From: garrett@Ingres.COM (FRIENDS DON'T LET FRIENDS VOTE REPUBLICAN)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Summary: Point/Counterpoint  
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 13 Oct 92 01:54:16 GMT

In article <1992Oct11.174640.29486@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)                    writes...
>In article <1992Oct8.014437.12279@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED) writes:
>>>>	What if the electoral college decided to elect someone 
>>>>besides who the people of the country voted for?
> 
>>>In 14 out of 51 elections, a majority of the people voted _against_ the person
>>>the electoral college made President. Several of those 14 Presidents
>>>are often listed among our "best" Presidents.
> 
>Perhaps from what was proposed (I didn't propose it, I just supported
>the idea), but not from what you suggested: You argued that the 
>people wouldn't stand for an artificial mechanism like the electoral
>college putting in office "someone besides who the people voted for."
>Since this has happened, I don't think the people would object. 
>Certainly, there are limits to how far, and for what reasons, the
>electoral college could safely differ from public opinion. But, clearly,
>it doesn't have to exactly mirror the popular will.
> 
I don't think that these comparisons work. The presidents that were elected
by a minority in the past, were still elected by a majority of the states.
Under the proposal given, the rules are flexible.
It's kind of like (Caution! Sports analogy ahead!) having 400' homer
nullified by the umpire, and him explaining that that's O.K. because if
it was hit in a different part of the park it wouldn't have been a 
homer (Sorry about that one, I couldn't think of a different analogy).

>>You want the electoral voters to be able to CHANGE their votes! There 
>>is no comparison between someone winning states and getting all the 
>>electoral votes, and someone winning a state and the electoral voters
>>decide to vote for someone else. THAT is thwarting the will of the 
>>voters.
> 
>Is 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 still don't see why the electoral college is "mothering" any more
>>>than having a Congress is: Both are delegating a choice to representatives
>>>who have can take the time to consider issues and be informed about the
>>>choice they are making. If the electors weren't elected, it would be
>>>a different matter...
> 
>>I see what you are having trouble understanding (no offense intended).
>>There is a VERY big difference between voting for someone and having
>>a middleman (elected or not) saying that "The people who elected me are 
>>wrong in their choice, I'm voting for the other guy", and someone
>>basically reaffirming your choice (which is basically what the 
>>Electoral College does today).
> 
>No that isn't what I was thinking, but it does highlight a major
>difference in our thinking: You seem to see the people as voting
>for an individual, where as I see them as voting based on issues.
>I think the elector should make a decision, as to which candidate
>will, in office, do what the people want. If he bases his choice
>on the same issues and the same expectations as the voters, I don't
>think he is really contradicting the will of the people (even if
>he csettles on a different candidate.) That is, for example, I
>see the election of 1992 not as between Bush, Clinton; it is 
>between more-of-the-same and tax-the-rich-and-have-the-government-solve-
>our-problems.
> 
I disagree to a point. Many people vote for a party, which is what 
you discribe. But have you ever heard of Reagan Democrats? There is
still a significant portion of the public that doesn't vote that way.
Personally, I prefer the Parlimentary system, which is much closer to
what describe. But until then, we still vote for the individual.

>                                           Frank Crary
>                                           CU Boulder
-Garrett
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:605 misc.legal:18384