From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: EC Protects Minority Rights
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 20:27:48 GMT

In article <1eabqnINN42h@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>
>In a previous article, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) says:
>
>>I would like to address the general argument made by many here that the
>>Electoral College (EC) is not "fair".  The EC is in actuality inherently
>>fair because it encourages the creation of concurrent majorities which 
>>form from minority factions.  This results in a two party system where 
>>we have majority rule with _consent_ of the minority.
>>
>Quite the contrary.  In a two party system you have majority rule with 
>*disenfranchisement* of the minority.  In a multi-party system, with
>proportional representation, you see minority viewpoints represented in the
>legislatures, instead of suppressed by two quasi-governmental bodies.

Direct election does not protect us from the formation of a majority
faction.  This is the hole in your argument.  Certainly the EC does
prevent this from occurring and I think that this is a good thing because
pure democracy ultimately turns into the bad rule of the many (yes, I'm
pessimistic about the nature of man).

It is not necessarily true that a majority faction will form BUT given
that the potential exists for (whites, christians) to do so under your
proposal is a risk YOU are willing to take and yet you have no safe-guards
built in.

>>The founders recognized that a system wherein a majority faction controlled
>>the political system, and never allowing the minority to have a hand in
>>governing, would ultimately fail.  The system they designed included the
>>EC for this very important reason - to encourage minority factions to 
>>coalesce into a majority and to take power through legitimate elections.
>>
>More correctly, the electoral college existed to allow the ruling elite to
>overrule the judgment of the majority.  This may have been necessary and even
>good in the 18th century.  It is neither now.

Ugh, this is drool.

>>Nothing would please, for example, white separatists more than for the
>>electoral system to divide the non-whites into monolithic areas.  For sake
>>of argument let's presume that it is possible to put all minorities into
>>a few states and whites into all the rest.  The result is that the minorities
>>may have 50 or so Congressmen but they are still an ineffective minority and
>>they will always be.
>>
>As opposed to now?

The minority factions are often the swing votes so they are important 
when forming a majority from concurrent minority factions.  Furthermore, 
it is not true that majorities formed from concurrent minority factions
need to remain eternally unchanged.  It is true that the landscape of
the parties does change over time and because of this fact the minority
has a chance to be part of the majority sometimes.

Majority rule with consent of the minority has been successful for the
last 200 plus years.  Until I hear more reasoned arguments that deal
with the side effects of eliminating the EC I would have to disagree
with any proposal.

>>This hypothetical example contrasts with the current system in that the
>>minority populations in states can often be the swing votes that decide
>>elections.  They have real influence and can, at times, become part of
>>a majority coalition that assumes control of the government.  
>>
>And how would this become impossible under a more open system?  You seem
>to be saying that there are some ideas which you disagree with, and that
>sense the people you do agree with hold the upper hand in the current system,
>you don't want to change anything.

Because Whites/Christians might form into one faction and never release
control of the presidency (under direct election).  The virtue of the EC
is not that it supplants the will of the people with their own will but
rather that it creates an environment which produces the most stable
government and most moderate candidate and it legitimizes close elections
by magnifying the result in the victors favor.

>>Without this system the minorities could simply be ignored and their 
>>issues left untouched.  The EC protects their rights ultimately.
>>
>See above.

Me too.

>>Majority rule with consent of the minority is a subtle but powerful concept.
>>
>Yes it is.  It is not provided by the electoral college, however.

I am either not a good communicator or you are not a good reader.

Mike Best