Ricky, I'll get into a reply of larger scope, but for now, all I can say is that I'm hearing less an argument on why the U.S. Constitution doesn't work, and more a work of outright jingoistic self-contradiction. I'm hearing yet another argument on "why we're better than you...." If an American were to take a similar tone with a Canadian, he'd be dismissed as yet another jingoistic yank. Can you prove to me that you're not in that role right now (except it's a Canadian saying it to a Yank not the other way around)?

Oh for crying out loud.
I'm not taking any tone. And I'm comparing parliamentary systems, and other systems of governance around the world. Your the one who brought in Canada for comparison without understanding the differences.
If you have an actual point to make about something, i'll wait.

I'm sorry but I cannot help feel that way sometimes, Ricky.

In the meantime, I just wrote you the promised more detailed response. And somehow the screen abruptly changed and it was lost. Please give me until after lunch to "clarify" myself.

No, you brought in Canada for comparison, as you typically do, and you definitely don't understand the differences either. I would be perfectly willing to defer to your opinion/facts on the Canadian government but for your insistence at lecturing me on my own and, when I disagree, talking down to me as if I don't understand what goes on right around me. I understand a great deal more than you think.

I am always willing to hear your and others opinions and arguments on these matters, and to exchange information. But you always seem to imply "If you were more like us you'd be happier." Just so you know, I tire of that quite quickly.

Now if we can get back to the matter at hand---possible constitutional amendments?

You have already said you dont think such a convention would ever take place. Fine. Point taken. I disagree, however. Let's leave it at that before we terribly inconvenience too many electrons?

You once said that I don't understand democracy. You have some difficulty getting the hang of "power". And by the way, the phrase "strong federalism" actually means a weaker, or at least more balanced federal government (not within it self but vis a vis the states/provinces). So Canada has "stronger federalism" than the US.

As for the restructuring of the US Government, I've already admitted many of the points you've made (again, and again....)

Just out of curiosity, in all respectfulness, what do you think would happen if we converted the Electoral college to a direct, national, popular vote? There are other presidential systems, typically in the "new world" as it was once called (with the exception of British commonwealth-descended nation-states) besides the United States. However, they all seem to have worked out some other sort of electoral process that's pretty unique to their own country.

I understand your point about a difference in a constitution and the day-to-day business of government. I also agree that constitutions shouldn't be so easy to amend. I had asked about how your country amends it (because I don't feel like reading it right now---I've read much of the Australian constitution but it's terribly long....) because I wanted to know. I was deferring to your own obvious expertise on that matter. I would have thought that would be flattering, but...OK.

hacker

Just out of curiosity, in all respectfulness, what do you think would happen if we converted the Electoral college to a direct, national, popular vote?

- Immediate saving of money spent to maintain the bureaucracy of the electoral college.
- higher voter turnouts, especially in states where a firm majority has usually predetermined the result for the state... those who are in minority (like republicans in Massachusetts or democrats in Texas) will feel their vote counts now...
- greater legitimacy for the winner. (Bush won the electoral vote but lost the actual vote count in his first election. This has happened 3 times in US electoral history)
- more attention to national issues, as opposed to regional issues in campaigning.
- far more likely that third party candidates will have an impact, and far easier for third parties to establish themselves as a genuine presence.
- since a votes a vote, in states where the out come is never in doubt, there has been little campaign presence in recent elections. But in "battleground states" there has been excessive campaigning. When a votes a vote, the campaigning will be spread more evenly. Those states that were often largely ignored by Presidential candidates will get more attention. And the battleground states will experience less politicking... If i were a television station owner in Florida this would be bad. If i were a television station owner in Hawaii, this would be good.
- The elimination of all the in depth analysis of the state by state vote with the electoral maps. More attention to national polling and national views on issues... generally this will reflect the reality that the US is less conservative than many claim. (see polls on issues as diverse as gay marriage and EPA regulation)

what bureaucracy of the electoral college?

Now he worries about money spent on bureaucracy ???!!!???

Ricky, there's absolutely no bureaucracy related to the electoral college. There are 538 electors, including 3 from DC. I read a [mostly fiction] book about the electoral college; it said that it's a nifty thing where you get to have lunch with the governor and your picture taken with him/her. Then you sit around a big table and fill out your official ballots, which you get to keep as a souvenir. I cannot imagine that connected to a "bureaucracy" of any sort, 538 people out of 320 million. The only "cost" is probably lunch (hopefully it's a nice one) and of course, the book said the main character was getting reimbursed gasoline at 33 cents a mile for having to drive from her home in Wherever, MI, to the capital, Lansing. Perhaps that racks up a few bucks if you're one of Alaska's three electors and you have to drive or fly south to Juneau; or you're one of California's 55 who live in L.A. and you need to get to Sacramento to cast your ballot. Other than that, I'm still not sure what you're referring to.

Hacker

Ricky, there's absolutely no bureaucracy related to the electoral college

The procedure is administrated through the Federal Elections Commission and the various States administrations. It costs these organizations (bureaucracies) time, and money., to exercise the formal procedure denoted below.
Electors in most states are compensated for travel expenses. (Mileage, lodging and food)
It ain't a big saving, but it is a saving.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-registe ... roles.html

Ricky, this stuff doesn't exist just for the electoral college, buddy....look carefully at your own sources. The presidential electors are a fraction of the budgets that go into the electoral process.

The electors "exist" for a handful of months, every four years. Once they cast their votes, they're done. They cease to exist. I'm no accountant but they occupy a very small percentage of the budgets of the state governments assigned to elections. Americans "pancake" their election races: we do not have just an election for president every four years. In any given state there's a shitload of stuff on the ballot (and a lot of people for a lot of different offices). I"m sorry but I don't think you looked this one up very well.

At any rate, I asked you about what would happen, and you gave me 7 potential results. Including number one, I would have to say that I can only agree with your 3rd and 5th points. Others are possible, but very slim chance of your being right. But you're right that there might be a greater legitimacy for the winner as well as a greater likelihood that third parties would gain ground. (But is that necessarily a good thing? Look at Germany, from the 1920s...and then also consider we are a presidential system.)

Oh, also consider, that very few democracies in the western world are one person one vote, even the ones that are supposedly closer to it, really aren't. And the ones that are pretty close to 100% pure democracy (lots of parties, one person/one vote, proportional representation) are ones like, Italy for example (which for years has been the Weimar Republic without the Bratwurst).

hacker

At any rate, I asked you about what would happen, and you gave me 7 potential results. Including number one, I would have to say that I can only agree with your 3rd and 5th points. Others are possible, but very slim chance of your being right. But you're right that there might be a greater legitimacy for the winner as well as a greater likelihood that third parties would gain ground. (But is that necessarily a good thing? Look at Germany, from the 1920s...and then also consider we are a presidential system.

Its nice that you offer an opinion. But why do you hold that opinion?
Why is it that voter turn out wouldn't be higher? In every critique of the electoral system I've read, and i looked at a great many, voter suppression in 40 states is believed to occur because minority voters understand that their vote doesn't matter...
I offer as evidence" a couple:

http://ventrellaquest.com/2013/04/09/to ... l-college/

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink ... ge-problem

But since you agree with point 3 and 5, I have to ask if those two points aren't enough to recommend the elimination of the Electoral college? And if the other points are even possible, wouldn't they be desirable.

The electoral system was originally conceived as a way for slave holding states to hold more power in the federal system then their white population base supported. Electoral votes were calculated including slave populations at a 3/5 value.
Whatever else the electoral college is, its a reminder of the racist nature of the original US constitution. Now, as you know your history, you'll remember that the civil war was caused because
there was an intractable problem called slavery which could not be eradicated through means of governance or through constitutional means.
You now have more intractable problems. None of which are going to lead to civil war, but aren't being addressed.
Start with immigration, including the presence of illegal or undocumented in the many millions.
Health care insurance has seemed to be an intractable for decades despite the popularity of medicare for seniors... And the solution that has been arrived at, is the ACA which is nightmare compared to successful health insurance and health care systems around the world.
That's a product of the system Hacker.

hacker

Oh, also consider, that very few democracies in the western world are one person one vote, even the ones that are supposedly closer to it, really aren't. And the ones that are pretty close to 100% pure democracy (lots of parties, one person/one vote, proportional representation) are ones like, Italy for example (which for years has been the Weimar Republic without the Bratwurst).

Italy has no history of a professional bureaucracy. It's institutions are driven by political appointment and loyalty(patrimony) and corruption is great. It is the failure to develop a modern professional bureaucracy that has handicapped Italy and lead to its inefficient governance.
Incidentally this was a huge problem for the US until about the turn of the 20th century.
And Germany's post WWI launch of democracy was handicapped by many events and circumstance that had little to do with the structure of the government, If anything, government remained remarkably efficient even when hijacked by the Nazis. Why? They largely retained the professional bureaucracy. Indeed by 1951, even though the victorious Allies had originally purged 53,000 civil servants from the German civil service (due to party membership) , all but 1,000 were reinstated. It was understood that political attitudes of bureaucrats changed as genuine democratic values took hold in post WWII Germany.
Germany (Prussia really) is a prime example of a select group of nations that developed nonpatrimonial state administrations through military competition. Sweden, Denmark, France and Japan were similar.
The German civil service changed from being an aristocratic preserve, to an elite meritocratic body that reflected the German people broadly, retained an espirit des corps and political support for its autonomy.
What has never happened in German history is wholesale distribution of government offices to party workers as happens in Greece, Italy or the US (in the past) .
.

I fail to see how you're calling the electoral college system racist. Oh and by the way, the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments effectively destroyed the 3/5 compromise. We no longer count 3/5 of the slaves because, um, there aren't any. The number of congressmen a state gets is determined by the Census Bureau, every ten years, with the size of the House having been fixed at 435 (not counting the six delegates). The electoral college was not conceived in order to benefit the slave states. It was conceived because they did not want Congress electing the president (they didn't consider a direct national popular vote possible in 1787...and it likely would not have been) and it would not have been possible to have a president who was re-electable if Congress elected him, while keeping him independent enough from congressional patronage to effectively perform his duties. A lot of the "theories" on why there is an electoral college are pure conjecture. (Political scientists have to have something to do with all that time on their hands, right? lol)

As for people not voting, anyone trying to write a paper or article on why can really only guess, to a certain extent. After all, how can you get into the minds of millions of people, each with differing opinions? It's not something you can really predict. While what you are assuming is perfectly valid (alleges truth) it is not a certainty. No academic paper or article can "prove" what 127 million voters are actually thinking. They can take polls, they can even ask some people why. But at the end of the day it comes down to conjecture.

A direct, national, popular vote would have one very, very bad effect: it would pit the urban areas against the rural areas. The electoral college is actually a "halfway point" between that sort of thing (one person/one vote), and the kind of representation as is the Senate (where each state is equal regardless of population, e.g., not one person/one vote). I say a halfway point because, while it over represents the smaller states (because you have to have three electors at least), the largest states with the largest populations are still represented with more electors. (And if the smallest states are over represented, then the largest ones are too; it's because of the two "extra" electors that are equal to your state's two senators that do it.)

And you do not have to tell me about Italy and Weimar Germany, I'm well aware of how they [failed to] have worked.

[url]Germany (Prussia really) is a prime example of a select group of nations that developed nonpatrimonial state administrations through military competition.[/url]

Um....like Prussia's/imperial Germany's "three class" voting system which benefited the landed class? That sort of "non-patrimonial" state?

Whoops, that was meant to be a quote from you Ricky. Not a "url".