From: garrett@Ingres.COM 
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Summary: Goodbye for now
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 16 Oct 92 03:22:30 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.041034.22852@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                   writes...
>In article <1992Oct14.024213.17713@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN) writes:

Unfortunantly, due to time constraints in my personal and professional life
I must leave this discussion after this post. I have found the opposing 
arguments to be suprisingly well thought-out and informed.

>>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. 
>
In this respect, the members aern't as important as the structure.
For instance, the members of Congress are insignificant as compared to
the laws and structure that they represent. I saw from other posts
that several people support taking the "human element" out of the 
Electoral College. Although I don't think that is enough of a reform,
I do believe that it is a step in the right direction.

>However, because of the electoral college as a middle man, the
>President is indirectly, not directly, answerable to be people.

This is true. Accountability is crucial in order to keeping 
government "clean".

>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).

This is unfortunantly true most of the time (ie. the Great Communictor).
But if it was true all the time, then Perot and Tsongas never would 
have gotten the support they did. What IS true ALL the time, is that 
the people's vote will reflect their pocketbook.

>>>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.

Join the club. I'm adamantly opposed to the two-party system, BUT that
is the political reality of the times, and will continue to be for the
forseeable future. So, in order to remain realistic, any reform of the
Electoral College must reflect this reality.

>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.)

True, BUT the current election is the strangest in decades, and therefore
can't be used as a ruler. The American public never has had a long
attention span or memory, so the protest vote probably will not be 
around during the next election (if it IS, then I expect MUCH more then
just angry voters. Expect trouble). 
> 
>>>(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.
> 
>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...
> 
That is an interesting idea (one that I could support), to have a 
Parlimentary system for the Legislative branch, and a seperate election
for the executive branch.
	I only have one last point to make on this Parlimentary subject:
Almost all the new democracies in the world are adopting Parlimentary
systems instead of our political system. There must be a reason for it.

>                                                 Frank Crary
>                                                 CU Boulder
-Garrett