From: colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten)
Subject: Re: Predictions after a Clinton victory
Summary: Electoral College
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:18:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.193024.7809@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger) writes:
> In article <1992Nov5.130923.385@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >In article <1992Nov4.234925.2134@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>, bobh@troy.uucp (22131-hettmansperger) writes:
> >> In article <1992Nov4.202341.23359@cbfsb.cb.att.com> colten@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (marc.colten) writes:
> >> >
> >> >I agree completely - if you get the most votes you win.  The idea
> >> >that you win the "states" is an anachronism. 
> >> >
> >> Why?  The electoral college ends up making both popular vote and wide
> >> geographic support important to win.  Otherwise, the winner will be
> >> determined basically by the cities.  I think it's a nice compromise.
> >> 
> >
> >I think this kind of thinking is about as outmoded as the idea
> >that states elect people.
> 
> What do you mean "outmoded"?  Do you mean that at one time the electoral 
> college was justified, but now it is not?  It was a compromise to begin
> with, and its real intent was to throw close races to the house of
> representatives (which was more likely back before the two party system).
> But, I still like the fact that it forces the candidates to run a more
> diverse campaign -- campaining to rural, suburban, and urban areas.
> 

In the beginning it may have had some validity.  The resolution 
possible in those days may not have been as fine.  Could they see
individual voters as clearly as we do now?  Did everyone have the 
right to vote?  It may have been more logical to think of states, 
as they did, rather than the "popular vote".  Besides, the framers
were not all that in love with democracy in any case.
Today I don't see it's value at all.

> >  "Elected by the cities" - did all
> >the people in every city vote alike, and all the people in the
> >rural areas vote alike?  
> 
> No, but I *do* think that people who see candidates in person have different
> voting behavior than people who just see them on tv (for example, in 
> Somerset county, NJ, Perot ended up with almost 70% of the popular vote! 

I just moved to Georgia from Somerset County, NJ and I'm not all
that surprised that Perot did well.  The papers say unemployment
was at about 9% and if you check out the Courier News (which has
a distinct Liberal editorial policy) you'll find many letters and
articles of a conservative and right wing bent.  I'm sure Perot message
(whether he visited there or not) would find some listeners.

> -- probably because he visited there).  By having to win states rather than
> just win the popular vote, it is in the best interest of the candidates to
> travel to less densly populated area, where they might otherwise have less
> impact.  I would guess that if we went to strict popular vote, the 
> candidates would campaign more in the cities where they can reach more people
> with fewer, and closer appearances.
> 
Obselete I think.  Perot did most of his campaigning by TV.  We
never saw an ad for Marrou, Fulani, Gritz, and the rest and they got
0% of the popular vote.  Perot may have killed the entire idea of
campaigning in any case.  I really doubt if people today are impressed
all that much by a personal appearance.  Maybe years ago when it might
be the only time you'd ever see the guy, but now, with TV?


> >What's wrong with voting by the people,
> >popular vote, not by state?  
> 
> The same reason that we have such different methods of selecting the Senate
> versus the House - to balance the effects of population and geography.  Would
> you suggest that the Senate is also "unfair" because it gives Rhode Island
> as much say as Texas?

Yes, which is why we have the House to balance that.  And what, may I
ask, is "Rhode Island" and "Texas"?  you draw a line around a place
and everyone in there is the same and thinks the same?  When I lived in
New Jersey, thousands of people drove to New York or Pennsylvania to
work.  many of the people I worked with lived in New York or Penn.
Thinking of "states" as individuals rather than made up entities is
the kind of obsolete thinking that I was talking about. 

Let me put it this way.  You draw some lines on the map of the usa
(population 250,000,000) and say okay we're gonna have a vote.  There
will be 100 ballots - these 947,540 people (Rhode Island) get 2 votes
and these 14,229,191 (Texas) get two votes.  when they try that at
the UN everyone gets mad, but in the Senate that's okay.

> 
> >If we are going to vote by state, why
> >have Electoral votes - why not the majority of a state means the
> >candidate gets 1 vote.  You get 26 votes (or a pluarity) you
> >win.  
> 
> Just another compromise to balance population and geography interests.

So now we have "geography" interests - and much weight do be give
to millions of acres of empty land?

> 
> >Why even weight it?  I think the popular vote is the fairest
> >way to go.
> >
> 
> Well, you're entitled to your opinion.  I happen to disagree.

fair enough.

marc colten

Newsgroups: alt.activism