From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 04:04:44 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.235348.20210@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (ENTROPY. IT'S THE LAW) writes:
>>>Politicians have lied in the past, present, and will continue to
>>>lie in the future. It doesn't matter if we have an electrol college 
>>>or not.

>>Of course it does: The electoral college was put into the Constitution
>>to minimize the effects of such lying.

>If that's the case then I think we can safely say that it is an 
>overwhelming failure.

Largely because political parties have turned it into (in effect)
exactly the sort direct election you seem to support. 
In theory, the people vote for electors, but in practice that have to vote
for a democratic party hack or a republican party hack. The people
don't have (by state laws, not by the nature of the electoral college)
a choice of independent electors. This discussion started with a
proposal, to modify the electoral college and make it work. You are
pointing out a flaw in the current implementation, niot a basic flaw
with the electoral college system.

>>> The votes for President should
>>>>be cast by people who have the time to consider the candidates positions
>>>>and records on improtant issues (as opposed to 30 second "sound bites"),
>>>>but who at the same time represent the desires of the people at large.

>>>This is an increadibly elitist view. 

>>Sorry, it isn't mine (exclusively). Complain to the authors (such elitists
>>as George Washington and James Madison...)

>Understood, but back then only a very small percentage of the population
>could do things like read. Also, a free press was still a new idea.
>However well intentioned the college was , I believe it has outlived
>its usefullness.

Are you suggesting the average voter reads the newspapers (in detail)
and seriously considers the issues? If this were the case, "image"
campaigns, "sound bites" and "dirty" campaigns wouldn't be effective.
Since these things _do_ affect the average voter, and the electoral
college was supposed to solve this problem, I'd say there is still
a need for it (and even more so, a need to modify it and make it work.)

>>>What makes you think that these
>>>professional "people" are any smarter than a large percentage of Americans? 

>>They are _not_ professional anythings.
>>They are elected by the voters, to do absolutely nothing, except select
>>a President and Vice-President responsibly. I think the people would
>>(given a functional electoral college) pick trust-worthy and intelligent
>>electors (or at sensible ones.)

>I realize that you believe this, but WHY? What basis do you have 
>for saying that "they" would do any better?

By appeal to the democratic process: They are elected for no reason,
except to choose a President. Presumably, the people will elect those
they will make a "good" (in the opinion of the voters) choice. That is,
those they trust and will make sensible choices.

>>Aren't these problems of _anything_ except direct democracy? The whole
>>point of a republic is for the people to elect representatives who
>>have more time to consider and understand the issues.

>So you are putting one more level between the people and their 
>elected officials (or at least backing it). Also, by giving them 
>more power, have you considered the topic of curruption?

The electoral college has _had_ this power for over 200 years. I'm
not aware of any corruption problems in its history. So (unless
such problems arrise) I don't see this as a major problem.

>>As for people making their own mistakes, direct democracy does more 
>>than that: Historically, it always has lead to mob-rule or the
>>rise of dictators.

>So have aristocracies, as well as every other type of government.
>The problem isn't the type of government, it in people.

(You seem to have ignored my point, about constitutional republics
satisfying my objections to direct democracy, without being a
aristocracy. It is not, as you suggest, an either-or choice between
direct democracy and aristocracy, with no middle ground.)

In any case, if this is the inevitable fate of governments, they 
should at least be set up to _delay_ this fate as long as possible.

>>are trampled by the "will of the average" citizen. I do _not_ support
>>a majority making mistakes which hurt both themselves and the minorities.

>If you want to run, or have someone's life run, I'm sure there are
>people who want that. I'm not one of them.

Again, you seem to be arguing in terms of black and white: I want to 
_limit_ the control of the majority over government (so as to protect
the individuals and minorities from mob rule.) This is very different
from _removing_ the will of the people from government (which I certainly
don't support.) I'm not taking about running people's lives, but about
keeping the majority from running the lives of the minorities.

                                                   Frank Crary
                                                   CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution