Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College?

Goobieman said:

No.

Remember that all elections are state elections. Your vote for President is not a vote for President, it is a vote for the allocation of your state's electors. In that, the relevant standard of value is among the other voters in your state, not those in other states, as you are not voting for their electors.

In that, everyone's votes are equal.

Now... your state may have more sway in the EC than another, but that's an issue regarding inequity between the states, not the people. To resolve that issue, given that all states are equal, I would reduce all states to one vote in the EC.

Click to expand...

I'm actually thinking about the EC election.

My vote has no sway with regards to picking my states EC delegates because my state will probably never end up having a majority vote in line with mine.

Someone in Ohio's vote, regardless of which way it goes, will have intrinsic value because it's a swing state.


Personally, I'd be adamantly opposed to a one EC vote per state rule because I in no way feel that states are equal. Thus, they should not be represented equally in such matters, especially picking the Leader of the nation.

The value of a state is predicated on it's population, because the intrinsic value of a nation is within the people of that nation.

Tucker Case said:

I'm actually thinking about the EC election.
My vote has no sway with regards to picking my states EC delegates because my state will probably never end up having a majority vote in line with mine.

Click to expand...

That doesnt mean your vote isnt equal to everyone elses -- it just means your candidate isn't popular in your state.

Someone in Ohio's vote, regardless of which way it goes, will have intrinsic value because it's a swing state.

Click to expand...

Again -- this is an equality of state issue, not an equality of voter issue.
Give each state one EC vote and it solves the problem.

Personally, I'd be adamantly opposed to a one EC vote per state rule because I in no way feel that states are equal.

Click to expand...

Sure they are. Each state is, under the Constitution, equal to all others. Each state has the same rights, restrictions and representation as all others. See also, generally, Article IV.

The value of a state is predicated on it's population, because the intrinsic value of a nation is within the people of that nation.

Click to expand...

The states are made up of their people, but under the Constitution, they are also their own seperate entity from the people. As such, each state is equal to every other state, just as each person is equal to every other person.

Goobieman said:

That doesnt mean your vote isnt equal to everyone elses -- it just means your candidate isn't popular in your state.

Click to expand...

Actually it does mean my vote has less value. It becomes totally inconsequential BECAUSE my candidate is not as popular in my state.

Again -- this is an equality of state issue, not an equality of voter issue.
Give each state one EC vote and it solves the problem.

Click to expand...

But it doesn't. It creates a situation where the minority of the people dictate to the majority. It breeds in equality. The individual in Wyoming will have more intrinsic value than the individual in New York simply because Wyoming has no people in it.

Sure they are. Each state is, under the Constitution, equal to all others. Each state has the same rights, restrictions and representation as all others. See also, generally, Article IV.

Click to expand...

Sure, the States have the same rights and restrictions, but they most definitely don't have equal representation in the government. See Article I Section I.

Combine article I Section II with Article II Section I:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Click to expand...

You will see that the STATE is entitle to the representatives. This means that more populous states have more intrinsic value than less populated states. The constitution most definitely argues that not all states are equal, and that is why not all states receive equal representation overall.

The constitution clearly implies that the respective State Legislatures are all equal, and that is why they all receive two senators as their representatives, but since each state is more than just it's legislature, it is also its people, and thus, they recognized that more populated states deserve greater overall representation than less populated ones.

That's why they used the term "To which state may be entitled" when discussing a combination of Senators and Representatives. They realized that each state in it's entirety is not equal.

The states are made up of their people, but under the Constitution, they are also their own seperate entity from the people. As such, each state is equal to every other state, just as each person is equal to every other person.

Click to expand...

The State Legislatures are their own separate entity, but clearly the wording of the constitution, specifically the sections I cited above, show that the People are also an intrinsic quality of each State. The state itself is a combination of it's legislature and it's people.

That's why the Senators were originally decided upon by the individual State's Legislature because it was to be their federal representative. Not the people's. The State senator was supposed to look after the Legislature's interests, while the State's representatives were supposed to look after their constituents interests.

When the Constitution refers to the States, it means the legal entities of the States, i.e., their chartered governments. There's no nebulous further concept of "the people of the state" in there.

Harshaw said:

When the Constitution refers to the States, it means the legal entities of the States, i.e., their chartered governments. There's no nebulous further concept of "the people of the state" in there.

Click to expand...

Then why do they say that the States are entitled to a certain number of representatives in congress instead of The State's People are entitled to a certain number of representatives in congress?


I think it's quite clear that State referes to the combination of Legislature + People of a State. It's quite evidence in the following statement: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...."

If the State always meat governing body, there would be no need to add "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" since that would be the only way a State, in the sense of the governing body, could choose.

It's very clear that State = legislature + people. That's why the total number of congressional delegates that each state is entitled to is Senators + Representatives.

Tucker Case said:

Then why do they say that the States are entitled to a certain number of representatives in congress instead of The State's People are entitled to a certain number of representatives in congress?

Click to expand...

It doesn't. It says "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. "

It's referring to the people choosing, not the states.

Where it enumerates the specific numbers for each state is a clear temporary measure until a proper census could be conducted.

I think it's quite clear that State referes to the combination of Legislature + People of a State. It's quite evidence in the following statement: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...."

If the State always meat governing body, there would be no need to add "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" since that would be the only way a State, in the sense of the governing body, could choose.

Click to expand...

As opposed to the Governor, or the Courts, or some other method. In fact, specifying the Legislature PREVENTS things like popular referenda.

It's very clear that State = legislature + people.

Click to expand...

No. It's not. The opposite is true.

That's why the total number of congressional delegates that each state is entitled to is Senators + Representatives.

Click to expand...

How does this show anything of the kind? There are two Senators and however many Representatives the population warrants. How could it come out to anything else?

Tucker Case said:

Actually it does mean my vote has less value. It becomes totally inconsequential BECAUSE my candidate is not as popular in my state.

Click to expand...

Your candidate being unpopular doesnt make your right to vote unequal, it means you voted for someone that lost,

But it doesn't. It creates a situation where the minority of the people dictate to the majority.

Click to expand...

2 false premises here:
-The People are not dictating as the people do not elect the President.
-The are numerous instances where the minority can and does legitimate dictate to the majority.

It breeds in equality. The individual in Wyoming will have more intrinsic value than the individual in New York simply because Wyoming has no people in it.

Click to expand...

Again, this is a false standard. The people in Wyoming and New York are not voting for the same thing, and so you cannot compare the equity of their votes in that context.

Sure, the States have the same rights and restrictions, but they most definitely don't have equal representation in the government. See Article I Section I.

Click to expand...

They do. Each have 2 senators.

Combine article I Section II with Article II Section I:

Click to expand...

Yes. This is why I suggested a one-vote EC, to restore equality of the states.

The House does not represent the States. It represents the People. The American people as a whole, not the people of the States.

Harshaw said:

It doesn't. It says "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. "

Click to expand...

Actually, I was refering to how EC votes are delegated. See Article II Section 1:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

See the bolded section? that's where my quote comes from.

It's referring to the people choosing, not the states.

Where it enumerates the specific numbers for each state is a clear temporary measure until a proper census could be conducted.

Click to expand...

And the final number of representatives is still determined by the population of each state and granted to the state based on the calculations. It is not dictated by the national population and then separated by a number of people.

It also says "The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative".

As opposed to the Governor, or the Courts, or some other method. In fact, specifying the Legislature PREVENTS things like popular referenda.

Click to expand...

The governors and the courts of each state have no representation. It is only the State Legislature and the peopel of each state that has representation.

No. It's not. The opposite is true.

Click to expand...

The above makes no sense whatsoever.

2 + 2 = 4

What is the opposite of this? Is it 4 = 2 + 2? Is it 2 - 2 = 4? Is it 2 + 2 =\= 4?

How does this show anything of the kind? There are two Senators and however many Representatives the population warrants. How could it come out to anything else?

Click to expand...

Because that is how EC votes are determined. Meaning that form the very outset, our founding fathers decided that each state is NOT equal and that each state's value is determined by it's population. More population = more value.

It also shows that the State is ENTITLED to senators AND representatives. Since the Senators, as per the constitution, represent the legislature, and the Representatives, as per the constitution, represent the people, that the VALUE of each State = Legislature + People.

If they had actually felt each state was equal, there would be no house of representatives and they would have only given one or two EC votes to each state.

they didn't believe every state was equal, because they made SURE to give more weight to the more populated states.

OK. You're talking about the EC; fine, my mistake.

But it doesn't follow that the EC delegation being equal to the number of Representatives and Senators means the Constitution regards "the States" as some kind of hybrid of its legislature AND its people. It was simply one of the many compromises meant to balance the interests of BOTH the People AND the States.

If a Legislature wishes, it need not consult its people on the matter at ALL, and that's absolute.

Harshaw said:

The House does not represent the States. It represents the People. The American people as a whole, not the people of the States.

Click to expand...

The House represents the people in each state and therefore they represent that State.

Look to the tie-breakers for the office of President when there is no candidate with a Majority. All of the representatives from a STATE will have one vote. It is not a case where every representative will have one vote, it is where representation form each STATE has one vote.


Again, see Article II Section 1:

and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representatives from each State having one Vote

Click to expand...

Representatives ALSO represent their respective state. That is clear in the wording.

Harshaw said:

The House does not represent the States. It represents the People. The American people as a whole, not the people of the States.

Click to expand...

Yeah, well, you see....the Representatives sent to DC from California are SUPPOSED TO (but don't) represent the interests of Californians. Ditto that for the two clod senatorettes we're saddled with.

They don't, because almost all of them are interested in playing national politics and advancing their parties. Since the California contingent is mostly Dumbocrats, that means the California contingent sees no problem with the people of California paying more in federal taxes than the state recieves back in federal spending.

In theory, however, the congressmen are supposed to represent their district, and they're not supposed to be overly concerned with making some other congressman's constituents joyful.

The House is supposed to be a contentious place in which all sides are working to promote their constituents' interests. It's morphed into a place where they promote their own interests.

Harshaw said:

OK. You're talking about the EC; fine, my mistake.

But it doesn't follow that the EC delegation being equal to the number of Representatives and Senators means the Constitution regards "the States" as some kind of hybrid of its legislature AND its people. It was simply one of the many compromises meant to balance the interests of BOTH the People AND the States.

If a Legislature wishes, it need not consult its people on the matter at ALL, and that's absolute.

Click to expand...

Yes. This alone negates any argument that the people carry any weight in the election of the President.

Tucker Case said:

The House represents the people in each state and therefore they represent that State.

Click to expand...

No... the people and the states are seperate legal/political entities/concepts.
Thus, you cannot reach the above conclusion.

They don't. That is the ONLY instance, and an unlikely one, where the Representatives of the State act as an organ of the State, and note that what it does is make each State equal -- so it actually makes the State interest supreme OVER the People.

Note, too, that the State exercises NO authority over the Representatives FROM that state. None.

(Nor the Senators, anymore, but that's a different issue.)

Harshaw said:

OK. You're talking about the EC; fine, my mistake.

But it doesn't follow that the EC delegation being equal to the number of Representatives and Senators means the Constitution regards "the States" as some kind of hybrid of its legislature AND its people. It was simply one of the many compromises meant to balance the interests of BOTH the People AND the States.

Click to expand...

I am mostly making this argument against the idea of one EC vote per state for precisely those reasons. As the EC numbers are meant to balancing the the State (meaning the state legislature/government) and it's people.

Not every State is represented equally, as per the constitution, and that is because there is no primacy of state govenremnt/legislature over the people.

The people can vote directly for their legislature, and if it does not execute their will, they will be voted out. (theoretically. It doesn't seem to work as well in practice)

If a Legislature wishes, it need not consult its people on the matter at ALL, and that's absolute.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. But then the legislature opens itself up to being removed from office. They are supposed to execute the will of the people, so taking a vote is the best way to determine that, but not necessarily the only way to.

My main point is that all states are not viewed equally, at least with respects to choosing the president. The actual number of people in each state dictate the total value of each State legislatively.

Not all states are equal. But all state legislatures are viewed as equal.

Tucker Case said:

Absolutely. But then the legislature opens itself up to being removed from office. They are supposed to execute the will of the people, so taking a vote is the best way to determine that, but not necessarily the only way to.

Click to expand...

That's a practical issue, not a Constitutional one. The fact that it took decades for the popular vote to be the method of determining Electors negates your idea that the Constitution inherently views the States as hybrids, because the People had little to no say in selecting Electors.

Not all states are equal. But all state legislatures are viewed as equal.

Click to expand...

And each of them has two votes in the Electoral College.

Tucker Case said:

I am mostly making this argument against the idea of one EC vote per state for precisely those reasons. As the EC numbers are meant to balancing the the State (meaning the state legislature/government) and it's people.

Click to expand...

If the people mattered here, then they's be given a say in the election of the electors. The current EC allocation isnt so much about the people of the states or their will, but the relative power (economic, political, etc) of the states among themseves.

Currently, we hold that all people are equal regardless of their power. There's no reason to have a seperate holding for the states. That is, if one person = one vote is sound, then one state = one vote is as well.

Not every State is represented equally, as per the constitution,

Click to expand...

Only in the EC, and not becaise of any deference to the will of their people. See above.

Goobieman said:

No... the people and the states are seperate legal/political entities/concepts.
Thus, you cannot reach the above conclusion.

Click to expand...

Since, according to article II section I, the votes made in the house to determine the president will be made by the house according to state, with the representation of the state having one vote between them, my conclusion is the only one that can be valid.

If the representatives of a state, as a whole, can represent that state as a whole, they must each represent some fraction of their state. Since that fraction is determined by their respective state's population, The people of each state must therefore be considered a part of that State

That's the only logical conclusion one can reach given the evidence presented in the constitution.

It is the idea that each state is equal is what cannot be reached with the evidence within constitution.

:roll:

No, it's not. It's the conclusion you choose to reach, but that doesn't make it the only logical conclusion, especially when you're the only person I'm aware of who's ever made the argument (that the Constitution views "the States" as hybrids).

Tucker Case said:

Since, according to article II section I, the votes made in the house to determine the president will be made by the house according to state, with the representation of the state having one vote between them, my conclusion is the only one that can be valid.

Click to expand...

Seems to me that a constitutionally-mandeated one state = one vote situation supports MY position, not yours. It doesnt matter how many people CA has, the delegation from CA has exactly the same power as the delegation from WY.

It is the idea that each state is equal is cannot be reached with the evidence within constitution.

Click to expand...

The -only- place that it is not is in the electoral college, which as previously noted, has nothing to do with the idea that the people of that state are somehow represented. The NUMBER of people might be used as a simplified quantifier, but the will of those people is irrelevant, and the electors are not voting on their behalf.

Goobieman said:

If the people mattered here, then they's be given a say in the election of the electors. The current EC allocation isnt so much about the people of the states or their will, but the relative power (economic, political, etc) of the states among themseves.

Click to expand...

Correction, the people DO matter, and that's why states with more people have more votes.

The will of the people is another matter entirely. I'm focussing on the concept that all states are equal. Clearly that isn't the case, otherwise they would all have the same number of votes in the EC.

They do not the same number of votes.

Let's ask the most important question:

If all state's are equal, why don't the states all have the same number of votes in the Electoral College?

Occam's Razor indicates that the simplest explanation is usually correct. The simplest explanation is: The States are not equal in value.

Currently, we hold that all people are equal regardless of their power. There's no reason to have a seperate holding for the states. That is, if one person = one vote is sound, then one state = one vote is as well.

Click to expand...

That's a false analogy, and therefore the logic is unsound. The value of a state is determined by it's total number of people. Value is not intrinsic to the state, but is derived from the value of the people within the state. All of the people within a state are added together to determine the final value of that state.

That's why the EC votes are distributed as they are. This isn't about the will of the people, it's about the value of the state.

The people are equal, the states are not. Thus, to implyu that because people are equal, then states are equal is illogical because the state's value is determined by it's total number of people.

Only in the EC, and not becaise of any deference to the will of their people. See above.

Click to expand...

It's not about the will of the people. It's about the existence of those people.

Goobieman said:

Seems to me that a constitutionally-mandeated one state = one vote situation supports MY position, not yours. It doesnt matter how many people CA has, the delegation from CA has exactly the same power as the delegation from WY.

Click to expand...

In a tie-breaker. In all other aspects, California has more value. If the representatives from California ALWAYS had to vote as one entity, then it would be different, but they only do this in this rare circumstance.

The -only- place that it is not is in the electoral college, which as previously noted, has nothing to do with the idea that the people of that state are somehow represented. The NUMBER of people might be used as a simplified quantifier, but the will of those people is irrelevant, and the electors are not voting on their behalf.

Click to expand...

It means that proportionally, they are represented. It is not about their WILL being represented, it's about THEM being represented.

Obviously, the founding fathers did not feel all states were equal in this respect.

They are only equal if there is need for a tie-breaker vote.

Tucker Case said:

Correction, the people DO matter, and that's why states with more people have more votes.

Click to expand...

As noted before, this inequality, based on more power = more votes, is invalid.

I'm focussing on the concept that all states are equal. Clearly that isn't the case, otherwise they would all have the same number of votes in the EC.
They do not the same number of votes.
If all state's are equal, why don't the states all have the same number of votes in the Electoral College?

Click to expand...

This has been addressed.
And remember, the ONLY place the states are inequal is the electoral college. You're trying to use the exception to prove the rule.

That's a false analogy, and therefore the logic is unsound. The value of a state is determined by it's total number of people.

Click to expand...

Yes. An invalid determiner. See below.

Value is not intrinsic to the state.

Click to expand...

It is, just as the value of the individual is intrinsic to the individual.
You seem to keep forgetting that the states are entities unto themselves, seperate from their people. One entity - state or person - having more power than another based on the number of anything undermines the entire concept behind our form of government.

but is derived from the value of the people within the state. All of the people within a state are added together to determine the final value of that state.

Click to expand...

This is no different than arguing that the value of a person is derived from the money/power he has. Unsupportable.

That's why the EC votes are distributed as they are. This isn't about the will of the people, it's about the value of the state.

Click to expand...

Yes. And that's why the one person/state = one vote concept must pervail.

The people are equal, the states are not. Thus, to imply that because people are equal, then states are equal is illogical because the state's value is determined by it's total number of people

Click to expand...

.
Which, as noted, is an invalid determiner, found only in the ecxeption to an otherwise consistent rule. To remain consistent with the remainder of the Constitution, the EC must be one state/vote.

Harshaw said:

:roll:

No, it's not. It's the conclusion you choose to reach, but that doesn't make it the only logical conclusion, especially when you're the only person I'm aware of who's ever made the argument (that the Constitution views "the States" as hybrids).

Click to expand...

Alexander Hamilton Pretty much argues along the same lines in FEDERALIST No. 68:

"All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office. "

I added the bold myself.

The reason for the EC is not to give the power to the States, it's to ensure that those who do vote for president "will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations" in oder to make sure that "the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."

Making it one state one vote does not do this. The reason the states have unequal votes is that the EC was meant to be "selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass".


Edited to add: Link to Federalist #68: Federalist Papers: FEDERALIST No. 68