From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 16:24:35 GMT

In article <Bz9K5I.G0B@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>To paraphrase Mike Best (I'm sure he'll correct if needed):
>
>   He wanted me to read Federalist, but when I used them as
>   an argument against the Electoral College, even in its
>   original form, he says I'm arguing against something which
>   doesn't currently exist.

Perhaps I am being to myopic.  I would like you to have the appreciation
for the concepts the founders established.  Specifically, concepts such
as the state equality principle, their fear of majority faction, the
balance of power in our governing solar system, and the formation of 
majorities from many concurrent minorities.  The EC supports these in
various ways (especially in it's present form).

>   He wants to keep the EC, but throw out the office of Elector.
>     -  This seems to me an even further departure from original
>        intent.  Not that there's anything explicityly wrong with
>        that (with care, of course), but it seems Mike Best is
>        always the one pointing out original intent.

Original intent in the larger form discussed above.

I am not unopen to change, the EC is not perfect.  I think that since
you questioned the selection of electors several times in your post I
would address it.  I think that, though .0005 percent of electors have
not voted as expected, removing the people but not the electoral votes
would be an acceptable solution.  The election would be immediate therefore.

>   He's highly against pure democracy (which implies popular
>   voting on every single issue & office). 
>     -  I agree this is not practical, BUT I'm not talking about
>        every single issue and office, ONLY the office of President.

You have chosen the most important one.  If you remove the EC you will
remove the federal nature of the election because it will no longer 
be necessary to win states to win the electoral votes.  

I have changed my thinking on this.  Direct election will increase the
power of the presidency relative to congress.  You may research the
imperial president question among the founders writings as well.

>More equally (and therefore fairly) representative would be a change 
>to the electoral college specifying voting proportional to the popular
>vote, this reform occurring at the state level.  But if this were 
>the case, and the office of Elector were removed, what's the point?  
>Why not simply use the popular vote?

Majority tyranny (Whites, Christians).  For the last time, do not dismiss
this real possibility - why do you want to leave this possibility open?

Minority interests protected through the formation of a majority via 
concurrent minority factions.  Thus, the minority consents to majority
rule because they know that once in a while they can be part of the
majority.  This principle holds true both during elections and afterwards
in DC.

The federal principle, we are a nation of states.

Stability of the two party system.  I am not certain that any form of
government similar to our own has ever lasted so long.

A single election, no runoff(s) to make the people's choice look indecisive.

>Some may wonder why I'm focusing on this problem, especially so
>long before the next election.  The answer is that I think the
>electoral college, in its original conception, is similar to what
>the congress has become:  elitist. 

I agree with you to some extent on Congress.  I do not understand how
you conclude that the EC is elitist unless you claim that it perpetuates
parties which never change.  This has been demonstrated to be false, 
historically.

Mike Best
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1298 alt.politics.perot:5790