HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 03:55:18 GMT

In article <1992Nov8.190843.2187@gacvx2.gac.edu> eodenius@dumaine.gac.edu (Eric J O'Denius) writes:
>One good thing about the electoral college: It provides the appearance of  
>a mandate.  If the electoral votes today were based simply on the popular  
>vote percentage, then Clinton, with only 43% or so of the popular vote,  
>would not appear to have a mandate.  The country might not be so willing  
>to back him. 

If anything, that's a flaw not an advantage: If a majority of the
people lack confidince in Clinton, he _should_ be tricted by a lack
of public support. We shouldn't have programs enacted, which the 
people in general oppose, because of a false image of a mandate.
(Essentially, if people can't agree on what the governemnt ought to
do, it should do nothing.)

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
From: kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Electoral votes
Date: 5 Nov 92 21:09:45 GMT
Organization: UB



Can someone explain to me how Perot got almost 20% of the popular vote, yet
0 Electoral Votes? How does this system work? Does my vote *really* count?
It seems as if though it doesn't.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 04:27:34 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.124351.18707@osf.org> Terri Buchman <buchman@osf.org> writes:
>I have some questions about term limits.  Don't they shrink the
>delegations power?
>If Washington (state) enacts term limits on it's reps and
>Massachusetts does not,
>won't Massachusetts have an advantage in getting it's reps placed on
>powerful committees and have more influence in the process?  What if
>1/2 the states enact term limits and 1/2 do not.  Won't those states
>with term limits be at a distinct disadvantage?

Actually, they way people get onto committees needs reform itself.
But I was thinking of national term limits (which, of course, would
require an amendment to the Constitution...)

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill)
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Organization: Oak Ridge National Lab, Oak Ridge, TN
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 16:52:53 GMT

Before you go and invent a new voting scheme like 1st-choice/2nd-choice or
everyone gets one +1 vote and one -1 vote, consider what other schemes have
already been invented, implemented, and proven.

Hint: the Single Transferable Vote system used in Australia.  In a nutshell,
each voter lists the candidates they support in preferential order.  The votes
are tallied first with everyone's first choice.  If there's no winner, e.g.,
no candidate receives, say, 50% of the vote, the least popular candidate is
removed from all ballots.  The votes are tallied again and the process is
repeated until a winner is selected or there are no more candidates to be
removed.

If I'm mistaken about the details, please correct them--don't flame me.

Here's a simple example: candidates Huey, Dewey, and Louie are running for
office.  The ballots cast are:

Voter 1: Huey, Louie
Voter 2: Dewey, Louie
Voter 3: Huey, Dewey
Voter 4: Louie, Huey, Dewey
Voter 5: Dewey, Louie, Huey

1) First tally.  Huey: 2, Dewey: 2, Louie: 1
   assuming >50% required to win, perform first transfer

2) Louie received fewest 1st choice votes, so strike his name and recount.

Voter 1: Huey
Voter 2: Dewey
Voter 3: Huey, Dewey
Voter 4: Huey, Dewey
Voter 5: Dewey, Huey

3) Second tally.  Huey: 3, Dewey: 2
   still no winner, perform second transfer

4) Dewey received fewest 1st choice votes, so strike his name and resount.

Voter 1: Huey
Voter 2: nobody
Voter 3: Huey
Voter 4: Huey
Voter 5: Huey

5) Third tally.  Huey: 4, nobody: 1

Huey wins with 80% of the vote.  A clear mandate for candidate Huey.

If we'd had this for the presidential election, it would have been easy to,
for example, vote against Bush by listing all the other candidates except
Bush; vote for so-called "no-chance" candidates without fear of "wasting"
one's vote; or vote for a single candidate (like a regular nontransferable
vote).

I would have voted: Marrou, Clinton, Perot, Bush.  Meaning "I prefer Marrou,
but if I can't have him, Clinton would be OK, Perot would be preferable to
Bush, and Bush would be preferable to anyone else".

-- 
Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov)           For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick.
Martin Marietta Energy Systems     For every Bill Gates there is a Richard
Workstation Support                Stallman.                     --Paul Graham
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1033 alt.politics.clinton:16985 alt.politics.perot:5457
From: alan@uts.amdahl.com (Alan Bomberger)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Date: 12 Nov 92 22:16:05 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA


I believe that if there had been a 1st choice/2nd choice
Perot would have won.  The wasted vote worries kept many
from voting for Perot because they were also voting against
one of the other candidates.  1st-Perot 2-nd Bush eliminates
this problem.  If Perot fails to get sufficient votes to
win then his votes are eliminated in a way that reflects
the voter's choice.

-- 
Alan Bomberger     | (408)-992-2748  | alan@uts.amdahl.com
Amdahl Corporation | Opinions are free, worth it, and not Amdahl's
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: cah@tyr.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA/Caltech
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:47:41 GMT

In article <jbone.721500858@splat>, jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
> 
> cah@pavonis.JPL.NASA.gov (Allen Halsell) writes:
> >
> >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.
> 
> "Every state except one would be against him."  Fine, except that states
> are nothing but arbitrary geographic regions bound by legislative ties.

This is not true.  It may seem true, but is not.  Many states have
long histories and might be considered sub-cultures (e.g., Texas, CA,
Utah for a few examples).  Besides, those "legislative ties" affect
the government of that area and bind it together by fiscal and social
policy.
 
> The EC *DOES* skew the results.  Clinton had a rather poor showing, all
> things considered, and yet to look at the EC results you would think he
> had broad popular support.  This is simply not true, yet it leads to the
> false claim of a "mandate".  

Can we just drop the whole "mandate" shit?  Nobody cares about mandates.
Clinton may have had a poor showing in your book.  He did well compared
to other races with significant 3rd party candidates.  As well as Nixon,
to within a few 0.1%.
 
> The EC is an antiquated idea that was originally implemented in order
> to make national popular elections possible and manageable.  The technology
> did not exist to conduct and coordinate timely popular elections.  This
> is no longer a problem --- let's trash the EC.

That is not the historical truth.  As I said before, you might want to
check out why such a system exists and was created before you make
generalizations.  Should we trash the Senate/House division as well?
It dilutes the vote of those people in large states.  If you really
want to make your vote count, move to Wyoming or Nevada and start
a political movement (Alan Simpson, take heed :-)).

*********************************************************************
the only thing that speaks the truth is the eloquence of passing time
               the spoken word is a jacket too tight
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1016 alt.politics.clinton:16901 alt.politics.perot:5447
From: lav4208@venus.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College and apologetics.
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:18:00 GMT
Organization: Texas A&M University, Academic Computing Services
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Nov11.195513.2931@anasazi.com>, best@anasazi.com (Mike Best) writes...
>>1860:  Lincoln finished first in a four man race.  The others were 
>>Stephen Douglas, John Breckinridge and John Bell.
> 
>I would like to use this as an example refute your populist position on
>the electoral process.
> 
>Take into account, first of all, that Lincoln was not even on the ballot
>in 10 (or so) states.  If we extrapolated your position to it's logical
>conclusion, that the winner should receive more than 50% of the popular
>vote (I believe this is what you are driving at) then in the 1860 election
>we would have required that a contingency election take place between the
>top two popular vote candidates.  Putting aside that this delay in the
>selection delegitimizes the electoral process in and of itself, it is quite
>obvious to those who have studied the history of this period that Lincoln
>would not have won if the choice was Lincoln versus either Douglas or Breck-
>enridge.
> 
>Pure populist appeal is simply NOT the only criterion to legitimize the
>Presidency and the Founders designed the system in order. 
> 
>Mike Best


My purpose was not to legitimize such candidates but to refute the converse
sugggestion that such candidates are necessarily invalid and nonrepresentative
of the electorate. I was also attempting to illustrate that such candidates
are not uncommon, nor is the two party system always the norm in this country.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 04:20:06 GMT


Another thing....
The Electoral college system IS clearly defined in the Constitution
Maine and Nebraska adopted their own systems, and no one bothered
to object (cause their's is better)
The delegates to the Electoral college, however, are NOT bound by
the poplular vote in the state. Case in point: a delegate from
West Virginia voted for Lloyd Bentsen in 1988. Generally, what
happens, is that in order to guarantee that the popular vote winner
gets the votes from that state, the winning party picks the delegates
and they pick people that they know will be loyal.
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Youngstown State University/Youngstown Free-Net
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 03:27:51 GMT


true democracy only works if the entire voting public is
willing to look at all the issues objectively after being fully
informed on all aspects of the issue.
Would all of you clamoring for an elimination of the EC try to
tell us that this happens? I can tell you that just dealing with
some of the people around here on a day-to-day basis shows that
people don't. 
The Not-In-My-Backyard principle on toxic waste is a perect example
Homophobia is another
(PS: I've been convinced. Keep the EC)
-- 
Jeremy Gottlieb				jgott@imsa.edu

Go hard or go home.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 18:00:31 GMT

In article <1992Nov9.035518.9785@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
>In article <1992Nov8.190843.2187@gacvx2.gac.edu> eodenius@dumaine.gac.edu (Eric J O'Denius) writes:
>>One good thing about the electoral college: It provides the appearance of  
>>a mandate.  If the electoral votes today were based simply on the popular  
>>vote percentage, then Clinton, with only 43% or so of the popular vote,  
>>would not appear to have a mandate.  The country might not be so willing  
>>to back him. 
>
>If anything, that's a flaw not an advantage: If a majority of the
>people lack confidince in Clinton, he _should_ be tricted by a lack
>of public support. We shouldn't have programs enacted, which the 
>people in general oppose, because of a false image of a mandate.
>(Essentially, if people can't agree on what the governemnt ought to
>do, it should do nothing.)

I disagree Frank.  History is replete with the tradgedies of regimes 
which failed due to weak leadership.  A strong leader is important to
the health of our system as a check against the power of the Congress.
The fact that he received 43% of the votes is irrelevant to the 
requirements of the office as far as effectivity with the legislature
is involved.  The EC is the determinant which has always been intended
to magnify victories and give the Executive the power and momentum
to deal with what the Founders recognized as the most dangerous branch
of the government

		THE LEGISLATURE

Mike Best
	      
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:939 alt.politics.perot:5300
From: kist@acsu.buffalo.edu (james e kist)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:44:21 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: UB

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.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:976 alt.politics.perot:5410
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 04:58:10 GMT

In article <BxFJ1z.72p@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
>The reality is that only 43/100 people actually want this guy in the
>white house!  Isn't that about the lowest popular vote percentage ever?

Not quite, but close: John Quincy Adams with 31% (the election went
to Congress, so there was no claim of a popular mandate...); Abraham
Lincon with 40% (but 59% of the Electoral College); Woodrow Wilson
with 42% (82% in the Electoral College).

                                            Frank Crary
                                            CU Boulder
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:1061 alt.politics.elections:23825 talk.politics.theory:4919 sci.econ:8668 rec.org.mensa:8252
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory,sci.econ,rec.org.mensa
Subject: Re: Weighted Suffrage
Date: 15 Nov 1992 05:22:49 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc4.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) says:

>...... It seems to me that the alternatives are for everyone
>to keep on trying to get as big a piece of the pie out of the
>government as possible or for everyone to agree that the government
>will no longer be in the business of baking and distributing pies.
>The latter approach seems more _pro bono publico_; the former more
>probable.

The latter approach would be more likely under weighted suffrage,
with the inexperienced young, the uneducated poor, and the
enfeebled elderly out of the way.

-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: grant@bluemoon.use.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: Democracy or Republic ?
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 18:43:12 GMT

ah210@yfn.ysu.edu (Jeremy Gottlieb) writes:

>First: We have a republic. Anyone who tells you we have a democracy
>is probably selling something.

 Not anymore. I am not trying to sell you something, and I wish this
were still a Republic.

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.use.com)   /

        Good leaders being scarce, following yourself is allowed.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (It's not what you got, it's what you give)
Subject: The original amendments
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 11 Nov 92 04:59:53 GMT

	I saw on a recent post that one of the original proposals
from James Madison was an amendment for conscientious objectors.
Does someone have the text of this proposed amendment?
	BTW, if someone has the text of any other amendments I would
appreciate it if you would post or send them to me as well. Thanks
in advance.

Garrett@Ingres.com

Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Arizona USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:44:33 GMT

In article <jbone.721500858@splat> jbone@splat.dell.com (Jeff Bone) writes:
>
>The EC *DOES* skew the results.  Clinton had a rather poor showing, all
>things considered, and yet to look at the EC results you would think he
>had broad popular support.  This is simply not true, yet it leads to the
>false claim of a "mandate".  

The results are intended to be magnified, they are not to change the winner
from the popular vote winner to the runner up.  And don't toss aside the
concept of a mandate so flippantly, a weak executive is an ineffective
executive and whether you like Clinton or not I think it would be worse
to have the Congress run the country (as a committee) than to have a 
strong leader.

>The EC is an antiquated idea that was originally implemented in order
>to make national popular elections possible and manageable.  The technology
>did not exist to conduct and coordinate timely popular elections.  This
>is no longer a problem --- let's trash the EC.

Even if it did, the founders would not have adopted direct election.
How little you have investigated their intentions, why do you think that
you are right?  What about the side effects of such a change?  Do you care?

>My $0.02,

With all due respect, that is all that you have invested in this idea.

Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,alt.politics.perot
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: Electoral College
Reply-To: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 01:14:36 GMT

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.  Pure democracy was recognized even by the Greeks
|> as the bad rule of the many and those of us who have a pessimistic view of
|> human nature believe that, though we might start as a pluracracy, we would
|> ultimately sink to a democracy (the tyranny of the many).
|> 

The inclusion of the Bill of Rights prevents "the tyranny of the many."

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

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.

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 ;^)

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.

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  (fractionally) responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government.
From: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: ERA and the 27th Amendment
Date: 11 Nov 1992 10:27:44 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) says:



>In article <1dpp93INN4qu@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bu008@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Brandon D. Ray) writes:
>>...It ought to fail because the Supreme Court
>>has previously ruled that Congress may, indeed, set a time limit for
>>ratification...they just didn't do it in the case of the 27th Amendment,
>>but did in the case of ERA.
>
>As I recall, the Supreme Court actually _required_ Congress to put
>a time limit on all future proposed Amendments (in a ruling sometime
>in the 1930s).
>
>                                                      Frank Crary
>                                                      CU Boulder
>
It is my recollection that the Court said "may" rather than "must".  There
is certainly no language in thE Constitution which would support a ruling
that Congress *must* set a time limit.
-- 
******************************************************************************
The opinions expressed by the author are insightful, intelligent and very
carefully thought out.  It is therefore unlikely that they are shared by the
University of Iowa or Case Western Reserve University.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.constitution:936 alt.politics.perot:5287