HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Electoral College
From: eodenius@dumaine.gac.edu (Eric J O'Denius)
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:08:42 -0600


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.

Case in point:

Italy and most of the European powers have to rely on coalition  
governments, because no one party can achieve a clear majority.  This  
leaves minor parties with far more power than they have any right to  
because, if they form the last couple of percentage points that make up  
the coalition, they can bring the government down by voting no confidence.   
Because of this, Italy is now working on Government # forty-something  
since 1947.  That's almost one government every year.  And the government  
that gets thrown out has had a tendency to burn files and just in general  
remain unco-operative so that the new government is unable to function  
and, within a year, it falls, too.

	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.

						Eodenius@nic.gac.edu
Eric J. O'Denius
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:975 alt.politics.elections:23395 talk.politics.theory:4844 sci.econ:8565 rec.org.mensa:8132
From: jcooley@miracle.com (John Cooley)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 16:34:57 EDT
Organization: Miracle Computer Consultants


I've noticed that this thread has gone on for a while but never
bothered to read it.  Is it basically trying to say that fat
people's vote counts more than skinny people's vote?  ;^)

All kidding aside, having been involved with Mensa politics
for a while, I can't honestly say that suffrage based on IQ
would change things for the better.  I think there'd be just
as much squabbling and related political shenanigans as there
presently is without IQ based voting...

Just my 2 cents worth.

                                        - John


 ==========================================================================
       John Cooley              Zappa as a waste management engineer: 
                                  "Hey, there, Brother!  Whatcha
    jcooley@miracle.com            doing with that Cosmic Debris?"

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu
Subject: Electoral College and apologetics.
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 05:30:00 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?
				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

SPECULATION != FACT


        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%
	1856	James Buchanan		45%
	1892	Grover Cleveland	46%
	1848	Zachary Taylor		47%
	1876	Rutherford B. Hayes	48%
	1880	James Garfield		48%
	1888	Benjamin Harrison	48%
	1844	James K. Polk		49%
	1884	Grover Cleveland	49%
	1916	Woodrow Wilson		49%
	1948	Harry Truman		49%
	1960	John F. Kennedy		49%
	

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

> 
>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. 



The Non-revisionist (apologists need not reply)

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 17:28:16 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.052106.14014@news.ysu.edu> ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:
>
>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.)

Not at all.  People claimed that the Republicans had been controlled to
some extent by the radical right and I never once heard any mention of
the radical left being associated with the Democrats.  What this means
is that the Democrats put together a moderate platform and, under the
EC system, moderates get elected - radicals do not.

Of course, you could say that the media bias established the Democrats
as moderates but only Bill Clinton will be able to answer this in time.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: dmw@engin.umich.edu (David M  woodcock)
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 92 06:24:03 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor
Distribution: na 

1824  AJ 44.3  JA 29.9  HC 13.2  WC 12.6
1860  AL 39.9  SD 29.4 JCB 18.1  JB 12.6
1876  ST 51.5  RH 48.5  *   margin 250k
1888  GC 50.4  BH 49.6  *   margin  96k
1912  WW 41.9  TR 28.1  HT 23.2  others 6.7
1960  JK 49.7  RN 49.5           others  .7   margin 116k         
1968  RN 43.4  HH 43.0  GW 13.5  others  .16  margin 310k
1992  WC 43.0- GB 37.5  RP 18.9  others  .6

* others not available from almanac, prob < 1%

only 5 of the men in col.1 won the election


This replacement for the EC has both the advantages claimed 
for the present system and lacks its defects.  

1] it virtually always yeilds a winner quickly.
2] it encourages national campaigns rather than ones
   focused on only the large states.

3] it insures that the winner of a majority 
   of the popular vote wins the election.
4] it insures that a candidate getting a plurality of
   the vote in the November election does not
   lose at that stage.
5] it's simple
6] it insures a candidate cannot win simply by getting
   a small plurality [ie >40%] of the popular vote.
7] it gives a vote for president to every US citizen
  [including residents of Guam,PR]

Proposal:
Any candidate receiving a majority of the votes of the citizens
of the US cast in the November election wins the election.
If no candidate wins a majority the candidate receiving a
plurality of at least N% of the citizens' vote and a plurality
of the vote in at least 2/5 of the states wins. If no
candidate meets these conditions a runoff between the 2
candidates recieving the greatest number of votes will be
held on the 1st weekend of December. The winner of that
election must get a majority of the votes cast.
[yes it needs polishing]

If N was 40 or 41 we would've had 1 runoff election [1860] since the 
passage of the 12th amendement [which created the current system].
If N was 42 we would've had 2 runoff elections [1860,1912].
If N was 43 3 runoff elections [1860,1912,1992].
If N was 44 4 runoff elections [1860,1912,1968,1992].
If N was 45 5 runoff elections [1824,1860,1912,1968,1992] .
I tend to favor 45% .
In 1876 and 1888 this system would have elected the candidates
who got a majority of the vote; the current one did not.
In 1824 it almost certainly would have elected Jackson [44%]
rather than Adams[30%].

It handles a close election as well as the current one, e.g.
1960 JFK won the popular vote by only  116k so
a national recount might have been demanded; but the margin
was also close in 2 key states [MO 10k,IL 9k] whose reversal
would have cost him the EC victory; no recount in those
states was demanded.
And in the case of 1876 the electoral vote was closer than 
the popular vote -- which was not so close at all.
[3% difference]

Any criticism is welcome.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 03:59:19 GMT


First: We have a republic. Anyone who tells you we have a democracy
is probably selling something.

Second: How are term limits gonna solve any problems? My feeling is
that if the people in his area like the guy enough to keep voting him
in, he should be there. Term limits only hurt the people by forcing
them to vote for someone they might not want, and reducing the power
that their representative has to get the best benefit for them.
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
From: kadie@cs.uiuc.edu (Carl M. Kadie)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: The Federalist Papers
Date: 13 Nov 92 02:26:17 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL

judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson) writes:

>Does anyone have The Federalist Papers on electronic media?  Or does anybody
>know where I can ftp it?
[...]

Host mailer.cc.fsu.edu

    Location: /pub/dduke
           FILE -rw-r--r--    1176574  Oct  7 1991  feder11.txt

Host rigel.acs.oakland.edu

    Location: /pub/msdos/books
           FILE -rw-r--r--     467260  Jun 15 20:00  feder15.zip

Host ftp.scri.fsu.edu

    Location: /pub/dduke
           FILE -rw-r--r--    1176574  Sep 24 16:52  feder11.txt

Host saqqara.cis.ohio-state.edu

    Location: /firearms/politics/rkba
           FILE -r--r--r--    1176574  Sep 23 11:03  feder11.txt
-- 
Carl Kadie -- kadie@cs.uiuc.edu -- University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
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: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:47:40 GMT

In article <8NOV199223304927@venus.tamu.edu>, lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:
|> 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?
|> 				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 
|> SPECULATION != FACT
|> 
|> 
|>         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%
|> 	1856	James Buchanan		45%
|> 	1892	Grover Cleveland	46%
|> 	1848	Zachary Taylor		47%
|> 	1876	Rutherford B. Hayes	48%
|> 	1880	James Garfield		48%
|> 	1888	Benjamin Harrison	48%
|> 	1844	James K. Polk		49%
|> 	1884	Grover Cleveland	49%
|> 	1916	Woodrow Wilson		49%
|> 	1948	Harry Truman		49%
|> 	1960	John F. Kennedy		49%
|> 	
|> 
|> >Hardly a mandate!
|> 

OK, I was wrong, Clinton wasn't the least popular president ever
voted in, he's tied for fourth least popular.  That still makes
my point that he doesn't have a mandate, and shouldn't act like
he does have one.

BTW, lav4208@venus.tamu,edu, I'd be very interested to see your
source for these numbers and to understand the circumstances for
such low popular votes as 31 & 40%.  
-- 
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: giovin@medr3.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo)
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:30:50 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.195513.2931@anasazi.com> best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>>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

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.  If these recounted votes had second choices listed
then that vote would of course go to that second choice.

Although this procedure would assure a 50% popular vote for 1 
candidate in most cases (IMHO), it is possible that it might not be 
achieved if for example, Perot voters decided to put Marou as their second 
choice leaving Clinton and Bush with the same percentages as before.

Rocky Giovinazzo
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:960 alt.politics.clinton:16607 alt.politics.perot:5371
From: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu (VAN AUSDELN, LEO ANTHONY)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:12:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BxGpJG.Gux@rice.edu>, byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes...
>In article <8NOV199223304927@venus.tamu.edu>, lav4208@venus.tamu.edu writes:
>|> 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?
>|> 				    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|> 
>|> SPECULATION != FACT
>|> 
>|> 
>|>         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%
>|> 	1856	James Buchanan		45%
>|> 	1892	Grover Cleveland	46%
>|> 	1848	Zachary Taylor		47%
>|> 	1876	Rutherford B. Hayes	48%
>|> 	1880	James Garfield		48%
>|> 	1888	Benjamin Harrison	48%
>|> 	1844	James K. Polk		49%
>|> 	1884	Grover Cleveland	49%
>|> 	1916	Woodrow Wilson		49%
>|> 	1948	Harry Truman		49%
>|> 	1960	John F. Kennedy		49%
>|> 	
>|> 
>|> >Hardly a mandate!
>|> 
> 
>OK, I was wrong, Clinton wasn't the least popular president ever
>voted in, he's tied for fourth least popular.  That still makes
>my point that he doesn't have a mandate, and shouldn't act like
>he does have one.
> 
>BTW, lav4208@venus.tamu,edu, I'd be very interested to see your
>source for these numbers and to understand the circumstances for
>such low popular votes as 31 & 40%.  

a 1990 almanac, its at home. the 31% case was 2nd in popular vote,
not an electoral majority, elected in congress. (I think the other
guy got 41%.(?)) As you may surmise, as in 1992,
the above pluralities were against 2 or more opponents.

BTW, questioning my sources does not invalidate historical fact. buy an almanac.

>-- 
>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.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 18:26:38 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <ISBELL.92Nov12121242@panther.ai.mit.edu> isbell@ai.mit.edu (Charles L Isbell) writes:
>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.

   
   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!   

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


---peter





Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org>
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
X-Xxmessage-Id: <A72518C93301081A@alimac16.osf.org>
X-Xxdate: Tue, 10 Nov 92 07:44:09 GMT
Organization: Open Software Foundation
X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1.1d12
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 12:43:51 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.054940.9676@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> Frank Crary,
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
>Not necessarily: An encumbant has many advantages while
campaigning. For
>example, any money he saves in one race, he can save up and use two
>years later. As a result, most Congressmen have "war chests" that
let
>them spend far more money than a serious challenger. Personally, I'd
>prefer a limit on _consecutive_ terms (as in no more than three in a
>row.) That would periodically remove these advantages while still 
>allowing a popular politician (do they really exist?) to be continue
>running for office indefinately.
>
>                                            Frank Crary
>                                            CU Boulder

Wouldn't campaign reform be a better idea then?  Clinton and Perot
seemed to be in favor of public financing of campaigns for federal
positions.  This would seem to help in curbing the special interests
and their money and help elected officials to concentrate on their
jobs instead of eternally fundraising.  I admit though, that this
will be enormously difficult to enact.  Clinton will need to spend
nearly all of his political capital to get it enacted and will have
to spend a considerable amount of time taking his case to the people
on this one.

I have some questions about term limits.  Don't they shrink the
delegations power?
If Washington (state) enacts term limits on it's reps and
Massachusetts does not,
won't Massachusetts have an advantage in getting it's reps placed on
powerful committees and have more influence in the process?  What if
1/2 the states enact term limits and 1/2 do not.  Won't those states
with term limits be at a distinct disadvantage?

TerriB.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 13:49:13 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?

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.

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
From: judson@watserv.ucr.edu (Michael Judson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: The Federalist Papers
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:30:24 GMT

Does anyone have The Federalist Papers on electronic media?  Or does anybody
know where I can ftp it?

--
Perot '96

judson@watserv.ucr.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1040 alt.politics.elections:23648 talk.politics.theory:4891 sci.econ:8634 rec.org.mensa:8213
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: 13 Nov 1992 05:16:39 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu


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

>>Do *you* favor Big Government?
>
>   No, but I'm highly atypical.    What does your question have
>   to do with the topic at hand?

 Just checking. 

Tonight I asked a self-employed businessman friend what he
thought about tax-weighting.  He didn't bite, but suggested:
"They ought to at least make 'em have a *job* to vote, anyway!"
I'll give him some more time to think about it.


-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution