From: garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 8 Oct 92 01:44:37 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.024338.5240@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)               writes...
>In article <1992Oct6.033312.4743@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED) writes:
>>	What if the electoral college decided to elect someone 
>>besides who the people of the country voted for?
> 
>They have: James Polk in 1844, with just under 50% of the popular vote,
>Zachary Taylor in 1844 with 47.5%, James Buchanan in 1856 with 45%, 
>Abraham Lincon in 1860 with 40%, Rutherford Hayes in 1876 with 48%,
>James Garfield in 1880 with 48.3%, Grover Cleveland in 1884 with 48.5%
>Benjamin Harrison in 1888 with 48%, Grover Cleavland in 1892 with 46%,
>Woodrow Wilson in 1912 with 42% and in 1916 with 49%, Harry Truman in
>1948 with 49.5%, John Kennedy in 1960 with 49.7%, and Richard Nixon in
>1968 with 43.7%.
> 
>In 14 out of 51 elections, a majority of the people voted _against_ the person
>the electoral college made President. Several of those 14 Presidents
>are often listed among our "best" Presidents.
>
Whoa! Slow down! Yes they were elected without recieving a mojority
of the POLPULAR vote, but they recieved a mojority of the electoral
vote BY STATE. That is a world of difference from what you proposed!
You want the electoral voters to be able to CHANGE their votes! There 
is no comparison between someone winning states and getting all the 
electoral votes, and someone winning a state and the electoral voters
decide to vote for someone else. THAT is thwarting the will of the 
voters. Let's clear this up. If you want relevant facts, then look
at how many times an electoral voter was elected for one canidate
and voted for another. BTW, in three of those cases there were 
strong third party showing and the canidates listed above got
more votes then all the other canidates.

>> Do you have any idea the uproar this would cause? Can you imagine the
>>riots that would happen? 

>>	What I'm saying is "Let the people make their own 
>>mistakes". If they elect the wrong person, then they will get what 
>>they deserve. If you try to mother the populace, then you will fail.
> 
>I still don't see why the electoral college is "mothering" any more
>than having a Congress is: Both are delegating a choice to representatives
>who have can take the time to consider issues and be informed about the
>choice they are making. If the electors weren't elected, it would be
>a different matter...

I see what you are having trouble understanding (no offense intended).
There is a VERY big difference between voting for someone and having
a middleman (elected or not) saying that "The people who elected me are 
wrong in their choice, I'm voting for the other guy", and someone
basically reaffirming your choice (which is basically what the 
Electoral College does today). This is why I am both against the 
Electoral College, and against your reform of it.
(Nothing personal, I just don't believe in someone telling me
who should represent me).
>                                                Frank Crary
>                                                CU Boulder
-Garrett
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.usa.misc