From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:46:40 GMT

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.

>Whoa! Slow down! Yes they were elected without recieving a mojority
>of the POLPULAR vote, but they recieved a mojority of the electoral
>vote BY STATE. That is a world of difference from what you proposed!

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.

>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.")

>>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.

                                           Frank Crary
                                           CU Boulder
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal,alt.society.civil-liberty