HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: msanf@hw23.ma30.bull.com (Marc Sanfacon)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Bull HN Informations Systems Inc.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:53:36 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.134913.3765@ornl.gov>, de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes:
|> 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?
|> 
|> Because this country is a union of semiautonomous states.  The Electoral
|> College ensures that less populous states aren't trampled by the giants like
|> California, Texas, and New York.  It's the same rational used in the congress
|> where the number of seats in the House is proportional to population, but each
|> state is equal in the Senate.
|> 

This is the common misunderstanding of the electoral college that I have
encountered with most people I have spoken to about this!

Yes, the rationale works well in the congress but it does not hold up so
well in the EC.  A bill must pass both houses of congress, therefore passing
on the basis of the nation's population AND on the basis of # of states.
The EC simply lumps all the votes together.  A small state gets n+2 votes,
a large state 10 times the size of that small state gets 10n+2.  You could
say that, proportionally, the "senate-related" votes added more to the
small state than to the large state but in most cases it's only a drop in
the national bucket.  The 10 largest states have enough weight to elect
a president regardless of what any of the other states want.

The way I see it, if the intention of the EC is truly to "ensure that less
populous states aren't trampled by the giants like California, Texas, and
New York" it doesn't even come close to accomplishing this task.  It seems
more like just a distorted version of the popular vote.  I say distorted
because a candidate needs only 51% of the popular vote of a state to get
100% of that state's electoral votes.

What if we elected a president in the same manner we pass bills.  No, not
the deal where our congressmen filibuster and pander to PAC's but just
the 2 house concept.  The president has to be "passed" by a majority of
the popular vote (or, I say, a plurality with a minimum %, but that's
another story) AND a majority (or plurality with a minimum %) of the state's
votes where each state gets 1 vote.  What do you think?

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1050 alt.politics.elections:23685 talk.politics.theory:4895 sci.econ:8639 rec.org.mensa:8227
From: isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:47:16
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
	<ISBELL.92Nov12121242@panther.ai.mit.edu> <BxM8KF.MKv@apollo.hp.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panther.ai.mit.edu
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of 12 Nov 92 18:26:38 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|>|>>   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?
|>
|>|   No, but I'm highly atypical.    What does your question have
|>|   to do with the topic at hand?
|>
|>Besides which, that's the wrong question.  99% of Americans will say
|>that they're against Big Govt and 99% of those will actually believe
|>it when they say it; however, what they say and how they act are two
|>different things.  IF Small Govt(tm) means I don't get a service that
|>I want then I'm against it.  If Small Govt(tm) means someone else
|>doesn't get a service and I don't have to pay for it, then I'm for it.

|   Don't blame me, I voted for Marrou.

Hmmmm, well.  In any case, I wasn't blaming you.

|   It's interesting to note that in two of the states which had
|   among the biggest majorities favoring term limits in the recent
|   election (Oregon and Florida) they returned ALL of their
|   Congressional incumbents!   

...and 80% of people who said "Congress should be wiped clean" voted
for their incumbent as well.

|   So voters are hypocritical.  This is some big insight, worthy 
|   of posting?   What's your point?

Well, it must be an insight to one who says:
|>|>Do *you* favor Big Government?

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

don't you think?

As to my point, well I would think it obvious and especially so since
it is in agreement with yours....

--
Peace.
              "If God had meant for us to vote,
               he would have given us candidates"
                                   -\--/-
    Don't just adopt opinions     |  \/  |       Some of you are homeboys
          develop them.           |  /\  | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
                                   -/--\-

Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:931 alt.politics.elections:22946 talk.politics.theory:4757 sci.econ:8486 rec.org.mensa:8032
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:05:33 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

ritter@claude.ma30.bull.com (Roger Ritter) writes:
| }If not that, then how about:  each person gets one vote on attaining
| }voting age.  If a person serves in the military, they get another vote.
| }Graduating from college gets yet another vote.  And finally, performing
| }a great service to the country gets a fourth (and final) vote.  The great
| }service should be roughly equivalent in uniqueness to the valor needed to
| }win a Medal of Honor.
| }
| }The above idea is taken (modified) from a Nevil Shute novel (In the Wet,
| }I think).  ...

hollombe@polymath.tti.com (The Polymath):
| I read the book years ago and always liked the idea, in principle.
| Unfortunately, I don't think you could get it implemented short of bloody
| revolution.

It's interesting that the three extra votes would all come
about as a result of submission to, or perhaps seduction of,
authoritarian institutions.  In general, that's what this
thread has been about: how those who already have power
through cohesion with established institutions (those who 
pay more taxes, have more education, and so on) should be 
granted more power still.  

I find the affection, the eagerness to submit to authority,
curious in an environment where so many profess strongly
libertarian ideals.  The very article I'm following up also
suggested that all incumbents should be turned out of
office.  Anyone care to decode this paradox?
-- 

 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:37:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1dsr52INN6gv@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
>
>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?

   No, but I'm highly atypical.    What does your question have
   to do with the topic at hand?
              


---peter



Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Subject: Re: Declaration Of Independence - text wanted
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept of Comp Sci, Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:48:42 GMT

=================
README
=================
Directory of general documents related to government. It includes the
U.S. Constitution and mailing addresses for U.S. Senators and
Representatives.

The archive is accessible via anonymous ftp and email. Ftp to
ftp.eff.org (192.88.144.3). It is in directory "pub/academic/civics".
For email access, send email to archive-server@eff.org. Include the
line:
      civics <filenames>
where <filenames> is a list of the files that you want. File README is
a detailed description of the items in the directory.

=================
administration.address
=================
Addresses for writing to the President, the Vice-President, and
cabinet members.

=================
congress.address
=================
A list of U.S. Senators and Representatives. The list includes
name, party, hometown, DC telephone, and committee assignments.

=================
constitution.us
=================
The Constitution of the United States

=================
dec_of_ind
=================
The Declaration of Independence

=================
fcc
=================
Address, names, and fax number for the Federal Communications Commission

=================
house-of-reps.tel-and-fax
=================
House of Representatives faxes and phones

=================
judiciary.fax
=================
The fax numbers of the members of the Senate judiciary committee.

=================
senate.label-ready
=================
Mailing labels for U.S. Senators

=================
=================
Last update
Sun Feb 16 17:21:19 EST 1992

-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: FOIA
From: Steve_Grant@kcbbs.gen.nz (Steve Grant)
Date: 11 Nov 92 03:42:18 GMT
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand

Hello,
      are there any experts on the FOIA out there? I am trying to get 
something from the military under the foia and would like to talk to 
you if you know anything about it.
E-mail me ......
   

       Cheers

       Steve Grant

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:42:03 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.190843.2187@gacvx2.gac.edu> eodenius@dumaine.gac.edu (Eric J O'Denius) writes:
>
>One good thing about the electoral college: It provides the appearance of  
>a mandate.  If the electoral votes today were based simply on the popular  
>vote percentage, then Clinton, with only 43% or so of the popular vote,  
>would not appear to have a mandate.  The country might not be so willing  
>to back him.  With the electoral college vote, he appears to have won by a  
>landslide.  This leaves no doubt that, at least on the surface, the  
>population widely supports the new president-elect.  It makes transitions  
>of power far smoother than most people realize.

Exactly, I couldn't agree with you more.  I can think of nothing more 
dangerous to the stability and the international safety of our country
than to put a _weak_ appearing Executive into office.  The threat to
liberty is too often dismissed by those who myopically examine the 
election process without considering the side effects of the changes they
propose.

>	So don't knock the electoral college too much.  Clinton won the  
>election and he might as well look as though he won it big, if only to  
>ensure a smooth transition of power.

Right on!

Mike Best
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: ERA and the 27th Amendment
Date: 11 Nov 92 01:56:50 GMT
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu (Devjani Mishra) says:

>As most of you must know, the ERA fell three states short of passage, and
>was killed when it ran out of time because the text of the amendment itself
>contained a time limit for passage.  As you also know, the 27th Amendment
>was added this summer after kicking around for 203 years.  In light of
>this, the ERA Summit  (a group of old ERA warrior types) has been
>considering attempting to get three more state legislatures to pass ERA and
>to then sue to invalidate the time limit on the grounds that Congress did
>not have the authority to include such a limit in the amendment, since the
>27th was passed despite the huge gap between intro. and final ratification.
> 		
>
>Putting aside for the moment your feelings about ERA, what does anyone
>think of this strategy?
>
>       /-                   Devjani Mishra, Yale University
>      /   /                 misdeva@yalevm.ycc.yale.edu
>  ___/  _  _   _  ___       diva@minerva.cs.yale.edu    
> /  /   /   | /  /  /
>/__/_  /_   |/  /__/_       "What's right is what's left when everything
>                            else is wrong." - Robin Williams
>
Well, I was (and am) a supporter of ERA, but I think this scheme will fail, 
and I think it ought to fail.

It will fail because the great majority of the judges who would have to decide
were appointed by Reagan and Bush.  It ought to fail because the Supreme Court
has previously ruled that Congress may, indeed, set a time limit for
ratification...they just didn't do it in the case of the 27th Amendment,
but did in the case of ERA.

 









-- 
******************************************************************************
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
From: wjm@utrcv1 (Bill)
Subject: Declaration Of Independence - text wanted
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: United Technologies Research Center
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:40:00 GMT

Would someone please Email me a text file of the Declaration of 
Independence.

Thanks,   Bill Mazeika   WJM@UTRC.UTC.COM

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:43:45 GMT


While I personally figure that as long as the pop winner still 
wins, it's not that big a deal (there are bigger problems in this country
than the EC), I feel that a system like Maine's has some merit.
It divides it up by Congressional district rather than by the whole state, 
with the state-wide winner getting the Senate votes.
Another option is by Counties, but then you have about 500000000 
(yes, I'm exaggerating. Chill) electors.
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:43:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.042006.7075@news.ysu.edu> ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
>The Electoral college system IS clearly defined in the Constitution
>Maine and Nebraska adopted their own systems, and no one bothered
>to object (cause their's is better)

Why would anyone object? All the Constitution says is:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislation thereof
may direct, a Number of Electors..."

Presuming Maine and Nebraska adopted their system by act of legislature
(as opposed, say, to a decree by the Governor...), it's perfectly 
Constitutional...

                                                    Frank Crary
                                                    CU Boulder


Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: ERA and the 27th Amendment
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:32:43 GMT

In article <1dpp93INN4qu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>...It ought to fail because the Supreme Court
>has previously ruled that Congress may, indeed, set a time limit for
>ratification...they just didn't do it in the case of the 27th Amendment,
>but did in the case of ERA.

As I recall, the Supreme Court actually _required_ Congress to put
a time limit on all future proposed Amendments (in a ruling sometime
in the 1930s).

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:938 alt.politics.elections:23059 talk.politics.theory:4774 sci.econ:8499 rec.org.mensa:8053
From: srobiner@pollux.usc.edu (Steven Robiner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: History of 15th AMENDMENT
Date: 9 Nov 1992 19:28:35 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

Can any kind soul out there tell me the history behind the 15th amendment
(the right of all men to vote regardless of race, color, or previous
servitude)?

Specifically, when was the actual amendment passed in the senate/congress?
I know it was *ratified* in 1870, but when was it first passed by the
*federal governemnt*?

Also, were there any black activists / leaders / speakers / pioneers 
who were helpful / instrumental in getting this amendment passed?

Please e-mail me and I'll post results as I don't normally read this group.

Thanks in advance,

=steve=   srobiner@pollux.usc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: walker@superman.jsc.nasa.gov (Doug Walker)
Subject: Re: Electoral votes
Organization: NASA Johnson Space Center
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 02:03:42 GMT

In article <Bx9HGA.GJ7@acsu.buffalo.edu> kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
>
>
>Can someone explain to me how Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote, yet
>0 Electoral Votes? How does this system work? Does my vote *really* count?
>It seems as if though it doesn't.

Except for two states, Maine being one and the other slips my mind at
the moment, if a candidate wins the popular vote for the state he/she/it
:) wins the entire states worth of electoral votes.  The number of
electoral votes is determined by one for each seat in the house of
representatives and one for each senator (2).

In Maine the elecotrial vores are determined by who wins the popular
vote in each House district with the 2 senatorial votes going to
whichever candidate carries the state.

I remember hearin that in the other state (?) it is determined by some
kind of formula.


This system was set up when the constitution was drafted because the
states wanted some protections for states rights (especially the large
southern states).

Strange isn't it?  But you vote does count, albeit in kind of a
rigamarole fashon.


-- 
Doug                   

Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can 
do for your country.  - JFK
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:53:16 GMT
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

In article <1992Nov3.113002.20359@fwi.uva.nl> hm@fwi.uva.nl (Hans Mulder) writes:
>In <1992Nov3.015550.25840@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Oct31.002610.1@acad.drake.edu>, vsg001@acad.drake.edu                                      writes...
>>This has happened a couple times before. As long as the election isn't 
>>rigged then I wouldn't worry about. Nothing happened before. I doubt 
>>anything would happen this time.
>
>Has it?  Last time this question came up, someone posted a long list
>containing no examples of such a thing.  There have been elections with
>more than 2 candiades and the winner getting less than 50% of all votes,
>but as far as I know all US presidential elections have been won by the
>candidate who got the most votes in November.  In other words: so far, the
>electoral college has been redundant, the most-votes-wins system would have
>given the same result (assuming people would have voeted the same under
>that system).

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. 

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.

Project this - two potential majority factions come to mind immediately:

1. White Americans
2. Christians

If we went the way of direct election of the President we would run the
risk of creating a majority faction that could seize power and control
the Presidency.  IMO, this approach is ill-advised and dangerous and
amounts to Constitutional heresy that, as a cure, is worse than the disease.

Consider it,

Mike Best

>What would happen if Bush get more votes than Clinton, and yet Clinton wins?
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: Term limits, was Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:42:55 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.163557.18473@news.vanderbilt.edu>, rickertj@athena.cas.vanderbilt.edu (John Rickert) writes:
|> 
|>     Alright, so power corrupts.  But how will a Procrustean standard like
|> term limits, which regard only the calendar, be able to determine that
|> a politician is corrupt and needs to be removed better than the electorate?
|> 
|>     A certain congressman from my home state (though not from my district,
|> fortunately) had a 106 bad checks.  He was re-elected.  Moral of the story,
|> as I see it: we get the kind of government we deserve.  If we don't have
|> sense enough to yank someone that irresponsible out of office, I don't
|> see how term limits are going to help.
|> 
|>     

defn:  Procrustean:  ... 2:  marked by arbitrary often ruthless disregard
of individual differences or special circumstances.

GREAT WORD!!!  I'll have to remember that one!

It seems to me your admission that power corrupts is Procrustean.

I agree that there may be some exception(s) to the rule that power
corrupts.  I also recognize that the decay lifetime of honor is not
constant for all individuals.  However, you don't address the point
of entrenchment:  representatives with seniority have more power,
therefore can do more good for their district (no matter how much
it hurts the country as a whole), therefore get re-elected, therefore
have more seniority ...

You're right.  We get the government we deserve.  I think the root
problem is education.  If more understood their role, as average
citizens, in government, we wouldn't be having these problems to
these extents.  There would be no talk of term limits.

-- 
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: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 02:27:27 GMT

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

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution