From: cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:16:20 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech

In article <BxItyG.6y1@acsu.buffalo.edu>, kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist) writes:
> In article <1992Nov10.160711.14175@mips2.ma30.bull.com> msanf@hw23.ma30.bull.com (Marc Sanfacon) 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.
> >
> >I have been screaming about this for months and nobody
> >seems to give a crap.  Are you and I the only people in
> >the country that can see this absurd distortion of our
> >votes?
> >
> >All a candidate needs to do is get 51% of 5 or 6 of the
> >"important" states and he will be practically guaranteed
> >to win the election.  This sounds like my vote gets lost
> >in the process unless I move to New Jersey and vote for
> >the front-runner.  This is counter to what we should be
> >encouraging in a democracy.
> 
> If we are the only two that see this problem, then one or all of the
> following are true:
> 
> 1. Everybody thinks "I can't do anything about it anyway" (pacifism)
> 2. The general public is uninformed (most likely possible)
> 3. The general public thinks it's a good system (they've been successfully
> brainwashed)

  4. You just might possibly be partially uninformed yourselves ... or
     even have a different outlook.  Maybe it's not black-and-white.

Have you turned the argument around and wondered HARD why the EC system
exists?  It might be worth your time; besides, being righteous and
infallible can't take up that much of your time. :-)

The system emphasizes the even distribution of an election.  Clinton
was a marginal winner in popular votes, but since his support was
widespread he took a lot of votes.  See "Reagan" for a classic example.

It's inaccurate to say that the EC system skews the results.  It all
depends on what you think is the most accurate democracy.  Suppose
that we implement your popular plan.  Candidate Bumpkin takes every
state except California by 51-49, but Candidate Cooldude wins his home
state by 60-40.  In the new system, Cooldude would win, and have
a majority of the popular vote.  However, every state except one would
be against him.  In the EC vote, Bumpkin would have a "mandate" in
votes, but be slightly edged out in the % vote.

More than anything else, I'd like to ask: Which is right?  Which seems
to be the best for the nation?  A head count, or widespread support?
Personally I think they both have merits.

Note that one system emphasizes the population, and one the geography.
House and Senate, like.  So you aren't the only ones to think of this.
Sounds like Jefferson and Madison may have had a crack at it.

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot