News The Electoral College: A Threat to Democracy?

[russ_watters]

Here is something else to consider: Electors are not required to vote according the their State's mandate. They almost always do vote according to the popular vote but there are exceptions. This is a safety mechanism. In the context of this discussion, in order to prevent a vote from going to the House, electors may opt to change their vote.

Frankly, that issue is of bigger concern to me than anything else being discussed here. The idea that an elector could randomly/without basis change their vote is troubling to me.

Obviously this is a non-issue at the moment, but, if the nation continues to fracture politically, I can see a third party or more causing problems.

This is also somewhat troubling to me, but the way I see it, you have the issue backwards. If a third party candidate ever becomes truly viable, presumably it would be due to true independence and as a result s/he would draw votes from both sides. But today, we have 3rd party candidates who are really just spinoffs of the two major parties. And rather than being viable candidates themselves, the ones who perform well just take votes from the party they broke from. Ralph Nader is a liberal and he won 2.8 million votes in 2000. Had he not run, the vast majority of those votes almost certainly would have gone to Gore. Similarly, Ross Perot, though he had many crossover ideas, was a rich, white Texan and therefore more appealing to Republicans than Democrats. He won 19.5 million votes in an election where the margin was 4 million for Clinton over Bush I.

Just think - if not for Nader, Bush II might never have been President. Alternately, if not for Perot, we might have had 30 straight years of Republican Presidents!

 

[mvymvy]

Frankly, that issue is of bigger concern to me than anything else being discussed here. The idea that an elector could randomly/without basis change their vote is troubling to me.

&&&&

There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

 

[BobG]

Theoretically, there's some really weird things that could happen that could possibly be considered a time bomb. In practice, I think the weirdest things would be extremely unlikely.

The most likely case where there's differences between the popular vote/electoral vote and the most likely case where the election would fall into a vote by Congress are extremely close elections where there is no real difference in support for the two candidates. With support so evenly split, having an orderly method of picking a winner becomes more important than which candidate wins. A coin flip would suffice if it didn't appear to be such a stupid way of resolving the matter.

There are major problems that should have been foreseen, though. While an objective view would see little difference between which candidate won, which one wins is still very important to the candidates involved. The atmosphere became so charged in both the Hayes-Tilden election and the Bush-Gore election that everyone involved lost credibility. By time the Bush-Gore election was decided, Bush, Gore, the US Supreme Court, Florida's Governor (Jeb Bush) and Secretary of State had all taken hits to their level of respect. That shows that the process has some problems.

Unfortunately, there isn't a federal remedy on how to conduct elections within a state or how to conduct recounts, etc. That is a shortcoming. For federal elections, federal rules should apply. The elections (state and federal) can occur simultaneously and could even share the same ballots, but the federal laws should govern federal elections. The only way any of that could change would be by Constitutional amendment, though.

Having federal laws to handle federal elections is still kind of a minor side issue, though. The more important point is to find a way where the procedures are automatic, leaving no way the election winds up in court.

 

[mheslep]

&&&&

There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. ...

Interesting, where'd that come from? Googling only picks up this same post elsewhere.

 

[mheslep]

...
While an objective view would see little difference between which candidate won,

Agreed, in the sense of the fairness of the process.

which one wins is still very important to the candidates involved. The atmosphere became so charged in both the Hayes-Tilden election and the Bush-Gore election that everyone involved lost credibility. By time the Bush-Gore election was decided, Bush, Gore, the US Supreme Court, Florida's Governor (Jeb Bush) and Secretary of State had all taken hits to their level of respect. That shows that the process has some problems...

Yes though that's unavoidable in any close contest in any forum when the stakes are high, regardless of the of the system. There's always a gnashing of teeth when the contest is decided by the call of the umpire, regardless of the righteousness of the call. Yet the losing sportsman should no better than to blame the umpire; he knows it was his own responsibility for letting the contest draw so close it was decided by minutia. Likewise the winner of the coin toss should know better than to think of himself as all powerful.

 

[russ_watters]

I just did a search using a word string that mvymvy posted. Mvymvy is all over the Internet with this same set of replies.

Are you there, mvymvy? I'm just curious.

Thanks for the heads-up - we're working on the issue. In the meantime guys, ignore the (potential) spambot as me may end up just deleting the posts.

 

[russ_watters]

Unfortunately, there isn't a federal remedy on how to conduct elections within a state or how to conduct recounts, etc. That is a shortcoming. For federal elections, federal rules should apply. The elections (state and federal) can occur simultaneously and could even share the same ballots, but the federal laws should govern federal elections. The only way any of that could change would be by Constitutional amendment, though.

I agree completely - that's related to what I was referring to before. The Presidential election process should be standardized and challenges not be left up to local politicians to deal with. It's asking for (and in 2000, getting!) trouble.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Frankly, that issue is of bigger concern to me than anything else being discussed here. The idea that an elector could randomly/without basis change their vote is troubling to me.

I agree with the logic for this system but it is bothersome. However, electors are chosen by elected representitives from each State. If an elector betrays the trust of the State, they won't be back. Also, less the very small States, we arse talking about a significantly sized group of people. One wouldn't expect wild aberrations in the behavior of all electors unless there was a good reason for it. In the mean time, in a catastrophic situation, we still have the impeachment proceess. But this thread may reference a good example of how the safety valve - the electors - could avert a Constitutional crisis.

This is also somewhat troubling to me, but the way I see it, you have the issue backwards.

I only meant that it could cause trouble in the sense expressed in the op. It could drive an election to a vote determined by the House, by fracturing the electorate. Presently we don't have this concern. By no means do I mean to suggest that a strong third party would automatically be bad, but it could be by undermining the majority system. If we see a new party emerge, I would prefer that an old one dies simultaneously. I don't think it would be good for the country to have multiple strong parties for extended periods of time. It is probably best for stability if a majority normally elects those who govern.

 

[mheslep]

...
Unfortunately, there isn't a federal remedy on how to conduct elections within a state or how to conduct recounts, etc. That is a shortcoming. For federal elections, federal rules should apply. The elections (state and federal) can occur simultaneously and could even share the same ballots, but the federal laws should govern federal elections. The only way any of that could change would be by Constitutional amendment, though.

I agree completely - that's related to what I was referring to before. The Presidential election process should be standardized and challenges not be left up to local politicians to deal with. It's asking for (and in 2000, getting!) trouble.

I disagree. The above assumes that somehow the Federal rules, the federal overseers, would somehow be more effective and more impartial than the those of the state. I reject that assumption. The federal government is already tasked with the application of a rule set: the constitution via the 14th amendment. In this case it mandates that due process of law be observed, along with all of the particulars of the Voting Rights Act. In 2000 Fl law stated that the Fl secretary of state was tasked with insuring due process. She acknowledged her responsibility by certifying the election. SOTUS majority agreed. Should have been 9-0.