HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: laura@catfish.ocpt.ccur.com (Laura Gillespie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:41:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Concurrent Computer - Oceanport NJ

In article <Bx7Ho0.68t@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>If I understand correctly, all of the electors of a state are obligated to vote 
>for the candidate with the highest number of popular votes (plurality). 

That's not correct.  They are free to vote for whomever *they* wish, at
the electors' convention, held about a month after the popullar vote
is held.  They merely have, by tradition, and wisdom (who'd want to
see a revolution over a silly election, huh?) normally voted for the
one who came in first in their state.  There have been exceptions.
Somebody pointed out, for instance, that Ronald Reagan got one
electoral vote in 1980, which obviously came from a state or
territory that had gone popularly for Carter or Ford.  Probably
a protest over the obviousness of the crooked way that Ford's
handlers manipulated (can you say 'rigged'?) the Republican
Convention that year (IMNSHO).

>Where does this practice come from?  Not the U.S. Constitution.  Do

Yes, the Constitution of the United States spells out the election
process, and the electoral college.  It was built as a safety valve
to ward off totalitarian regimes (which at the time were in the
form of monarchs) being voted in popularly in the hysteria of the
moment -- in other words, to avoid the disasters of mob rule.
And it has worked very effectively to keep that from happening.
I am glad we have it.

>[...]                                                            Do
>all states do this?  [...]

Yes, of course.

>[...]                Under what influence were all 50 states persuaded
>to take up this practice?

At the first Constitutional Convention -- they helped write it, and
agreed to it, for goodness sake.

>Am I correct that if electors were forced to vote in proportion to
>the popular vote that we would be facing a run-off in congress?
>(Clinton only got ~45% of the popular vote nationwide.)

Yes, of course.  And, Clinton only got 43 percent -- 57 percent
voted *against* him!

[Pssssst.   It's Perot in '96!]


/Laura Gillespie
gillespi@ocpt.ccur.com

-- 
US MAIL: Laura Gillespie  Mailstop 360    Concurrent Computer Corporation
FAX: 908-870-5856  2 Crescent Pl. Oceanport NJ 07757  Voice: 908-870-5782 
UUCP: rutgers!ocpt.ccur.com!gillespi     Internet: gillespi@ocpt.ccur.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:42:11 GMT


The electors travel to their state capitals. So, unless your a 
Hawaiin elector, it's probably just a long drive at most.

I like Maine's system the best. Do the EC by Congressional district
with the overall winner in the state getting the senate votes.
That way, you incorporate head count, and geography.
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:20:30 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.022727.6685@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov12.173050.2529@risky.ecs.umass.edu> giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes:
|> >I am not supporting this idea of requiring a 50% popular vote, but
|> >the 2nd-election problem could be eliminated in many cases by allowing people
|> >to order their preferences.  For example, in this election Clinton and
|> >Bush had the most votes, so votes cast for other candidates (i.e. Perot)
|> >would be recounted.
|> 
|> But what if 99% of the people had picked Perot as their second choice?
|> This sort of "second choice" system is very vunerable to the details
|> of how and when the second choice is considered.
|> 
|>                                                     Frank Crary
|>                                                     CU Boulder
|> 

Please elaborate and compare the one positive / one negative system
I proposed (everyone gets +1 vote & a -1 vote).

BTW, if Perot had gotten 99% of the second choice vote, wouldn't that
sorta make him the consensus choice?


-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:55:30 GMT

In article <BxFJ1z.72p@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>Eric J. O'Denius (eodenius@dumaine.gac.edu) writes:
>
>>  One good thing about the electoral college:  It provides the appearance of
>>  a mandate.
>
>That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  IMHO, the FALSE appearance
>of a mandate is, as is the case in many false appearances, a very dangerous
>thing.  The reality is that only 43/100 people actually want this guy in the
>white house!  Isn't that about the lowest popular vote percentage ever?

No it's not the lowest popular percentage and I would invite you to read 
the book "The Case Against Direct Election of the President" which is the
best one on the subject (Cornell University Press).

First, some of our worst presidencies have been under candidates who received
huge popular vote victories.  Second, some of our best presidencies have
been under those who have received very low popular vote victories.  
Consider Abraham Lincoln who won less than 40% of the popular vote, what
a loss to the nation it would be to not have had him. 

Now I do not particularly like Clinton but he must have the strength and
momentum which the EC gave him if he is to be effective.  A weak Executive
invites intrusions by the legislature into the Executives areas of 
responsibilities.  This is why Nixon should be reviled in my opinion because
he weakened the Presidency.   

The point is not to elect the candidate who wins the most votes but rather
it is to elect the best possible candidate.  The criterion for this selection
is varied but important to the stability of the regime.

>To say that the arrival of a third party on the scene means Italian-style
>chaos is a HUGE jump in logic.  

I think that he was defending the two party system which is undeniably more
stable than multi-party governments as evidenced by his example.  Stability
is a virtue in government because it allows people to plan and to make
progress instead of switching direction at asynchronous intervals. 


Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:55:13 GMT

>1860:  Lincoln finished first in a four man race.  The others were 
>Stephen Douglas, John Breckinridge and John Bell.

I would like to use this as an example refute your populist position on
the electoral process.

Take into account, first of all, that Lincoln was not even on the ballot
in 10 (or so) states.  If we extrapolated your position to it's logical
conclusion, that the winner should receive more than 50% of the popular
vote (I believe this is what you are driving at) then in the 1860 election
we would have required that a contingency election take place between the
top two popular vote candidates.  Putting aside that this delay in the
selection delegitimizes the electoral process in and of itself, it is quite
obvious to those who have studied the history of this period that Lincoln
would not have won if the choice was Lincoln versus either Douglas or Breck-
enridge.

Pure populist appeal is simply NOT the only criterion to legitimize the
Presidency and the Founders designed the system in order. 

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: merlyn@digibd.com (Merlyn LeRoy)
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Organization: DigiBoard Incorporated, Eden Prairie, MN
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:51:21 GMT

lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:
>>...The reality is that only 43/100 people actually want this guy in the
>>white house!  Isn't that about the lowest popular vote percentage ever?

>        YEAR    PRESIDENT	    POPULAR VOTE
>	1824	John Q. Adams		31%
	...

Hey, you forgot
	1974    Gerald Ford              0%

---
Merlyn LeRoy
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:29:58 GMT

Eric J. O'Denius (eodenius@dumaine.gac.edu) writes:

>  One good thing about the electoral college:  It provides the appearance of
>  a mandate.

That's your opinion and you're entitled to it.  IMHO, the FALSE appearance
of a mandate is, as is the case in many false appearances, a very dangerous
thing.  The reality is that only 43/100 people actually want this guy in the
white house!  Isn't that about the lowest popular vote percentage ever?
Hardly a mandate!

To say that the arrival of a third party on the scene means Italian-style
chaos is a HUGE jump in logic.  

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:996 alt.politics.elections:23454
From: dianem@boi.hp.com (Diane Mathews)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections
Subject: ERA vote
Date: 11 Nov 92 15:54:14 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Santa Clara Division

The ERA, which was on the ballot in Iowa, lost.  Does anyone have any 
information about ERA in any other states?  Does anyone know of other
issues on ballots which won or lost in the various states (i.e. that
may or may not be precedent-setting?)

Thanks!
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 02:43:38 GMT

In article <8NOV199223304927@venus.tamu.edu> lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:
>        YEAR    PRESIDENT	    POPULAR VOTE
>
>	1824	John Q. Adams		31%
>	1860	Abe Lincoln		40%
>	1912	Woodrow Wilson		42%
>	1968	Richard Nixon		43%
>*	1992	Bill Clinton		43%

>>Hardly a mandate!

>	So lets just declare those on the above list traitors who
>	went against the will of the people. therefore

>		1. civil war was wrong/slavery was right.
>		2. WWI was wrong
>		3. vietnam/watergate was wrong
>		4. cuban missile crisis was wrong.
>		5. war of 1812 was wrong

(John Qunicy Adams had almost nothing to do with the War of 1812)

>		6. indian wars were wrong
>		7. a-bomb was wrong

No, we can conclude that most of these things were "against the
will of the people." If you believe in democracy, that means
the President should have stayed out of it _regardless_ of
his moral views.

(By the way, if morality demands action by the President, why aren't
we at war with China?)

                                                 Frank Crary
                                                 CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:21:06 GMT


Now you know why the system is considered outdated.
PS: Reagan got a vote in 76, not 80 (well, he got several in 80
but you know what I'm talking about.)
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Dell Computer Co
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 16:54:18 GMT


cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
>
>It's inaccurate to say that the EC system skews the results.  It all
>depends on what you think is the most accurate democracy.  Suppose
>that we implement your popular plan.  Candidate Bumpkin takes every
>state except California by 51-49, but Candidate Cooldude wins his home
>state by 60-40.  In the new system, Cooldude would win, and have
>a majority of the popular vote.  However, every state except one would
>be against him.  In the EC vote, Bumpkin would have a "mandate" in
>votes, but be slightly edged out in the % vote.
>

"Every state except one would be against him."  Fine, except that states
are nothing but arbitrary geographic regions bound by legislative ties.
A state in and of itself cannot be "for" or "against" something, and a
nation by one definition is its people rather than its geography.

The EC *DOES* skew the results.  Clinton had a rather poor showing, all
things considered, and yet to look at the EC results you would think he
had broad popular support.  This is simply not true, yet it leads to the
false claim of a "mandate".  

The most significant thing to consider in your proposed model is this;
under an EC system, Bumpkin would win yet there would be more people
nationwide pissed than pleased about this.

The EC is an antiquated idea that was originally implemented in order
to make national popular elections possible and manageable.  The technology
did not exist to conduct and coordinate timely popular elections.  This
is no longer a problem --- let's trash the EC.



My $0.02,



jb



--
-- Jeff Bone ------------------------------------------------------------
                  Message for Clinton:  fix it or out!
------------------------------------------------------- jbone@dell.com --
--                         std. disclaimer                             --
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral C. vs Popular vote
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:42:13 GMT

In article <BxBJD5.1sr@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.195316.20974@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>|> 
>|> The purpose of the Electoral College is NOT to simply elect the candidate
>|> who wins the popular vote.  If that were the case then why would the 
>|> founders have created this institution in the first place?  No, there
>|> are dreadfully serious reasons for it's existence and I will illustrate
>|> just _one_ here for you now. 
>|> 
>
>Since you cannot determine a reason for the founders to have created the
>EC, you assert that is was to prevent majorities from ruling (hey, that
>sounds like democracy!).

There are actually two possibilities:

1. The Good Rule of the Many:  Pluracracy
2. The Bad Rule of the Many:   Democracy

If you cannot grasp this then you cannot understand the founders principles.

>|> The EC serves to prevent the formation of a majority faction as a real
>|> political force by requiring a candidate to win States.  Candidates must
>|> appeal to a broad cross-section of the country on a federal basis.  This
>|> limits the potential for the formation of a majority faction.
>|> 
>
>The popular vote is the best measure of the amount of "broad appeal".

I disagree (illustrated as my last point).

>Let's back up a sec.  
>
>Should everyone in this country have an equal vote?  (y/n): 

Yes, and they do within reason.

>If yes, then why use anything other than the popular vote?

To protect the people from themselves, mob rule frankly frightens me.

Why should we have Senators then?  We are a federation of states, we are
not an amorphous mass and the government is designed with this in mind. 
The selection of the president is very important and there are other
criterion other than popular vote to determine that he/she represents
the people.  For example, direct popular vote as a method could be used
by the candidate to campaign in population centers (urban areas for
example) and would then not need to consider the problems and issues
that people who do not live in such areas.  This concept splits the
country instead of requiring that the candidate acheive broad appeal.
It alienates us and splits us into groups.

It is also dangerous.  The formation of a majority faction worried the
founders and the EC serves to prevent this.  I'll say it as many times
as it takes to get through to the populists in this groups (who I 
suspect are liberals due to the constant use of the term "fair").
Consider this, there are two majority factions which could seize power:

	1.  Whites
	2.  Christians

Now unless you want David Duke or Pat Robertson to lead you then you had
better do some homework and learn what the EC's function is rather than
shooting from the hip.  This is serious stuff sir.

Mike Best

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 23:53:09 GMT

In article <BxItyG.6y1@acsu.buffalo.edu> kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
>
>I say let's get rid of the system. Why the need for Electoral Voters? I'm
>sure that our tax money is in some way squandered on the people that cast
>the votes. After all, don't they have to travel to D.C. to vote?

And I say that you address the relevant side effects of such a change.

1.  Address the effect on the federal nature of our republic.
    (why do we need states?)

2.  Address the effect on the nature of the campaign.
    (what will prevent the majority of Whites or Christians from 
     taking irrevocable control of the Presidency?)

3.  Address the subsequent formation of a multi-party system, specifically
    the prospect that extremist groups will form minority factions and
    the effect on the Congress.  Yes I said Congress, as soon as the two
    party system is destroyed at the presidential level I project that
    the Congress will not be far behind.

>If the E.C. is eliminated, then our votes will truly count 1 for 1.

 If the E.C. is eliminated you will be subject to the tyranny of the majority.

 You are a constitutional heretic.

 Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: msanf@hw23.ma30.bull.com (Marc Sanfacon)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:07:11 GMT

In article <BxDDxy.911@acsu.buffalo.edu>, kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
|> I have one thing to say about the E.C: if a candidate wins 51 % of the
|> popular vote in a state, then shouldn't that candidate receive roughly 51%
|> of the E.C. votes, not 100%? That's the way it should be in a true
|> democracy.

Amen, brother!!  I would like to shake your hand.

I have been screaming about this for months and nobody
seems to give a crap.  Are you and I the only people in
the country that can see this absurd distortion of our
votes?

All a candidate needs to do is get 51% of 5 or 6 of the
"important" states and he will be practically guaranteed
to win the election.  This sounds like my vote gets lost
in the process unless I move to New Jersey and vote for
the front-runner.  This is counter to what we should be
encouraging in a democracy.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:20:58 GMT

In article <BxDDxy.911@acsu.buffalo.edu> kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
>I have one thing to say about the E.C: if a candidate wins 51 % of the
>popular vote in a state, then shouldn't that candidate receive roughly 51%
>of the E.C. votes, not 100%? That's the way it should be in a true
>democracy.

We are not nor were we ever intended to be a pure democracy, according to 
the wishes of the Founders.  Pure democracy was recognized even by the Greeks
as the bad rule of the many and those of us who have a pessimistic view of
human nature believe that, though we might start as a pluracracy, we would
ultimately sink to a democracy (the tyranny of the many).

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1021 alt.politics.elections:23533 talk.politics.theory:4878 sci.econ:8598 rec.org.mensa:8178
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 12 Nov 92 05:47:14 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1dsr52INN6gv
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) says:

>   It's nonsense to suggest that "the middle class" benefits less
>   by Big Government or favors it less than any other segment of
>   society.    

Do *you* favor Big Government?


-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
From: ph600fcy@sdcc14.ucsd.edu (Matthew Harrington)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Wanted: frameable version of Constitution and Bill of Rights
Date: 11 Nov 92 05:44:36 GMT
Distribution: na

I'd like a nice copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights suitable
for framing.  Does anyone know a source?  Thanks in advance.

					Regards,

					Matt Harrington

Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
From: scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Steven M Casburn)
Subject: An original thought
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:31:49 GMT

  Joel K Ness writes:

>[...]  We'll see what 4 years
>of Clinton and a democratically controlled house and senate do for us
>all.  My guess is a rerun of the fabulous Carter years.
>
>We're going to have change all right, and that's all that will be
>left in our pockets after their done.

     To paraphrase Ross Perot: Fellow Internetters, if I ever regurgitate a 
cliche like that, just shoot me.

                                        Steve
///
-- 
    Steve Casburn (scasburn@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu)
    They gave me differential calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    So they gave me integral calculus, and I said "Hit me again"
    Now I have vector calculus, and...I'm starting to lose consciousness...
From: rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (Jeff Bytof)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton
Subject: moby dick
Date: 5 Nov 92 00:18:02 GMT
Organization: ucsd
NNTP-Posting-Host: lutherlab.ucsd.edu


       "And what thing soever besides cometh within the chaos
        of this monster's mouth, be it beast, boat, or stone, 
        down it goes all incontinently that foul great swallow of
        his, and perisheth in the bottomless gulf of his paunch."

                              ---Holland's Plutarch's Morals
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton