Generation Q

[queequeger]

The connection, Zen, is that as a republic we elect people to vote for us rather than just voting directly. While I agree with 95% of that quote, btw, it seems a little biased in language. I do think a direct democracy with separation of powers (something that was somewhat under-discussed in the Federalist papers) would have a fair chance of succeeding, especially if states retained their rights.

The whole point is that if we do away with the electoral college, we will create a direct democracy which has little buffer against reactionary actions. I don't really see how it DOES this in presidential elections, though.

It makes more sense that congressmen, being elected by their states and not directly by the entire country, would act as a fine buffer against despotism of sorts. The president, however, should be directly elected. The whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader. It would eliminate the almost unavoidable two party system if we did directly elect, though, because now all we have are people voting for the lesser of two evils.

[ZenGum]

Thanks for your answers guys. Alas, I still can't see a reason, or at least much reason, to keep the colleges system.

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Zen, as a general rule, we Americans consider that the workings of political power should not be either too swift nor for that matter slickly efficient. The ultimate example of a swift and highly efficient working of power would be an autocracy -- a real "L'etat, c'est moi," the purest sort of dictatorship, one where only the dictator has rights, and all his subjects are appendages of himself. A fine system... for ants.

The excitement about the Electoral College this and the Electoral College that rather obscures one subtle but necessary point: the Presidency and with it the Vice Presidency are the only such elected offices in the entire Federal system. Everyone else is directly elected. This is inserted as a check and balance, however toothless it may or may not be.

Re your Paragraph One: Yes, the most extreme example of efficient government is one neither of us wants. But it is fallacious to infer that any movement at all in that direction is therefore bad. Run the argument the other way: the most extreme example of inefficient government is total chaotic anarchy (or at least mob rule), this is bad, so we must make government more efficient. Neither argument is good. What we need is to decide if we would be better off by with a governmental system a little more efficient, or a little less.

Paragraph Two: If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that because congress is elected directly, you need the president to be elected indirectly as a balance. As well as toothless, this seems unnecessary, and possibly counterproductive.
Toothless because (if my facts are wrong, do let me know) the colleges meet once every four years, can't dismiss a president once he (or she) is in office, and are expected to vote for the candidate they always said they would (although I've heard they don't absolutely have to ... is this true?).
Unnecessary because there are plenty of other restraints on the president: congress with its over-ride and impeachment powers, the supreme court, the consciences of 300,000,000 citizens, and UG's personal arsenal.
Counter-productive because it allows an extra opportunity for would-be tyrants to meddle with the system.
Maybe your point does carry some weight, but it seems very little to me, and thoroughly outweighed by considerations against it.

Originally Posted by queequeger

The connection, Zen, is that as a republic we elect people to vote for us rather than just voting directly. While I agree with 95% of that quote, btw, it seems a little biased in language. I do think a direct democracy with separation of powers (something that was somewhat under-discussed in the Federalist papers) would have a fair chance of succeeding, especially if states retained their rights.

The whole point is that if we do away with the electoral college, we will create a direct democracy which has little buffer against reactionary actions. I don't really see how it DOES this in presidential elections, though.

It makes more sense that congressmen, being elected by their states and not directly by the entire country, would act as a fine buffer against despotism of sorts. The president, however, should be directly elected. The whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader. It would eliminate the almost unavoidable two party system if we did directly elect, though, because now all we have are people voting for the lesser of two evils.

It isn't really clear, but it sounds like you'd rather use the popular vote.
Your point that "(t)he whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader" has me baffled. What better way could a country give a mandate to someone than by directly electing them?

In general, I simply do not buy the idea that a direct democracy is any more likely to slide into autocracy than the representative system. In fact, the electoral colleges provide an extra opportunity for would be tyrants to meddle with the system.
Even if, as UG suggests, it is some kind of balance to the direct system used for everything else, I think this benefit is greatly outweighed by the problems of the battleground states phenomenon and the perpetuation of the two party system.

Well, it's your country and you guys can run it how you like. I think we are getting close to DEAD HORSE time on this discussion, unless you have something scintillating to add. Thanks for your thoughtful replies, though.

[queequeger]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

... and are expected to vote for the candidate they always said they would (although I've heard they don't absolutely have to ... is this true?).

Many states have passed laws that force them to vote for the winner of the state, and most are selected by the winning party, because there have been folks who didn't vote for their candidate (though it's never changed anything).

Originally Posted by ZenGum

It isn't really clear, but it sounds like you'd rather use the popular vote.

Your point that "(t)he whole reason he's NOT is so that the country can give a 'mandate' to their leader" has me baffled. What better way could a country give a mandate to someone than by directly electing them?

I do think direct election makes more sense. The mandate in this sense means 51% or more. Some of the penmen of the constitution thought that if we elected somebody with, say, 35% of the popular vote (i.e. we had more than one candidate), that it would mean the country didn't really want him in office. All I see happening is people voting for the person they MOST agree with rather than someone they fully agree with. Even Washington (8 foot 20, fucking killing for fun) foresaw this creating a two party system, which it has. I'm all for popularly elected federal executives.