From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 04:10:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.024213.17713@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN) writes:
>I guess I DO have to explain the ramifications. The only power the people
>have over an elected official on a federal level (ie. no recall vote)
>other than revolt IS the election. 

Actually, the _re_election.

>By putting the election of the 
>president in the hands of a few, and out of the hands of the people,
>you ARE making the president answerable to only the electoral college.

However, the electoral college doesn't exist, except for a few
weeks every four years. Further, its members are different every
time it meets, and know one knows in advance who those members are.
I don't see how a President can be responsible to a non-existant
body, or to its unknown future members. 

However, because of the electoral college as a middle man, the
President is indirectly, not directly, answerable to be people.
In this day and age, "answerable to the people" means keeping
them happy, regardless of realities (i.e. lowering taxes and
raising spending on benifit programs, or passing "Crime Bills"
to deal with popular concerns, regardless of their actual
effects or benifits). Given this sort of "bread and circus"
political reality, I can't say keeping the President one
step away from it, is a bad idea.

>the voting public. 
>Also, you must explain where you draw the line
>between the candidate's platform and just voting for the candidate.
>(ie. the candidate's personal platform reflects their beliefs. Where 
>do draw the line between their values and their personal being?)

At the point where the elector couldn't justify his actions to the
voters. If he can go back to them, say "You wanted X, and I didn't
think so-and-so could deliver so I voter for someone else who 
could", and not get lynched. That is, I think political pressure
would keep the electors faithfull to the wishes of the people.

>>We vote for the individual's promises and the individual's stand on the
>>issues. The question is, would an elector who shifted his vote to 
>>remain constant to those same views but a different individual, really
>>be going against the will of the people?

>A very good point, but not reflective of a two party system. In a two
>party system you choose either A or B (this is particularily true for
>the presidency). You don't have 10 or 20 options that may have slight
>differences. When it's either A or B, it's clear what the people have 
>chosen (I know you are going to say, "But we have several smaller 
>parties out there."...

I, personally, don't think a two party system is a good idea. And I'm
opposed to electoral systems that assume it will always be the case.
Also, an elector _could_ vote for a third party and not upset the
voters: Consider the current election. Many people are willing to
vote for Perot, not because they like him, but as a protest against
Bush and Clinton. An elector might have a mandate to cast a protest
vote, but vote for Marrou instead (on the grounds that he matches
the voters concerns over basic rights more closely than Perot, even
though few voters had ever heard of Marrou.)

Also, the electors also choose the Vice-President, and most voters
_already_ consider this an almost worthless position. Would anyone
seriously object, if an elector "threw away" his vote to protect
Dan Quayle? Many voters might consider this a vote well cast...

>>(By the way, I don't think a Parlimentary system is such a good idea:
>>It would mean the same party would control both the Congress and the
>>Presidency automatically. There would be no seperation of powers and
>>no real limits on the ruling party's power. Thatcher's England is
>>a good (?) example of this.)

>Very true (at least for Thatcher's example). But if one party doesn't win
>an outright victory, then you have a coalition government. In a coalition 
>government, smaller parties get a voice (something that doesn't happen
>here). Coalition governments are quite common.

Coalition governments have their own problems: They tend to fall apart
in times of crisis. They also produce some very unusual policies (An
Israeli government once had to keep a minor religious faction happy. 
As a result, the government's Minister of Communications was a rabi
who refused to watch television on moral grounds.)

It's worth distinguishing between the means of election (which give
minor parties a better chance under a parlimentary system) and the
selection of the executive by parliment. I'm very much opposed to
the later, but the former might not be a bad idea...

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder
From: kingsley@hpwrce.mayfield.hp.com (Kingsley Morse)
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 23:44:20 GMT
Subject: Please Help
Organization: HP Western Response Center