From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 16 Nov 92 19:59:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA

In article <BxMrGD.6xH@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.172058.29677@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes:
>|> In article <BxDDxy.911@acsu.buffalo.edu> kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
>|> >I have one thing to say about the E.C: if a candidate wins 51 % of the
>|> >popular vote in a state, then shouldn't that candidate receive roughly 51%
>|> >of the E.C. votes, not 100%? That's the way it should be in a true
>|> >democracy.
>|> 
>|> We are not nor were we ever intended to be a pure democracy, according to 
>|> the wishes of the Founders.
>
>The inclusion of the Bill of Rights prevents "the tyranny of the many."

I don't follow this...  perhaps you mean that we have rights that are
protected by inclusion in the first 10 ammendments but that does not
prevent a majority faction from seizing power if direct election were
invoked.

>I'm not arguing for PURE democracy, it's just my humble opinion that we
>should move that way. 

Well, you have an altruistic opinion of the nature of man and of democracy.
I think that unfettered democracy goes to seed rather quickly, the people
need to be protected FROM the government and FROM themselves at the same
time.

>If geography and its related culture matter, why doesn't L.A. vote
>seperately from California?  Aren't they vastly different cultures?
>How about NYC and NY state?  No, geography is just lines on a map.

This is not a difficult concept.  The EC creates the necessity for a 
candidate to appeal to both the urbanites and country-folk, the whites
and the blacks, the men and the women within a state in order to win
a state.  It is the _nature_ of the current system to prevent candidates
from campaigning on single issues such as would appeal to whites or to
people living in cities.  It forces the candidate to form a majority 
coalition from concurrent minorities.  Please see my related post on
this issue - the electoral college protects minority rights.

>The geography issue is a bit of a red herring, and I guess I went for
>it.  The initial gripe was about the states throwing all their votes to
>the candidate with the plurality.  Those opposed to this practice should
>attack the problem at the state level.  

>My biggest unanswered question is:  Who chooses the electors?  Is it the
>political parties themselves?  (That would explain alot ;^)

Yes, the parties choose electors that are believed to be loyal.  Would you
prefer that they choose people who might not vote for the proper person?
The solution can be handled by statutory law such as North Carolina where
a faithless elector is fined and fired from the position if he fails to
vote appropriately - then another is selected to take his/her place.

Abolishing the office of the elector but _not_ the electoral votes would
be an improvement to the current system.

>I think it is a dangerous thing to promulgate the illusion that we
>are a democracy if we are not or do not want to be.  I believe that
>everyone's vote should count, that everyone, from poor to rich, educated 
>to un- ,should have equal (& therefore small) power.

It is not the conservatives who are "promulgating" that this is a 
democracy but, rather, the liberals.  Democracy is used as a tool by
the liberals to promote class envy and other base emotions to further
the cause of "fairness" (i.e. democratic social goals) over the 
conservative cause of "human excellence". 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1102 alt.politics.perot:5550