Re: CHAT (POLITICS!!!): Putting the duh in Florida

Roger Mills wrote:
> As I understand it, there is indeed a constitutional problem, in that the
> Const. says the election shall be held on such-and-such a day in November.
Actually, there's nothing in the Constitution that says when the
electors are to be chosen, it says, "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."  Today, every state has a popular
election of electors, but originally, the legislatures chose them.  In
fact, the Constitution doesn't even specify when the electors have to
meet, it's just a federal law that the electors are to be chosen, along
with other federal elections, on the first Tuesday after the first
Monday of November, and that the electors are to meet on the 3rd Monday
in December.

> There is no provision for run-off elections at the presidential level-- such
> matters were supposed to be settled in the Electoral College, by
> +ACI-negotiation+ACI-, as happened, IIRC when there was a tied vote in the E.C.  in
> the 1800 election.  The result was that Jefferson was elected president, the
> runner-up Aaron Burr became V.P. (he was of a different party than
> Jefferson)--- Now that political parties are more organized than they were
> then, it's questionable whether that could happen again.
The winner is the person who gets a MAJORITY of the electoral votes.
Originally, each elector cast 2 votes for president.  The person who got
the largest number, if a majority of the number of electors, became
Prez, and the 2nd largest number became VP.  If there was a tie among
majorities, the House of Representatives chose between the 2, voting by
state [Senators, at the time, were selected by state legislatures].
Burr and Jefferson were the SAME party, the Democratic-Republicans
(ancestors of today's Democrats), all of the DR electors chose both.  If
no candidate had a majority, then the House would choose from the 5
highest.  In 1800, Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson both got 73 electoral
votes (because the Democratic-Republican party wanted Jefferson as Prez
and Burr as VP; thus, each elector voted for both), it took 36 ballots
before the House could agree to choose Jefferson as President.  After
that election, the 12th amendment was passed, modifying the system.
Now, each elector casts 1 vote for President, and 1 vote for VP.  The
person who wins a majority wins.  If no Pres. candidate gets a majority,
then the House chooses, again by states, "from the persons having the
highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as
President".  The Senate chooses from the 2 with the highest number on
the list of those voted for as Vice-President.  So, theoretically, a
Republican President and Democratic Vice-President could be chosen or
vice versa.

See http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A2Sec1 for the original
system and http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am12 for the modern
one.

In 1824, this congressional clause was invoked for the first and only
time, when the presidential vote was divided between 4 candidates, all
Democratic-Republicans (by this time, the Democratic-Republican party
had become little more than a loose coalition of factions).  Andrew
Jackson had the plurality, with 99 electoral votes, John Adams had 84,
William Crawford 41, and Henry Clay 37.  In the House, Adams won.  There
was no problem with the Vice-President, as John Calhoun had 182
electoral votes, out of 251.  The running mate system wasn't really
established until the 1840 election.  After 1840, there have only been 4
exceptions - 1872, 1896 (when William Jennings Bryant ran under 2
parties, and had a running mate in each party), 1960 (when one elector
voted for Barry Goldwater as VP, instead of Strom Thurmond), and 1976
(when one elector voted for Ronald Regan as Prez instead of Gerald
Ford).

After the 1824 election, the Democratic-Republicans split into the
Democrats (Jackson's supporters) and the National Republicans (Adams'
supporters).  The National Republicans disappeared after a few
elections, the modern Republican party was formed in the 1850's, their
first pres. candidate being in 1856.

> My +AF8-logical+AF8- proposal, if we retain the Electoral College system, would be
> to award the votes on a propotional basis in those cases, like Florida,
> where the vote is a statistical tie (attention lawyers:  define statistical
> tie).  So whoever prevails in Fla., even by 1 vote, he gets 13 of the 25
> electoral votes.  (If there were an even number involved, they could just
> split them 50/50.)
Or, go like Nebraska and Maine.  The winner in each congressional
district gets a single electoral vote, and the state winner gets 2
votes.  There'd be no problem under such a system, since North Florida
voted largely for Bush, and South Florida for Gore (very common split -
Florida is really at least 2 states).  Possession of those other 2 votes
wouldn't make any difference, as Gore would be the clear electoral
winner.

> Personally, I hope it's abolished.
The advantage to the electoral college is that it minimized
regionalism.  A candidate could win the popular vote with a huge
majority in one region (say, 90% of the Southern voters), and few
elsewhere.  That would be impossible in the electoral college, since
his/her electoral votes would be the same whether (s)he won 51% of the
votes there or 95%.

Also, it localizes election problems - the national popular margin is
less than half a percent.  Imagine having a nationwide recount, or Palm
Beaches in many states.  Other states had counties with problems, but
those states had large enough margins for one candidate or another that
the voting irregularities didn't affect who won their electoral votes.
Fraud is also more difficult, since to win by fraud, one would have to
sabotage elections in many states, rather than creating a lot of
fraudulent votes in one or two states.

However, it would be nice to make the electors merely theoretical, to
eliminate "faithless electors".

--
Florida: Home of Electile Dysfunction
Palm Beach County: Putting the "duh" in Florida
ICQ: 18656696
AIM Screen-Name: NikTailor