& btw: Americans don't just vote for president. So how can political scientists or academics "know" for sure why people are not voting, if they are only concentrating on the presidential portion of the ballots?

JimHackerMP wrote: 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)

we could always look at what some of the people who set it up thought about it.

Hamilton, who probably wrote Fedaralist Paper 68, contended that it was about taking the final decision from the "people" and entrusting it with the electors,

"Men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice."

In some states, they did not use a popular vote to determine the electors for the college either. Some used all-out, winner-take all elections and some used districting. But often state legislatures chose the electors, and some early elections saw states use a combination of popular vote and state legislature (hybrid)

South Carolina did not use the popular vote to select electors until after the Civil War. Your state of Maryland is the only one of the original 13 to have only used the popular vote (by district for most of the earlier elections).

For the early elections, the ratios of those using Legislature / Hybrid / Popular Vote are:

1788 4 / 2 / 4
1792 9 / 2 / 2
1796 7 / 3 / 6
1800 10 / 5 / 1
1804 6 / 11 / 0
1808 7 / 10 / 0
1812 9 / 9 / 0
1816 9 / 10 / 0
1820 9 / 15 / 0
1824 6 / 18 / 0
1828 2 / 22 / 0
1832 1 / 23 / 0

And of course a couple of early elections were determined by Congress: in 1800 it was a dead heat (because at that time the VP was just the runner up, so each party had more than one candidate). The outgoing House elected Jefferson, which was what the Dem-Reps had wanted, but it was not a foregone conclusion because the Federalists controlled the old House and many voted for Burr as a spoiler.

And in 1824 when no candidate had a majority of the votes, the House elected the guy who came second.

A direct, national, popular vote would have one very, very bad effect: it would pit the urban areas against the rural areas.

But does this not already happen across many states?

hacker, i called the original nature of the Constitution racist. Your need to quote amendments actually reinforces that don't you think. ?

The electoral college was the only way to allow for the power of the 3/5 a person that each slave represented in accounting for house representation and electoral college votes. Its whole purpose was the recognition of slaves.

The Three-Fifths Compromise was a compromise reached between delegates from southern states and those from northern states during the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention. The debate was over if, and if so, how, slaves would be counted when determining a state's total population for legislative representation and taxing purposes. The issue was important, as this population number would then be used to determine the number of seats that the state would have in the United States House of Representatives for the next ten years. The effect was to give the southern states a third more seats in Congress and a third more electoral votes than they would otherwise have had, allowing the slave interests to largely dominate the government of the United States until 1865

hacker

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

The eminent academic Huntington said of democracy. " The good does not all develop at the same time:.
The development of the voting franchise is a seperate issue from the development of a professional bureaucracy.
I was discussing a non-patrimonial civil service. That is a civil service where entry and promotion was by a meritocracy and not because of who one knew. The development of such is an important component in the health of any government, and especially of a democracy. When political appointments, or other patrimonial facets shape how a civil service is shaped and how they execute their duties people lose faith it its ability to function and they start to mistrust government. (Not just in democracies). This cripples many modern nations development.

As we've discussed before, the growth of the franchise in western democracies took some time in many democracies to reach universality for adults. New Zealand was the first nation to achieve this, in 1898.
Most modern democracies really didn't achieve this until after WWII. And even those that we think of as having achieved full democracy really didn't till the 60s. (Like Canada with indigenous peoples or the US with the need for civil rights legislation and enforcement.) But even so, the ability of a government to respond to the needs and aspirations of its people isn't necessarrily disabled by the lack of complete enfranchisement.
Whats worrisome about the nature of the US government today (at the Federal level) is the inability to accomplish anything about a myriad of intractable issues.
The elimination of the electoral college would go a small way to improving the electoral system and enhancing the legitimacy of the winning candidate. And it would probably increase participation. How do we know this. According to Fairvote.org

National Popular Vote (NPV) for president, which would make every vote in every state equally valuable in every election, would expand presidential campaigns from just ten states to all 50. As voter turnout is markedly lower in states that receive no presidential campaign attention, the reallocation of campaign resources to include non-battleground states would likely increase turnout in those states

.
http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-an ... r-turnout/

When there is not a legitimate contest for President n a state fewer people vote. That's fact.

I was discussing a non-patrimonial civil service. That is a civil service where entry and promotion was by a meritocracy and not because of who one knew. The development of such is an important component in the health of any government, and especially of a democracy. When political appointments, or other patrimonial facets shape how a civil service is shaped and how they execute their duties people lose faith it its ability to function and they start to mistrust government. (Not just in democracies). This cripples many modern nations development.

In which case, Prussia (and imperial Germany) are still bad examples. The civil service, as well as the army and the justice system, were dominated by the old German aristocracies (particularly those of Prussian and Bavarian descent).

As we've discussed before, the growth of the franchise in western democracies took some time in many democracies to reach universality for adults.

A generous latitude which you don't seem be allowing the United States.

When there is not a legitimate contest for President n a state fewer people vote. That's fact.

You'd certainly think it would be the case, but it is not necessarily. There are countries with sham elections with higher voter turnout than their more "democratic" counterparts. I see what you are saying Ricky. But I do not agree that the EC is responsible for the decline in voter turnout in presidential elections.

And, the good people of fairvote.org are entitled to their collective opinions. I'll write more later but I'm pressed for time. In the mean time all I can say is that trading the EC for a DNPV would trade an imperfect method of electing the president for a larger set of problems.

hacker

In which case, Prussia (and imperial Germany) are still bad examples. The civil service, as well as the army and the justice system, were dominated by the old German aristocracies (particularly those of Prussian and Bavarian descent)

In 1806 the civil service was opened to talented and well educated members of the bourgeoisie. By 1871 and German unification under Bismark it was a reflection of German society.
After 1871 the franchise began to expand in Germany, as in other democracies. But by that point the civil service had a well established autonomy, and meritocracy.
So its a perfect example of an established institution that was a pillar of good governance.

hacker

A generous latitude which you don't seem be allowing the United States.

Just pointing at the facts.

hacker

You'd certainly think it would be the case, but it is not necessarily. There are countries with sham elections with higher voter turnout than their more "democratic" counterparts

I am referencing comparative turn out in US states in Federal elections. . Since we are discussing the electoral college and the effects of removing it, i don't know how any other comparison is valid.

So its a perfect example of an established institution that was a pillar of good governance.

Le sigh...(or should I say "der Sighen"? lol) I was told differently. I took a course on European history of the 20th century, History of Europe 1914 to Present and the professor told us differently. This is what I mean when I've told some of you, don't blindly trust college professors!!! (and UMBC is a really good school FYI!!!!) Don't bother to Google it and prove me wrong, let's just move on.

You are correct about the civil service in this country, however. I'm sure that it was 1881 assassination of Pres. James Garfield which prompted discussion of the grave demerits of the "spoils system" in what then passed for a civil service in the United States. But I don't think that anything was truly done about modernizing and de-politicizing it until the administration of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt. Or maybe McKinley. (Or perhaps there was progress under both...all I know is that it was at about that time it was "modernized" into a meritocratic, professional, permanent bureaucracy.)

I am referencing comparative turn out in US states in Federal elections. . Since we are discussing the electoral college and the effects of removing it, i don't know how any other comparison is valid.

Le sigh...all right; fair enough. A mild (rather mild) rebuttal on that later. Right now I'm starving, sorry.

Anyway:

That's quite right, Danivon, he did. I am not sure what was discussed at the Convention wot wrote it, as far as how they wanted it to operate, but given that the Constitution says the electors are to be chosen by each state, "...in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,..." That's also interesting: I did not know that they had the "hybrid" system so early on. But in any case, they wanted it done by the states, by whichever method the states wanted to.

I believe it's the Federalist No. 68 entitled "The Mode of Election of the President" in which Hamilton claims that this part of the constitution has actually escaped serious censure, even from its professed enemies. One anti-ratification source Hamilton cites admits the process is "pretty well guarded." (The Federal Farmer, it is called.)

Did I already explain why the electoral college exists? I had a rebuttal to your stated assumed reasons, Ricky, but I do not know if I retrieved it from my drafts (or if I tried to and it didn't work). Here's the reason: in the earliest drafts of the Constitution the president was elected by Congress. This may sound logical to the inhabitants of parliamentary countries but you must remember 1) this isn't a parliamentary democracy they were designing (modern parliamentary democracy didn't even close to exist yet) and 2) the devil being in the details, there were actually a lot of problems that could cause, when you think about it. So like any good deliberative assembly they assigned it to committee and went on to other problems. It was about a month before the end of the convention that the Committee of Unfinished Parts, chaired by David Brearley of New Jersey (author of the "New Jersey plan"), presented its report on the election of the President, which brought forth the electoral college idea. (Brearley had traveled abroad in Europe, and may have got the idea from the electoral college of the Holy Roman Emperor [Germany].)

Where did I get this from you're wondering? I may have mentioned earlier that I had a subscription to Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Not as extensive, in some cases, but generally more factually reliable than Wikipedia (in that just anybody cannot edit the articles). It explained this whole thing.

The founding fathers wanted the president to be free enough from Congress, still to enforce its laws, but free enough that he could use his judgment to enforce them (not just be their stooge in so doing). Because he was also going to have to command the army and navy, and perform other duties. Remember, that the idea of a ceremonial head of state and a powerful head of government didn't exist in 1787, even in the UK. There were some states under the Articles of Confederation whose governors were closer to such a thing (more like ceremonial), some farther from such a concept (more powerful in other words), but none of the state governors were quite equal in power to the Governor-General of Australia, or the present Queen of Britain, Emperor of Japan, etc.

My statement:

A direct, national, popular vote would have one very, very bad effect: it would pit the urban areas against the rural areas.

Danivon's reply:

But does this not already happen across many states?

Yes, it actually does. In many parts of Maryland we feel ignored by the Annapolis government, because there are less votes out our way. Therefore, most of the legislation, executive action, whatever, seems to us to benefit the City & southern Baltimore County, Montgomery & Prince George's Counties (the densely populated suburbs of DC), more than it benefits the western part of the state, or the eastern or western shore areas, etc. In Cumberland, way out in the "panhandle" of western Maryland, unemployment has always been very high, and these people are very impoverished. Yet any efforts to relieve poverty seem to zero in on the City of Baltimore and the suburbs of DC. Recently, Casino gambling was allowed at limited sites in Maryland, and it was felt that it would create jobs. Where did they put the casino, in Cumberland or Hagerstown, where the unemployed inhabitants could finally get some jobs? No. They put it in the City of Baltimore, and a couple in Anne Arundel County (another more densely-populated portion of the State, though not as much as the DC suburbs and the City of Baltimore).

You see my point? The governor is elected by statewide popular vote (as you're advocating for the whole United States) and BOTH chambers of the state legislature are apportioned via population---it is illegal and unconstitutional according to the Supreme Court and the 1965 Voting Rights Act for the state senate to act like the US Senate (like, 2 senators from each county regardless of population, as the US Senate works...they might as well have really abolished the upper house after Baker v. Carr, etc., and the Voting Rights Act, because there's little difference between the two chambers.

Long story short, the less populated parts get ignored. And what do you think would happen to the United States if the less populated states started getting ignored, because the President no longer needed them to get elected?

hacker

Long story short, the less populated parts get ignored. And what do you think would happen to the United States if the less populated states started getting ignored, because the President no longer needed them to get elected

What could be worse? Perhaps: The needs of the majority in populated areas not being met because the electoral system does not reflect their superior numbers.
For example, the infrastructure of most large cities is crumbling but the federal Government (other than the flurry of shovel ready projects after the crash of 08") hasn't really helped address this ...
On the other hand, the handful of Corn growers (actual mostly a handful of agricultural conglomerates) enjoy continuing massive support through the federal laws on fuel content and direct agricultural subsidies.
Somehow the current system has responded to that need for decades..

Right now, in the USA, the power of energized minorities in small states is vast. 2 Senators from Wyoming have the same power as the 2 senators from California.
The problem with the way the checks and balances in the current framework is that governance has become nigh impossible. Too many checks. Too many balances.

hacker

Did I already explain why the electoral college exists? I had a rebuttal to your stated assumed reasons, Ricky, but I do not know if I retrieved it from my drafts (or if I tried to and it didn't work). Here's the reason: in the earliest drafts of the Constitution the president was elected by Congress. This may sound logical to the inhabitants of parliamentary countries but you must remember 1) this isn't a parliamentary democracy they were designing (modern parliamentary democracy didn't even close to exist yet) and 2) the devil being in the details, there were actually a lot of problems that could cause, when you think about it. So like any good deliberative assembly they assigned it to committee and went on to other problems. It was about a month before the end of the convention that the Committee of Unfinished Parts, chaired by David Brearley of New Jersey (author of the "New Jersey plan"), presented its report on the election of the President, which brought forth the electoral college idea. (Brearley had traveled abroad in Europe, and may have got the idea from the electoral college of the Holy Roman Emperor [Germany].)

So much good comes from committee work...(Elephants are horses designed by committee)
Within the committee they were struggling with the fundamental imbalance between slave and non slave states Hacker. The electoral college and the 3/5 rule gave the committee a way to assuage their concerns about an imbalance in populations.

Hacker: The greatest evidence that the form of governance formed by the Constitution is that it has failed to provide a way of of several intractable problems. Of course the biggest example is the Civil War, caused despite - or perhaps because of - the way the Constitution was written.
Today there are more intractable problems: - (Immigration, electoral finance laws, interesting story here...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/03/us/po ... .html?_r=0

If the federal government actually responded to the views of the majority of Americans instead of being held to in minorities entrenched in power by the nature of the constitution , or corporate stakeholders with access to the elvers of power ... perhaps the problems wouldn't be intractable.

JimHackerMP wrote:My statement:

A direct, national, popular vote would have one very, very bad effect: it would pit the urban areas against the rural areas.

Danivon's reply:

But does this not already happen across many states?

Yes, it actually does. In many parts of Maryland we feel ignored by the Annapolis government, because there are less votes out our way.

I meant in the Presidential elections. The urban centres of several states, such as Maryland, dominate the population. So, in MD the party that had support in Baltimore (the metro area having almost half the State's population) and the DC suburbs would be very likely to carry the State. Similarly Chicago in Illinois, NYC in NY, Philly & Pittsburgh in PA etc etc.

Most of the less populated states do get ignored. Only those that can swing an election get attention: in the 2012 election, the top states for spending (both in terms of total dollars and per capita) were the close races: Florida, Ohio, NC, Virginia, Colorado, Pennsylvania, NH, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota. Now, the smaller states in that list (NH, NV, IA) do get attention. But small states like Wyoming, Alaska, Kansas and Utah get very little.

Thing is, if every vote counted equally, then it would be down to getting more voters of whatever type to vote for you. If differential turnout by demographic factors applies, then it will be about sectors of the population rather than states. Which may mean that the "rural" vote has some sway as a bloc, which is more than the rural voters of Montana have now. Or those of Maryland.

Which I can see is your worry. On the other hand, this happens at the moment just masked by the State-by-State nature of the race - I see that the more urbanised states tend to vote one way, the less urbanised states another. And within those states the same pattern emerges. The issue is whose votes count, and it's not the urban or rural voters of most states, it's the voters of about 10 states who swing the election.

rickyp wrote: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

Doubt it.

Imagine the sort of ballot inspections we saw in Gore v. Bush nation-wide. Chaos ensues--and maybe armed rebellion.

Furthermore, without the electoral college, we'd see very little campaigning anywhere other than major media markets.

Doctor Fate wrote:Furthermore, without the electoral college, we'd see very little campaigning anywhere other than major media markets.

Currently you see very little campaigning anywhere other than the 10 swing states - or aimed at a national audience.

All the money for TV ads pretty much went there. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... -ads-2012/

And candidates campaign stops were mainly in those states, or in the Big states (CA,TX,NY, Mass), with a few scattered around - often to try and boost in difficult Congressional or Gubernatorial races as much as to gain support for themselves. https://flowingdata.com/2012/09/12/pres ... ps-mapped/

So I'm not sure what the real difference would be, other than to reduce the distortion that everyone has to concentrate on Florida and Ohio for 18 months...

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Furthermore, without the electoral college, we'd see very little campaigning anywhere other than major media markets.

Currently you see very little campaigning anywhere other than the 10 swing states - or aimed at a national audience.

All the money for TV ads pretty much went there. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/sp ... -ads-2012/

And candidates campaign stops were mainly in those states, or in the Big states (CA,TX,NY, Mass), with a few scattered around - often to try and boost in difficult Congressional or Gubernatorial races as much as to gain support for themselves. https://flowingdata.com/2012/09/12/pres ... ps-mapped/

So I'm not sure what the real difference would be, other than to reduce the distortion that everyone has to concentrate on Florida and Ohio for 18 months...

The swing states change over time. The major media markets . . . less so.

fate

Furthermore, without the electoral college, we'd see very little campaigning anywhere other than major media markets

This is actually pretty doubtful.
The most efficient way to buy broadcast media is nationally. The cost per thousand advertising impressions is lowest. (whether network television, network radio, or nationally available cable)
Currently there isn't that much of a presidential campaign's spending going nationally because there are only 10 states that are competitive and they think are worth investing in....

If every vote mattered equally, no matter what state it is in, then buying national media would be the norm. Your CNNs and Foxes and NBCs would be happy. Your local broadcaster or newspaper in Miami, not so happy.