From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:17:07 GMT

In article <1eabb1INN3o0@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>In a previous article, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) says:
>>
>>And I say that you address the relevant side effects of such a change.
>>
>>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?)
>>
>Pardon me, but what country are *you* living in?  When was the last time a
>non-white or non-Christian person was elected president by the electoral
>college?

I see your confusion.  I was trying to make a distinction between direct
election and the EC and that is that the EC forces the candidates to form
a majority coalition from concurrent minorities in order to win.  If direct
election were imposed then the nature of the battle would change and 
candidates could cater directly to some majority faction.  As it is today,
the minority factions are often the swing votes.

Majority rule with the consent of the minority.

>>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.
>>
>This would be a good thing, in my view.  Under our current system, anyone
>who happens to vote in the minority is effectively disenfranchised...i.e.,
>I didn't vote for Charles Grassley, he certainly does not hold views that I
>hold, but he "represents" me in Congress.  In a multi-party system, with
>proportional representation and voting by party lists, we would see a much
>greater diversity of opinion in the legislatures...and this is a good thing.
>As a foot note, the winner-take-all two party system is a relic of the
>18th century.  I believe the U.S. and the U.K. are the *only* industrialized
>democracies which continue to cling to this dinosaur.

I whole-heartedly disagree.  For sake of understandability I will outline why:

1.  Two party systems produce moderate candidates.
2.  They also produce stable governments.
3.  Minority rights are protected because of the concept of concurrent 
    minority factions forming to make a majority.
4.  We have been quite successful at this for more than 200 years. 
    As JFK said, "when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary
    not to change".

>>>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.
>>
>I do not see how we are not subject to the tyranny of the majority now.  And I
>note that in your previous paragraph you decried the growth of multiple
>parties...and here you decry the tyranny of the majority.  Make up your mind,
>please.

There is no conflict here, there could be both.  Multiple parties could
exist but the *potential* also exists for one party to form that would
consist of either Whites or Christians.  This party would be a majority 
in either case and would not necessary preclude the existence of viable
2nd, 3rd etc parties.  Is my mind clearer to you?

>> You are a constitutional heretic.
>>
>Oooh....that was a snappy line.

I wasn't talking to you, if I were I would have attacked you for not
understanding the EC and yet to be willing to change it anyhow.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot