The Electoral College system, as I posted earlier, has drifted far from the Founder’s original intent, which was to put more power in the State Legislatures (the State Legislatures, in the original Constitution, selected Senators directly, and the President directly, through the Electoral College).

A much bigger problem, however, is the so called “Two Party System”—a phrase that appears no where in the Constitution or any of the Founder’s documents. What has evolved is a two party system with two bland, equivocating major parties who rig the system for the cozy status quo. There is so little difference in the major candidates of the two wings of the War Party (Democratic and Republican version) that commentators, in exasperation, find themselves commenting on candidate A’s makeup, color of tie, hairstyle—and that great, undefined final decision-maker: does the candidate “look presidential”?

A possible solution to this is to give candidates who come in third, fourth, and fifth some degree of representation. For example, elections to the House of Representatives could be changed so that the top five vote getters all get seats, rather than just the “winner take all” system we now have. I’m not saying this is the be-all and end-all solution, but it’s a suggestion to get the ball rolling. There are a lot of people in this country (myself included) who just don’t give a rip about elections in which their views are not represented whatsoever.

Pollsters will tell you quite openly that we have a system in which thirty percent of the electorate will vote for the Republican, even if they nominate Hitler; thirty percent will vote for the Democrat, even if they nominate Stalin; and forty percent just don’t give a damn and don’t even pay attention until the last few days before election day. Who do they choose? Usually, the one with the better haircut or the one who “looks more presidential.”

Re: Blackspeare, December 31 at 7:04 pm

I know. I like the original intent better than the ‘beauty contest’. I also like the indirect method of election of members to the Senate. I would not wish a House of Lords, but it should be a body of thinkers, rather than politicians. Sort of like ‘Philosopher Senators’.

Though the President need not be a ‘Philosopher Leader’, he should be selected for qualifications rather than sex appeal.

Beyond that, I would have the Supreme Court function as a self rejuvenated body without ties to the political processes. There would be limits for age and capacity decided by the members and qualifications specified in the Constitution.

In summary, it is the political process involving the mob of the masses that subverts our ideals. The House or Representatives should be a people’s jury for laws rather than the originator of laws. A system to originate prospective legal code should allow bills to rise from the electorate in a process with filtration through the best legal minds and the full disclosure to the public in open debate by the people.

There are many ways to prevent the rise of a fascist,  communist, dictatorial, theocratic or other totalitarian governance. Personal rule should be prevented by limiting the power of the president to circumvent the constitution, laws, and even customs. The president should be an administrator rather than a leader. After all Americans need no leader. We are the Prince of Power embodied by our constitution. We can lead collectively through filters that prevent foolish notions and acts by individuals anointed by custom and precedence like monarchs.

John Hanks,

I like your idea the best. And oh yeah, the part about abolishing the Repuglican party as well.

Maybe we could designate them as a “Terrorist Organization”.

The Liars Court would be excellent too. That way, we get free advertisment from the ones who would stand on the street corners holding the signs. No need for all of these newspapers and TV ads. Just plaster the appropriate message on the corresponding liar, (Maybe with one of the cardboard things they wear like a pinafore) and have ‘em stand there on their various corners. (rotating shifts, because we don’t wanna get into any torture charges, or labor violations, but there are certainly enough of them to go around, and share the work load).

Yep, that sounds like a FINE idea. (I too, have a dream).

“....Ideally, the split of the ignorance comes right down the middle with the balance of power in the hands of the wise and the weathered. No need to complicate it by pass time doodling on scrap paper when we should be working….”

I’m inclined to agree with you here Mr. Goodman. I don’t know how we get back to that, without still leaving huge sections on the fringe, because we really ARE in a whole different world these days.

But, I’m all for the decision-making smoke filled rooms.

Happy New Year to All!

“Let us elect qualified thinkers and doers to do the electoral thing. Then we could trust in their judgment.”

Well, that’s the way it used to be——the electoral college (though it wasn’t called that) elected the president and vice-president.  The originators of the constitution didn’t want the general public to elect the president cause they knew they would not have the overall knowledge to do so and amazingly they were correct and that was over 200 years ago!  Somewhere along the time-line the popular vote came into vogue and now we have a never ending beauty contest!

“if s/he does not win, ends up being a “spoiler” for one party or the other.”

That’s only true if the third party candidate siphons enough votes in swing states resulting in one of the major candidate receiving a majority of the electoral college.  What is needed is a strong third party candidate that can actually win states and throw the election to the House which would then elect one of the major candidates.  Things may or may not change.  However, it will take a few elections cycles for a third party to have a real chance at winning.

“but worse a third party is easy to corrupt.”

Couldn’t be more corrupt than the parties we have now.  However, I do agree that the constitutional right to petition members of Congress has gotten a bit out of hand as originally intentioned!

I disagree with the idea of a popularly elected president. That is exactly what got us into this pickle in the first place. It is how minimally qualified people become president.

Better the smoke filled room of politicians. They did no worse and gave us Lincoln, Wilson, and Roosevelt. Even Kennedy, Eisenhower and Truman came through that process. But, why don’t we just bring a truly electoral college into play to do the nominating and electing. Let us elect qualified thinkers and doers to do the electoral thing. Then we could trust in their judgment. The general public should have the ability to recall a president no matter how he/she/it is elected. The general public should have the power to vote recall every two years of a term of eight years without expensive campaigns run by candidates. The president would stand or fall on his own record, and in case of recall the electors could hire a new one.

Just a little thinking would go a long way in the selection. Leaders are neither selected nor born. They rise to the challenge. There are better ways to select leaders than leaving it to the mob of voters where the ignorance is multiplied by the number of uninformed voters at the polls. Ideally, the split of the ignorance comes right down the middle with the balance of power in the hands of the wise and the weathered. No need to complicate it by pass time doodling on scrap paper when we should be working.

Blackspeare:

You may get your wish.  Michael Bloomberg is now seriously considering an independent run.  Which brings up the question: do we really want to elect a billionaire who would literally be “buying” the presidency (given that he could spend $1 billion of his own money)?

More thought needs to be given to this.

Besides, ANY third party candidate (even one as potentially strong as Bloomberg), if s/he does not win, ends up being a “spoiler” for one party or the other.  This is why Nader, as principled as he may be, is largely (though admittedly not solely) responsible for the election of George Bush.

Peace.

What is needed is a viable third party in the US.  Not odd-balls like Ross Perot or one-issue antagonists like Ralph Nader, but rather someone who can appeal across the spectrum.  Of course a viable third party candidate would initially throw the elections into the House of Representatives, but it would send a huge resounding message that politics must change.

dihey, 123226

•  African-American residents of Iowa are at least ten times more likely to be arrested than so-called “Caucasians” (report from Chris Matthews)…..
• 
I live in Houston, TX. When I watch the TV reports on the Iowa election I am dumbfounded because my people-environment is light-years removed from that of Iowa. The only true African American I’ve seen in Iowa was Magic Johnson and he is not even a resident of that state.

dihey,

I know this is serious, but I did have to chuckle. Yes, it’s a charade. But, just out of curiosity, I honestly didn’t know there were ANY African-Americans in Iowa, and you said the only one you’ve ever seen there is Magic Johnson, who of course is not even a resident of the state. So, how did Chris Matthews come up with the 10 times more likely to be arrested data? (not that I doubt it for an instant, since that’s pretty much the way it is everywhere). Still, it’s pretty curious, eh? Like if there are only 10 African Americans, then I guess they just get arrested every day.

Now I was once in Iowa. Yep, a double data woman of color. And, I didn’t see any other African Americans, or Indians of color either. Matter of fact, I did’t see anything but as you said, ‘so called Caucasian” people. (I was there by accident)

Same thing happened in Grand Junction, Colorado. (another accident). I didn’t expect to see any African American’s there, but I at least expected to sight an Indian or two, (recognizable as such). Nope. Nada.

Now, same thing with the New Hampshire deal. Are there any African-Americans there? (I don’t think I’ve ever been there, even by accident). I’m sure they had Indians there at some point. (actually, I KNOW they did). But, nowadays, if they are the traditional looking Indians with color, they are mistaken for ‘illegal immigrants’ and so they run ‘em out of dodge. (they figured they got rid of us long ago) No chance of voting there.

Now, I DID once meet an African-American woman who was actually a RESIDENT of, (you’re probably not gonna believe this)…WYOMING!! I spoke with her at length, because I was actually in awe. I couldn’t imagine actually choosing to live there, as an African-American. (far different from my ‘accidents’ of being stuck in these places on rare occasions, and never for that long). She said she really didn’t mind it. Imagine that.

Anyway, I did say all of that to say that it is a charade, as is the EC, as it has been explained so clearly by Paolo, because African-American’s were clearly not in THAT formula either. Nope. The Constitution said we were only worth 3/5th of a person, and that was only for the purposes of representation, surely not for voting.

Quoting here:

The Political Significance of Slave Representation, 1787-1821

By Albert F. Simpson

“In the years which preceded the Federal Constitutional Convention of 1787, The Negro Slave in America was of importance primarily in the field of economics.  But when the Convention decided that three-fifths of blacks held in bondage should be counted in the apportionment of representation to the lower house of Congress, the slave immediately became a significant element in the political affairs of the nation.  Indeed, it is doubtful whether any single factor was of greater significance in the field of politics, from 1787 through 1821, than was the three-fifths ratio with its strong influence in the formative stages of the struggle between the North and South for control of the several branches of Federal government.”

http://www.jstor.org/view/00224642/di982201/98p07135/0

(It’s a lengthy article, but very interesting for those of you who might be)

So, I guess things have really sort of changed up, huh? Then again, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

So much for that EC, and Iowa, and New Hampshire, and all of that stuff, in 2008.

I live in Houston, Texas. I already know that my vote in the next presidential election will be counted but will not count!

Chris, the entire constitution can be totally and legally changed without a single so-called “amendment”. The process is legal and known as “Constitutional Convention”. A CC can write a new constitution.

I support the Electoral College, as it was originally conceived by the Founders. Here is my explanation.

The Founders wanted the Republic to be a Confederation of Independent States, in which the Federal government would be limited to only a few carefully enumerated powers (see the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8). As such, their original concept, which has been eroded over the past 200 years, was to put great power in the State Legislatures.

Originally, for example, the State Legislatures chose Senators (since changed by amendment).

In like manner, the original vision of the Founders was to have the State Legislatures also choose the President. They were to select a group of citizens to travel to Washington and select the President. There is no mention in the Constitution that these electors were beholden to support any particular candidate; since the Founders were against “factions” (that is, political parties), we can presume the electors were to simply go to Washington, have a good debate, and vote their conscience. Electors, BTW, were not allowed to be Federal government employees.

An interesting sidelight is that the Founders probably wanted the President and Vice President to be, not allies, but rivals. Originally, the candidate with the most electoral votes became President, while the candidate with the second most votes became Vice President, where he could wield check and balance power against a dictatorial President in his role as President of the Senate. Unfortunately, this good idea was also changed by amendment. Imagine that this amendment was never passed, and Al Gore was elected Vice President in 2000. Would we have gone to war in Iraq if Al Gore were, as Vice President, an important counter-balance to Bush, as leader of the Senate?

The Founders devised the Electoral College as a way of putting more power at the State level. Unfortunately, that vision never panned out, and has been actively undercut by amendment. Today, the State Legislatures are viewed by Washington as little more than third-class Federal operatives, beholden to the Central State to do their bidding.

To avoid going further down the road to American Empire, we need to take power OUT of Washington and return much more power to the State and local level.

You’ve definitely got a point here dihey. If that original system were still in place, we WOULD still have slavery, and women wouldn’t be able to vote. (not to mention ALL people of color)

Reminds me of an essay I recently did on how the Fugitive Slave Act actually represented a “Constitutional Crisis”.

Yep, old “wisdom’ DOES get stale. Becomes downright dangerous when it’s cherry picked for recycling.

Whatever the system, it’s important to have all votes counted, every election, every time.  It probably is time to at least look at a change in the system we now have…...

The electoral college was instituted by our so-called “Founding Fathers” (except Ben Franklin who was against) because they distrusted the “rabble”. For the same reason they demanded “property qualifications” for the right to vote. If our ancestors had left in place all of the provisions of the FF, there would still be slavery and women would not be allowed to vote. Old “wisdom” always gets stale.

To be right is located in infinity from acting right. Obama has been one of the paymasters of the war in Iraq, a simple fact ignored by his supporters.

The microscopic state of Iowa has never during its history elected a woman to statewide let alone federal office (report from Keith Olberman).
African-American residents of Iowa are at least ten times more likely to be arrested than so-called “Caucasians” (report from Chris Matthews).
I live in Houston, TX. When I watch the TV reports on the Iowa election I am dumbfounded because my people-environment is light-years removed from that of Iowa. The only true African American I’ve seen in Iowa was Magic Johnson and he is not even a resident of that state.
When will the parties end this charade?

Dear Lefty,

That is a shallow response to a critical point. If you are only interested in having “certain rights” protected then good for you. Some of us are interested in more than that. The electoral college is one factor among numerous (although many are being quickly eroded) that helps to protect minorities, as many have pointed out in their comments on this story. A one man-one vote system allows the many to oppress the few, plain and simple. You can claim this is a false statement all you like, but until you disprove it using reason your arguments are vacuous. The closer we get to a purely democratic system, the more minorities will suffer at the hands of the majority. Making this step in regard to the presidential election will lead to similar steps elsewhere and this would be counterproductive for the cause of liberty.

Theres a fly in your ointment David. The problem is that if you mathematically analyze the election changing ability of a vote in a state that adopts this policy, it is seriously reduced. Thats assume our state has 20 electoral votes, and is evenly split. If they adopt your rule, then the votes in your state only matter if they change the national total, -and even then only if the national vote went in the opposite direction to your states count. The candidates would rightly consider that courting those votes wasn’t worth much. Only if you can get a lot of states to simultaneously signup would your proposed endrun work.

Which country that does not have an electoral college is in anarchy.You have misnomered what a representative democracy is.It is not the electoral college that makes us a representative democracy it is when we elect representatives to vote for us on issues.The choice is between one man one vote which most of civilized nations beleive in or one man one goat in certain areas equals one man one vote in others.

I agree with a previous commenter who said that changing the constitution without ammending negates the document.Abolishing the electoral college is long overdue and should be taken head on.The aqbsurdity of having states with more goats than people determine the outcome of Presidential elections is on its face absurd.I know that getting the electoral college abolished is a longshot and your plan Mr Sirotta has more chance of success but call me old fashioned I am always leary of end runs around the Constitution it always seems that when people attempt to do that it causes more negative consequences than positive as I believe recent history shows.

The electoral college voting system is out dated. It may have been useful when the country was just starting and not as populated as today. Today one vote should equal one vote in all states, just because a person may get the majority of votes in a state should not be handed all the EC votes for that state as done with the EC now. If all the votes in a state were divided up by candidate voted for then system would be more level as to who would win. Out of about 300 million people in America if 25% vote, roughly 75 million votes would be cast for president. The candidate with the most votes should become president that is the true majority, unless of course they cheat again and corrupt the voting outcome.

Great Idea. there’s only 2 obstacles in the way. The Democrat Party & The Republican Party.

Can you see why nothing will ever be done about the way we elect a President David? Everyone has their own little “pet” idea and instantly torpedoes anything else. Thus what we have, no matter how flawed is what we will be stuck with. Because if people can’t have what they want they aren’t about to approve anyone else’s plan either.

I would caution David for what he might wish in regards to effectively doing away with the Electoral College. Do we really wish to allow a candidate to win the highest office of the land by carrying 5 or 6 states? States like Oregon, Nevada, and David’s own Montana would never see a candidate other than on a television screen. How could we allow Florida, New York, California, Ohio and a couple of other states rule the rest of our country?
No David, feel good legislation seldom works..give credit to the founders for their wisdom. I doubt such wisdom exists today in our elected.