Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Voting For Electors 23

Journal by pudge

My idea: vote for electors a year or two before the Presidential election.

You vote for actual electors, not who those electors are pledged to. You vote for people you respect, who are knowledgeable, before you even know who the candidates are (except, perhaps, for the case of a first-term President).

This would have one big obvious problem: if you vote for an elector because you like/dislike the incumbent, your feelings could change by the time the Presidential election comes around. But this should only make us more willing to vote for electors regardless of their party affiliation, picking people who can make good choices for the people they represent.

And of course, it would only further entrench the electoral college, which some people don't like anyway. But I don't care: that's not the topic here. If you don't like the whole idea of the electoral college, that's a separate issue.

It would produce tremendous benefits. To a greater degree, candidates would be campaigning on a higher level, not needing to talk down to Americans, because their audience is the electors. The primaries and caucuses would not change much, except that they would not need to hold them all so early, because there's less need to get them over with to get the campaigning started.

And of course, it would help provide some of the benefits Hamilton discussed in Federalist 68. One of the main reasons they had the electoral college was to decrease the tumult and disorder caused by everyone voting for the one man to lead us. Clearly, this objective is not being fulfilled, and this plan would help fulfill it: we go back to voting for several instead of one, and we get it out of the way a long time prior, even before we know who the candidates are.

And because the campaigns would cost less and rely less on good press, that means the candidates would also be less beholden to special interests, whether corporate or Congressional, helping to fulfill others of Hamilton's most important desires.

Of course, this won't ever happen, because the people erroneously believe their voice is more likely to be heard the closer they get to direct elections. The truth is quite the opposite. The more direct voice we have in who the President is, the less actual voice we have, because there are too many factors more powerful than our voices: the press, money, the party machines, and our own fickle natures.

I am not against democracy, but I think the Framers were wise to keep Senators and Presidents out of the direct hands of the people, and put a buffer in place, and that buffer has already been all but destroyed. Whether or not you agree with that buffer, it is all but gone, and we should either re-establish it (and this is one plan to do so), or finish the job by moving to direct election (which will give us far more chaos and special interests and pain than we have now ...).

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Voting For Electors More

Voting For Electors

Comments Filter:
  • Hard to have a primary with the electors. Is it just a free-for-all one time election? This would provide a huge advantage to the incumbent.
  • Why not take advantage of the beauty of the federalist system and do it in Washington first? You do it up there, and if it doesn't suck, others will follow.

    Clause 4 of Article II would seem to prevent them from being elected early directly, but there also seems to be enough room in Clause 2 for a creative legislature to come up with something legal.

    • Re:Well (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      No, I think it would require an act of Congress. I can't see any reasonable way around it. Clause 2 is about the manner, but not the time. Congress could say "any time between 2006 and first Tuesday of November 2008," of course.

      But worse, it is one of those things that is much harder to do piecemeal -- like with term limits -- because of the perceived loss in relative power.
      • I'm going to respectfully disagree. I can accept if you know more about election law than me, but here is what I could forsee:

        One year before the election, on the fall election ballot, by special district are chosen a number of "EV's" equal to the number of EC votes that are allocated to that state. During the period, or on the day, of the normal POTUS election, these EV's select between the normal Electors as we know them today. Both goals are met within the current Constitutional system.

        As far as
  • I had a response, but it grew too big [slashdot.org].
    • I was of the understading that while the senators were removed from the whims of the people, the Presidential election was one of expediency. It was simply impossible with horse and buggy to coordinate such a large election. At least that is the story my school teachers pushed on me.

      They were wrong. Hamilton gave several reasons in Federalist 68 [constitution.org], and this was not among them. That may have been a reason for some people, but it was not important enough for him to mention in his defense of the system.

      His
      • They were wrong.

        As happy as I am to deride the incompetance of my K-12 teachers as a whole, I'm not convinced -- yet.

        Hamilton gave several reasons in Federalist 68, and this was not among them.

        Each of the Federalist papers were designed to counter the notion of the need for republic representation. They are essentially the second part of a dialogue, and answer to a question. Ommision of such details (especially when Hamilton would naturaly avoid giving fodder to those arguing with him) does not mean i
        • As happy as I am to deride the incompetance of my K-12 teachers as a whole, I'm not convinced -- yet.

          That's why I gave you the URL to read.

          Each of the Federalist papers were designed to counter the notion of the need for republic representation.

          No, it was designed to demonstrate it, not oppose it.

          They are essentially the second part of a dialogue, and answer to a question.

          Yes. In this case, the question was, what's the point of the electoral college?
  • (Pudge, though I hope you read all of this, if you find I ramble too much to take, skip to my last paragraph in reply to your italicized quote.)

    I'm not knowledgable about who can become an elector. Are state legislators eligible? My concern is that in California, Would I have a ballot with hundreds of people running, and the instructions would say "Pick 55"? Should I spend days learning about these potential electors? I think I'd be inclined to pick people registered to my party. I'd probably vote for
    • I'm not knowledgable about who can become an elector. Are state legislators eligible?

      I think that is up to the States.

      My concern is that in California, Would I have a ballot with hundreds of people running, and the instructions would say "Pick 55"? Should I spend days learning about these potential electors? I think I'd be inclined to pick people registered to my party. I'd probably vote for all the people/legislators who lived in/represented Berkeley, San Francisco, Santa Monica etc... Now if I'd voted
      • You can't. If I can have free speech, and you can have free speech, then if you and I get together and form Slashdotters for Truth, we can have free speech as a group, too. A corporation is just a group of people with like interests, at its core, who are exercising the principle that united, a group of people becomes more powerful.

        If Slashdotters for Truth (SFT) isn't a person, then its members can still donate to candidate's campaigns. SFT itself cannot, and cannot buy ads for its POV. It should be all
        • If Slashdotters for Truth (SFT) isn't a person, then its members can still donate to candidate's campaigns. SFT itself cannot, and cannot buy ads for its POV.

          What makes a campaign able to buy ads? They are not people either, they are campaigns. What makes a campaign special that they can buy ads for their point of view, but SFT cannot?

          And even if you do grant some arbitrary exemption for campaigns, so you're saying only rich people and campaigns can buy ads? That's not cool. Everyone should be able t
          • And even if you do grant some arbitrary exemption for campaigns, so you're saying only rich people and campaigns can buy ads? That's not cool. Everyone should be able to buy ads, if not individually, than by pooling their resources with other like-minded individuals.

            You're right I'd make an exception for campaigns. I'm also in favor or contribution limits, which I bet you and I also disagree on. Those limits will stop the rich from buying adds.

            How about this, suppose businesses weren't allowed to make
            • I'm also in favor or contribution limits, which I bet you and I also disagree on. Those limits will stop the rich from buying adds.

              That is clearly unconstitutional according to the First Amendment, which forbids laws where the intent is to curb free expression.

              How about this, suppose businesses weren't allowed to make campaign contributions unless that was their business? Thus Ford, whose business is cars, not campaigns, can't contribute.

              What business is it of yours to say Ford's business is not both?
              • No. Vote for a person. The person who gets the most votes wins.

                Does that mean first past the post and nothing else? No IRV, no Condorcet? Not even runoffs to require at least 50% of the vote?

                Also, judging by Websters and Wikipedia, the key to a democracy is that ultimately, the people choose their government. I utterly can't understand why voting for a specific person is so critical. If there's a list of candidates in the order that they'd receive seats, the People know who they're voting for. If yo
                • Does that mean first past the post and nothing else? No IRV, no Condorcet?

                  Correct. One candidate, one office, one voter, one vote.

                  Not even runoffs to require at least 50% of the vote?

                  I don't really care about that either way. It does not violate the principle I am concerned with.

                  However, if there were no caps, the wealthy and businesses could out-contribute so much that moveon would lose whatever voice it's gained.

                  Like they do now, but for the majority parties? Remember, a huge percentage [opensecrets.org] of th
                  • Does that mean first past the post and nothing else? No IRV, no Condorcet?
                    Correct. One candidate, one office, one voter, one vote.

                    What is it about your principle of democracy that prohibits voting for a first, second and third choice on one ballot? With IRV and Condorcet, if you and I can't agree on our first choice, but we both pick the Libertarian candidate for our second choice, that person is elected. When used in the real world, the methods can result in a palatable victor for a higher percentage
                    • With IRV and Condorcet, if you and I can't agree on our first choice, but we both pick the Libertarian candidate for our second choice, that person is elected.

                      Exactly. It's ridiculous.
                    • No it's fantastic, wonderful, and the reason why is the very rationale for runoff voting.

                      Suppose there are 5 candidates, and the most any of them gets is 21% of the vote. Suppose 79% of the voters despise that candidate. The first past the post winner should not be elected. That is why runoffs were created, to find the candidate with a majority of support.

                      Condorcet in particular is even better than traditional runoffs for finding who has a majority of support.
                    • Suppose there are 5 candidates, and the most any of them gets is 21% of the vote. Suppose 79% of the voters despise that candidate. The first past the post winner should not be elected.

                      Then have a 50% barrier, with a runoff between the top two or somesuch. IRV and Condorcet are stupid.

Slashdot Top Deals

Nothing is more admirable than the fortitude with which millionaires tolerate the disadvantages of their wealth. -- Nero Wolfe

Close