From: best@anasazi.com (Mike Best)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Subject: Re: Proposal to amend the Constitution
Date: 13 Oct 92 02:04:25 GMT
Organization: Anasazi Inc, Phoenix AZ USA

In article <1992Oct8.014437.12279@pony.Ingres.COM> garrett@Ingres.COM (THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE TELEVISED) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.024338.5240@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)               writes...
>>In article <1992Oct6.033312.4743@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?
>> 
>> [list of pertinent elections and stats deleted}
>> 
>>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!
>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. Let's clear this up. If you want relevant facts, then look
>at how many times an electoral voter was elected for one canidate
>and voted for another. BTW, in three of those cases there were 
>strong third party showing and the canidates listed above got
>more votes then all the other canidates.

There have been but 8 faithless electors.  A Senate Judiciary committee
recently convened to, once again, discuss the E.C. and it was successfully
argued that the problem of the faithless elector could be resolved by
simply removing the office of the elector.  That is, keep the electoral
vote system but automate it so there is no human failure to vote 
per the will of the people.  North Carolina already has a statutory
solution to this problem.
>>> Do you have any idea the uproar this would cause? Can you imagine the
>>>riots that would happen? 
>
>>>	What I'm saying is "Let the people make their own 
>>>mistakes". If they elect the wrong person, then they will get what 
>>>they deserve. If you try to mother the populace, then you will fail.
>> 
>>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). This is why I am both against the 
>Electoral College, and against your reform of it.
>(Nothing personal, I just don't believe in someone telling me
>who should represent me).

You have misrepresented the purpose and intent of the Electoral College.
It is difficult to explain over a medium such as this but Frank has
previously pointed out that the Founders recognized that direct election
of the president was a bad idea.  A majority faction could take power
(Whites, Christians) resulting in tyranny of the majority.   This
is but one facet of the E.C. which is generally intended to cause the
election of the most acceptable person possible.

You might be interested in reading a highly technical discussion of 
the E.C. called "The Case Against Direct Election of the President"
from the Cornell University Press.  It is, IMO, the definitive text
on the subject by the foremost expert on this subject, Judith Best.


Mike Best
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution,misc.legal