From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Subject: Re: Electoral College 
Organization: (none)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 22:58:06 GMT

In article <1992Sep22.170643.6293@tamsun.tamu.edu> rdubbs@cs.tamu.edu (Roger B. Dubbs III) writes:

>... >>... >>>...
>
>It is true that electors are in proportion to the population.  However,
>it is also true that smaller states get more relative impact than larger
>states, because the number of electors is equal to the number of
>senators plus the number of representatives.  Also, each state is
>guaranteed one representative.  

That WAS once true, but not any more.
The higher impact of the smaller states was wiped out by a
"winner-take-all" method that was gradually adopted by the 
larger states.  With California's 54 votes lumped together,
going all one way or all the other in a close contest, nobody 
pays any attention to the 3 electoral votes of, say, Alaska.  
This gives California politicians more bargaining clout, as 
a bloc, even tho the state's per-capita influence on the 
electoral vote is slightly (4%) less.

IMO, the winner-take-all system is one of the things that corrupted 
a rather good representational system called the Electoral College.
It was meant to prevent a win by a demogog with very high support
in one region only (perhaps because he advocated favoring that 
region or its predominant ethnic group at the expense of the others)
but whose opposition was scattered; in order to win, a candidate must
win popular support in at least half of the country -- not 99% in one
region and 5% elsewhere.

Another corrupting factor was the advent of permanent political 
parties (as opposed to the transient "parties" that usually revolved
around a small set of issues and/or individuals).

If the Electoral College functioned as intended, the result would be 
that each small district would send a delegate or "elector" to a
convention at which the most-acceptable (or least unaceptable)
candidate would be chosen by consensus -- i.e. consensus of delegates
representing the local interests of their own small districts.
Thus, there would be farm delegates, city delegates, fatory 
delegates, etc. from many states, each assuring that their 
local interests were protected.  In fact, this is more or less
what used to happen at National Conventions of the political parties
(until the winner-take-all primaries destroyed much of that, too).

At first, electors were chosen by state legislatures.  By the 
beginning of this century, most states had switched over to 
electing them -- but with each elector chosen by his own district
(plus two statewide).  More recently, states have gone over to
having statewide slates chosen en masse by statewide totals.
An amendment restoring the district election of electors 
would be a good reform, as it would provide proportional 
representation:  if the state was divided about 50-50, so would be
its electors (more or less), and a minor party would have a good shot 
at getting a few electors.  This change would mean that candidates 
would need to address more of the issues instead of choosing the 
ones that satisfy the larger special-interest groups.  Another
improvement would be to have all the nation's electors assemble 
in one place, rather than to their respective state capitals.
(Since airplanes replaced horses, this is no longer impractical.)

>Thus, a state with less than 1/454'th
>of the population still gets 3/454 votes.  

The total number of electors is 535:  435 House districts, 
plus two per state, plus 3 for DC.


bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)         BAM    [My opinions belong to me only,
Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus.  ~~~    and they represent no one else.]
# include discaimers.h+copyright.h    ~o~  Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment now!
# delete BUSHLIPS&&SlickWillie        /|\  Marrou/Lord in '92.  (800) 682-1776

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,talk.politics.misc