From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: EC Protects Minority Rights
Date: 17 Nov 1992 08:51:35 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) says:

>I would like to address the general argument made by many here that the
>Electoral College (EC) is not "fair".  The EC is in actuality inherently
>fair because it encourages the creation of concurrent majorities which 
>form from minority factions.  This results in a two party system where 
>we have majority rule with _consent_ of the minority.
>
Quite the contrary.  In a two party system you have majority rule with 
*disenfranchisement* of the minority.  In a multi-party system, with
proportional representation, you see minority viewpoints represented in the
legislatures, instead of suppressed by two quasi-governmental bodies.


>The founders recognized that a system wherein a majority faction controlled
>the political system, and never allowing the minority to have a hand in
>governing, would ultimately fail.  The system they designed included the
>EC for this very important reason - to encourage minority factions to 
>coalesce into a majority and to take power through legitimate elections.
>
More correctly, the electoral college existed to allow the ruling elite to
overrule the judgment of the majority.  This may have been necessary and even
good in the 18th century.  It is neither now.

>Nothing would please, for example, white separatists more than for the
>electoral system to divide the non-whites into monolithic areas.  For sake
>of argument let's presume that it is possible to put all minorities into
>a few states and whites into all the rest.  The result is that the minorities
>may have 50 or so Congressmen but they are still an ineffective minority and
>they will always be.
>
As opposed to now?

>This hypothetical example contrasts with the current system in that the
>minority populations in states can often be the swing votes that decide
>elections.  They have real influence and can, at times, become part of
>a majority coalition that assumes control of the government.  
>
And how would this become impossible under a more open system?  You seem
to be saying that there are some ideas which you disagree with, and that
sense the people you do agree with hold the upper hand in the current system,
you don't want to change anything.

>Without this system the minorities could simply be ignored and their 
>issues left untouched.  The EC protects their rights ultimately.
>
See above.

>Majority rule with consent of the minority is a subtle but powerful concept.
>
Yes it is.  It is not provided by the electoral college, however.

>Mike Best
>

-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot