodrow Wilson          42%
|>      1968    Richard Nixon           43%
|> *    1992    Bill Clinton            43%
|>      1856    James Buchanan          45%
|>      1892    Grover Cleveland        46%
|>      1848    Zachary Taylor          47%
|>      1876    Rutherford B. Hayes     48%
|>      1880    James Garfield          48%
|>      1888    Benjamin Harrison       48%
|>      1844    James K. Polk           49%
|>      1884    Grover Cleveland        49%
|>      1916    Woodrow Wilson          49%
|>      1948    Harry Truman            49%
|>      1960    John F. Kennedy         49%
|>      
|> 
|> >Hardly a mandate!
|> 

OK, I was wrong, Clinton wasn't the least popular president ever
voted in, he's tied for fourth least popular.  That still makes
my point that he doesn't have a mandate, and shouldn't act like
he does have one.

BTW, lav4208@venus.tamu,edu, I'd be very interested to see your
source for these numbers and to understand the circumstances for
such low popular votes as 31 & 40%.  

------------------------------------------------

1824:  J.Q. Adams came in *second* in a four man race...Andrew Jackson
won the popular vote, with 44%, and Henry Clay and William Craford each
had about 14% or so.  No candidate received a majority of the electoral
vote, so the election went to the House of Representatives, which 
chose Adams.

1860:  Lincoln finished first in a four man race.  The others were 
Stephen Douglas, John Breckinridge and John Bell.

1912:  Wilson finished first in a three man race.  The other two 
were Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.

1968:  Richard Nixon finished first na three man race.  The other 
two were Hubert Humphrey and George Wallace.
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:52:21 GMT

In article <Bx9HGA.GJ7@acsu.buffalo.edu> kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist)  
writes:
> 
> 
> Can someone explain to me how Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote, yet
> 0 Electoral Votes? How does this system work? Does my vote *really* count?
> It seems as if though it doesn't.

Yes, your vote counts.  The reason why Perot got 20% of the popular votes
and no electoral votes is because the entire Presidential race is not
a single contest, but 51 contests.  The winner in each contest, i.e. each
state, will get all of those electoral votes.  It just so happens that
Perot did not win the contest in any of the states, or D.C.
However, Perot did come in second in Utah.
--
Go Perot '96

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:09:28 GMT

In article <1d89edINNmql@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>   Has it?  Last time this question came up, someone posted a long list
>   containing no examples of such a thing.  There have been elections with
>   more than 2 candiades and the winner getting less than 50% of all votes,
>   but as far as I know all US presidential elections have been won by the
>   candidate who got the most votes in November.  In other words: so far, the
>   electoral college has been redundant, the most-votes-wins system would have
>   given the same result (assuming people would have voeted the same under
>   that system).

  As for redundancy you have not comprehended the scope of the function
  of the electoral college.  It does more than simply magnify the popular
  vote to provide the image of a mandate and legitimize close elections.

  "Remember, we are a nation of states - the United _STATES_ of America.
   The federal principle and the separation of powers are two fundamental
   structural principles in our Constitution.  The federal principle places
   a geographic rider on the formation of majorities, recognizing that
   people who live together, sharing the same roads, parks, and schools,
   sharing the same local economy, sharing a particularly composed ethnic,
   religious and racial community, have common interests and needs  that must
   be recognized and represented in a national government.  Like the members
   of Congress, the president, who has the veto power, must be made 
   sensitive to state and local needs.  Because the electoral vote system
   requires that to win the presidency a candidate must win states, the
   presidency is incorporated into the federal system" 

   - Distinguished Teaching Professor Judith Best, SUNY Cortland
     Prepared for the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
     July 22, 1992

   There are also implications which prevent the formation of a majority
   faction and thus prevent such a faction from seizing power.  I've
   already giving this group two such believable factions that we can
   envision today - Whites or Christians.  Direct popular election is,
   simply put, a half-baked idea.

   Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Electoral C. vs Popular vote
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 05:17:37 GMT


The Electoral College was created, not to insure that a certain
person wins, but because they didn't have the wonderful methods 
of cross-country communication that we have today. Mainly, you
were right in saying that it's a way for the states to convey who 
won there. The idea being that Whoever won the most states would 
be the winner of the popular vote.
Well, someone didn't quite do their math right, and you can see what's
happened......
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Date: 11 Nov 92 21:24:22 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

In article <1992Nov10.124351.18707@osf.org> Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.054940.9676@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Frank Crary,
>fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
>>Not necessarily: An encumbant has many advantages while
>campaigning. For
>>example, any money he saves in one race, he can save up and use two
>>years later. As a result, most Congressmen have "war chests" that

>Wouldn't campaign reform be a better idea then?  Clinton and Perot
>seemed to be in favor of public financing of campaigns for federal
>positions.  This would seem to help in curbing the special interests
>and their money and help elected officials to concentrate on their
>jobs instead of eternally fundraising.  I admit though, that this
>will be enormously difficult to enact.  Clinton will need to spend
>nearly all of his political capital to get it enacted and will have
>to spend a considerable amount of time taking his case to the people
>on this one.

What are the implications of such campaign reform on an individuals
right to free speech?  That is, by limiting the amount that someone
gives to a candidate are we not limiting that persons "freedom of
expression"?  This is a popular liberal viewpoint and I consider it
highly hypocritical to only support this as religiously as they do
when it is convenient for them to do so.  

I am not implying that you are among them.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral C. vs Popular vote
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:47:46 GMT

In article <1992Nov7.051737.13946@news.ysu.edu> ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
>
>The Electoral College was created, not to insure that a certain
>person wins, but because they didn't have the wonderful methods 
>of cross-country communication that we have today. Mainly, you
>were right in saying that it's a way for the states to convey who 
>won there. The idea being that Whoever won the most states would 
>be the winner of the popular vote.

>Well, someone didn't quite do their math right, and you can see what's
>happened......

Since the adoption of the winner take all method, the last 160 years have
produced a legitimate winner every time.  Even the presidencies of Polk,
Lincoln, Cleveland (twice), Wilson - and others which were low totals -
are considered to be legitimate.  I would like to see the populist solution
to the EC and please make it all encompassing by reviewing the effect on
the nature of the election, the federal system of states, the legitimacy
of the presidency, the prevention of a tyranny of the majority, the 
effect on minority interests, and this is just the beginning.

Go hard indeed!

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:22:52 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.180031.506@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>(Essentially, if people can't agree on what the governemnt ought to
>>do, it should do nothing.)

>I disagree Frank.  History is replete with the tradgedies of regimes 
>which failed due to weak leadership.

History is also replete with republics that were destroyed by strong
leaders (or, more often, by several. Each subsequent one assuming 
slightly more power to "deal with the current crisis."

>...the Executive the power and momentum
>to deal with what the Founders recognized as the most dangerous branch
>of the government
>		THE LEGISLATURE

Do you have some evidence to this effect? The debates during the 
convention and ratification seemed to focus on the President (whom
the anti-Federalists labled "Our New King" and the federal government
in general. I don't recall any specific objections to legislatures.)

(By the way, the power of the executive has grown enormously over
the past century. And yet, the much weaked Presidents of the ninteenth
century were able to "deal with the legislature"...)



                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Term limits, was Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:42:44 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.035919.28497@news.ysu.edu>, ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
|> 
|> First: We have a republic. Anyone who tells you we have a democracy
|> is probably selling something.
|> 
|> Second: How are term limits gonna solve any problems? My feeling is
|> that if the people in his area like the guy enough to keep voting him
|> in, he should be there. Term limits only hurt the people by forcing
|> them to vote for someone they might not want, and reducing the power
|> that their representative has to get the best benefit for them.
|> -- 
|>

"How are term limits gonna solve any problems?":
  
#1)  Power corrupts.  The question is, how long does it take for power
     to corrupt someone?  

#2)  If congress-critter X, as a result of seniority, chairs the committee 
     for highway appropriations, and 1/2 of all national funds for highway 
     research goes to his home district, of course his home district will
     re-elect him/her/it.  But is that best for the country as a whole?

We are out of money.  We no longer have enough for "polies" (borrowed from
an Australian) to buy our votes with our children's money (vis "... reducing
the power that their representative has to get the best benefit for them.")

I think term limits is the way to solve both of the above problems.
I think #2 is the more tangible problem though, and would be happy to
see that attacked without bringing up term limits.  For instance, the
rest of the country should have a right of recision of a polie if its
decided (by referendum) that he/she/it is bad for the country, but good
for the home district.

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: bobk@gibdo.engr.washington.edu (Bob)
Subject: Winner-Take-All Electoral College
Organization: University of Washington
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 12:47:38 GMT

kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
| I have one thing to say about the E.C: if a candidate wins 51 % of the
| popular vote in a state, then shouldn't that candidate receive roughly 51%
| of the E.C. votes, not 100%? That's the way it should be in a true
| democracy.

best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
| We are not nor were we ever intended to be a pure democracy, according to 
| the wishes of the Founders.  Pure democracy was recognized even by the Greeks
| as the bad rule of the many and those of us who have a pessimistic view of
| human nature believe that, though we might start as a pluracracy, we would
| ultimately sink to a democracy (the tyranny of the many).

  There is nothing in the constitution about the winner-take-all nature
  of the electoral college.  The states are free to institute a proportional
  system if they choose.  I believe Maine has a quasi-proportional system
  of allocating electoral votes.

  Practically speaking, the larger states are not likely to give up the
  additional leverage they get from the winner-take-all system.  If the
  larger states are doing it, the smaller states will also try to squeeze
  out whatever leverage they can get.  Candidates who concentrate on
  winning "strategic states" will do better than those who concentrate
  on policies that are better for the country as a whole.

  Even though it is not in the constitution, it is this winner-take-all
  aspect of the electoral college that determines the outcomes of elections
  and drives campaign strategy.  Practically speaking, the fact that a
  smaller group of electors are actually voting is irrelevant -- they almost
  always vote for the candidate who nominated them.  Thus, the current
  electoral college system has little to do with either a good Democracy
  or a good Republic.

  Taken as a whole, the winner-take-all system, when employed by most
  all of the states, is arbitrary and makes little sense as a method of
  determining the aggregate decision of the country or even as a method
  of selecting a smaller group of representatives to make that decision.

  As far as the evils of democracy, I don't fear "government by the people"
  as much as the previous poster does, especially if it is done to select
  their leader once every four years.  I can't see anything positive in
  having the choice of the people rejected by either a small group of
  elite assholes or, because of the winner-take-all systems employed
  by the states, a somewhat arbitrary system where the candidate who is 
  able to bribe a few "strategic" states will win.
  ==

  Bob                                         Seattle, Washington

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Electoral C. vs Popular vote
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:46:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.195316.20974@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
|> 
|> The purpose of the Electoral College is NOT to simply elect the candidate
|> who wins the popular vote.  If that were the case then why would the 
|> founders have created this institution in the first place?  No, there
|> are dreadfully serious reasons for it's existence and I will illustrate
|> just _one_ here for you now. 
|> 

Since you cannot determine a reason for the founders to have created the
EC, you assert that is was to prevent majorities from ruling (hey, that
sounds like democracy!).

I always thought the EC was simply a way of conveying states' votes
to the capital. 

Anyone care to recommend some factual reading on this, preferrably
something written by one of the signers?  (Federalist papers say anything?)

|> The EC serves to prevent the formation of a majority faction as a real
|> political force by requiring a candidate to win States.  Candidates must
|> appeal to a broad cross-section of the country on a federal basis.  This
|> limits the potential for the formation of a majority faction.
|> 

The popular vote is the best measure of the amount of "broad appeal".

Let's back up a sec.  

Should everyone in this country have an equal vote?  (y/n): 

If yes, then why use anything other than the popular vote?


-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government.
From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: ERA and the 27th Amendment
Date: 12 Nov 92 02:36:28 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <misdeva-101192200725@morse-college-kstar-node.net.yale.edu>, misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) writes:
> the ERA Summit  (a group of old ERA warrior types) has been
> considering attempting to get three more state legislatures to pass ERA and
> to then sue to invalidate the time limit on the grounds that Congress did
> not have the authority to include such a limit in the amendment, since the
> 27th was passed despite the huge gap between intro. and final ratification.

> Putting aside for the moment your feelings about ERA, what does anyone
> think of this strategy?

Self-defeating.  The obvious counter to it is that such a change would
invalidate the votes of those states who approved it, since the amendment
is not now the same amendment they approved.
-- 

cdt@pdp.sw.stratus.com      --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:920 alt.politics.elections:22738 talk.politics.theory:4745 sci.econ:8467 rec.org.mensa:8006
From: darragh@maths.tcd.ie (Darragh J. Delany)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:07:42 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

>In article <ritter.720367686@claude> ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
>}If not that, then how about:  each person gets one vote on attaining
>}voting age.  If a person serves in the military, they get another vote.
>}Graduating from college gets yet another vote.  And finally, performing
>}a great service to the country gets a fourth (and final) vote.  The great
>}service should be roughly equivalent in uniqueness to the valor needed to
>}win a Medal of Honor.
>}
>}The above idea is taken (modified) from a Nevil Shute novel (In the Wet,
>}I think).  ...

Interesting, someone who has devoted their life to the service of their nation
in a mere pencil pushing job would have fewer votes than an ex-private who sat
out his military service in a military pencil pushing job? et cetera...
As it happens here in Ireland I actually have 2 votes due to my graduate
status. As well as my vote for the lower house of parliament I have a vote
for the university panel of the upper house. The other voters for the upper
house are all elected politicians themselves, only they and university
graduates have this privilege.

-- 
Dj.

ESS students don't have plans, silly 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:974 alt.politics.perot:5407
From: kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 10 Nov 92 22:18:15 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

In article <1992Nov10.160711.14175@mips2.ma30.bull.com> msanf@hw23.ma30.bull.com (Marc Sanfacon) writes:
>In article <BxDDxy.911@acsu.buffalo.edu>, kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
>|> I have one thing to say about the E.C: if a candidate wins 51 % of the
>|> popular vote in a state, then shouldn't that candidate receive roughly 51%
>|> of the E.C. votes, not 100%? That's the way it should be in a true
>|> democracy.
>
>Amen, brother!!  I would like to shake your hand.
>
>I have been screaming about this for months and nobody
>seems to give a crap.  Are you and I the only people in
>the country that can see this absurd distortion of our
>votes?
>
>All a candidate needs to do is get 51% of 5 or 6 of the
>"important" states and he will be practically guaranteed
>to win the election.  This sounds like my vote gets lost
>in the process unless I move to New Jersey and vote for
>the front-runner.  This is counter to what we should be
>encouraging in a democracy.

If we are the only two that see this problem, then one or all of the
following are true:

1. Everybody thinks "I can't do anything about it anyway" (pacifism)
2. The general public is uninformed (most likely possible)
3. The general public thinks it's a good system (they've been successfully
brainwashed) 

I say let's get rid of the system. Why the need for Electoral Voters? I'm
sure that our tax money is in some way squandered on the people that cast
the votes. After all, don't they have to travel to D.C. to vote?

If the E.C. is eliminated, then our votes will truly count 1 for 1.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: LIPSCOJA@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Andy Lipscomb)
Subject: Re: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Organization: Vanderbilt University 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 04:36:11 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.21

>>Has it?  Last time this question came up, someone posted a long list
>>containing no examples of such a thing.  There have been elections with
>>more than 2 candiades and the winner getting less than 50% of all votes,
>>but as far as I know all US presidential elections have been won by the
>>candidate who got the most votes in November.  In other words: so far, the
>>electoral college has been redundant, the most-votes-wins system would have
>>given the same result (assuming people would have voeted the same under
>>that system).
> 
>>What would happen if Bush get more votes than Clinton, and yet Clinton wins?
> 
>>--
> 
> I thought that Hayes and JQ Adams got fewer votes.  I could be out to lunch
> though.

Also Benjamin Harrison.  (BTW, Hayes really lost in the electoral college, but
the Republicans managed to steal that one; favor returned in 1968, IMNSHO.)

Personally, I think the following revision is in order:
The College is still chosen state-by-state, but with the following rule:
1 elector for carrying each state
The remaining 2 are chosen by whatever PR method you want, taking into account
the electors chosen from districts

Actually, straight state-by-state proportional might be even better, as
gerrymandering would have no effect on it.


Andy Lipscomb
lipscoja@ctrvax.vanderbilt.edu (Bitnet: lipscoja@vuctrvax)