From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 22:35:34 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.015416.331@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN) writes:
>In article <1992Oct11.174640.29486@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                    writes...
>
>>If a Senator or Representative votes against a bill, popular within
>>his district, is he "twarting the will of the voters"? Possibly, but
>>this happens fairly often and with few objections. Usually, the
>>Congressman can offer good reasons for his voting, to quiet objections
>>and satisfy the voters ("I know... is a great thing and you all want
>>it, but you hadn't heard how expensive would be and I knew you were
>>also very worried about the deficit." or similar.) I don't see
>>what is wrong with an elector doing the same thing, and offering 
>>the same sort of explanation ("... were the big issues and the
>>reason you wanted... to be President, but I went through his 
>>voting record and he was really _opposed_ to those things, despite
>>what he said during the campaign.")
>> 
>This is a good point, BUT we are still talking about electing people
>to elect our representatives. Don't you see what is wrong with that?
>The president would no longer have to answer to the people, he would have
>to answer to the electoral college. At least our representatives have
>to answer to us, for now. I don't think that I have to go into the 
>ramifications of this difference.

I would agree if there was any evidence of abuse by the EC.  The fact
that there have only be 8 out of more than 16000 is in itself significant.
The solution to the potential for abuse is to remove the human factor
but retain the EC vote structure.  Removal of the EC in favor of direct
election will destroy the balance of power in our governing system.
This attack often stems from a misunderstanding of American democracy.

There are several points to be made.  First, the general election should
be and, for all practical purposes, is now the only election.  Second,
like a contingency election, the runner up presidency is extremely
unlikely under the EC system.  Third, faithless electors have never 
been a problem and can be handled by statutory law instead of constitutional
ammendment.  Fourth, the EC is a major support of our moderate two party
system.  Last, the EC system is a paradigm, the very model, of the
American democracy.  To abandon the EC would change the fundamental 
structure of the Constitution by removing the federal constraints on
the power of the presidency.  This would increase the power of the
presidency and would further lead to attacks on the legitimacy of 
such federally districted institutions such as the the state equality
principle of the Senate and the ammending process of the Constitution.

I understand the confusion over the EC but I am aghast at the reckless
proposals to revamp the system without considering that such proposals
are akin to the cure being worse than the disease.

Mike "if it ain't broke ..." Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution