The Constitution: Elections and Electors

[mordorbund]

I admit the idea of an Electoral College was difficult for me to grasp when I was first introduced to it (why are we doing this? I thought we elected the President). And when I was later re-introduced to it (why aren't we utilizing this more? This is genius!). Since it has shown up time and again with these Primaries (I know it's not the same one, but it's an interesting analog) I thought it might be interesting to discuss in its own thread.

Given the importance of this topic (it determines the presidency after all!) I hope even those unfamiliar with this topic feel free to post their own clarifying questions. I may post some of my own as an aid for the silent observers (and perhaps myself).

From Article II, section 1 of the Constitution of the United States:

Quote

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.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Note that this portion of the article has been amended. It used to be that the VP was not directly elected by the college. Instead 2 names were submitted for the presidency (with the same stipulation that 1 had to be from outside the state) and the winner was declared President and the first runner up the VP (unless Steve Harvey was counting the ballots). This was changed almost right off the bat with Amendment XII in 1803.

Also note that a change was made to Article I, section 3 by Amendment XVII in 1912 so that US Senators are now selected by popular vote instead of Legislative appointment.

All this to set up the following:

In my hypothetical US legislature, the big issue getting debated is the Electoral College. Oh, and this body of congress is populated by you. Do you defend the current system of a representative democracy and the States' rights doctrine implicit in it? Or do you move for a more democratic system? Just how democratic do you want to go? instead of elections on a state-by-state basis, should we just count the national total and call it good? Or we could have it on a state-by-state basis but all the states play by the same rules - winner take all or proportional or some such thing.

And since I brought that up, in my hypothetical State legislature you have been invited to weigh in on the big issue getting debated - how shall we divvy up our electoral college votes. It's your State, so you can say it's Rhode Island sized with 3 votes or Texas size with 100,000 votes (that may be exaggerated but no Texan has ever confirmed that it's too many). How do you want your Electors selected? Is this just a nominal position and their votes are bound by the rules set forth by the State legislature? Or are these representatives periodically elected by the people of the State to select the candidate that will best serve the State? Or perhaps the people have no say (because we want to apply Hume's filters) and the Governor is one of the Electors and the remaining are selected by the Legislature?

And what sort of voting rules do you think the Legislature should provide for them? Again, if it is a nominal position, then they just vote base on the State's popular vote? But do you want this to be a winner-take-all to increase the chance of your candidate winning? Or do you want a proportional vote so that if your #1 doesn't take it #2 has a better chance? Do you want all of your Electoral votes tied up in the popular vote, or do you want to reserve a portion of them (say 1/3) vote strictly based on the State's interests (you can do this by having them vote their conscience or by having those Electors be the Governor and other State figures)?

[LeSellers]

The electoral college exists to assure that the president is not selected by the people, but by the states. He is, after all, the president of the unites States of America.

Like the original senate, it is a fundamental component of federalism. Those who want a direct election for the presidency miss the fact that this is not a "nation" (under God or any other way), but a federation of sovereign states. Losing that, we'd all be subject to the power of cities, because, like it or no, that's where the population lives. And cities are, by their leech nature, going to take, take, take from the rural population.

Lehi

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, LeSellers said:

The electoral college exists to assure that the president is not selected by the people, but by the states. He is, after all, the president of the unites States of America.

Like the original senate, it is a fundamental component of federalism. Those who want a direct election for the presidency miss the fact that this is not a "nation" (under God or any other way), but a federation of sovereign states. Losing that, we'd all be subject to the power of cities, because, like it or no, that's where the population lives. And cities are, by their leech nature, going to take, take, take from the rural population.

Lehi

100% correct.

The GOVERNOR, is the President of the State.  Each State decide - in their own State Constitutions - how they're going to select the POTUS.   They also decide - in that same State Constitution - how they're going to elect the President of their State (Governor).  The Feds can't dictate that to them without having to amend the US Constitution.  States Rights and all that...

[anatess2]

Now, as far as the RNC and DNC rules in electing their General Election Nominee:

The RNC and DNC are private entities that make their own rules.

The RNC rules are formed in the same pattern as the Republic (they're called Republican for a reason). In a Republic, the people choose their Representatives and the Representatives cast the votes to represent the will of the people. It's not the party bosses nor the people that choose the nominees, it's the Representatives (i.e., delegates). The current rule is that the candidate has to get a majority of the delegate votes to become the GE nominee.  The delegates convene and caucus and cast multiple rounds of ballots until a majority is arrived at.  The problem with this system occurs when the people are deprived of choosing a delegate to represent the will of the people (like if states let the party bosses or candidates choose the delegate by silencing the will of the people he represents instead of caucusing with them to give the delegate the opportunity to convince the people of the right choice and in the end choosing the candidate that is a reflection of the will of the people). Or when the party bosses or candidate chooses a delegate for a group of people who has no intention of carrying out the expressed will of the people he represents (unbound delegates - including those that get unbound on succeeding ballots). This is when the republican (small R) system is at risk of getting corrupted by sleazy or opportunistic politicians.

The DNC has a different rule. They follow the Democratic process (they're called Democrats for a reason). The DNC gives every group of people a delegate bound to their will. This delegate cannot be unbound (no 2nd ballot or 3rd ballot, etc. that can unbind them). To prevent mob rule, they assign a group of super delegates who do not represent the will of the people - rather, they are the "experts" or "voice of wisdom". So, it's completely like Dancing With The Stars where the judges are the super delegates and their scores get added to the people's votes to prevent someone who suck at dancing win the trophy purely out of popularity. The super delegates can provide a risk of corruption in the DNC side as they can be wined and dined and bought by candidates instead of expertly choosing the candidate that would best represent the party platform.

 

Third parties have their own rules of choosing their GE nominees as well.

Edited April 18, 2016 by anatess2

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Like the original senate, it is a fundamental component of federalism

Would you care to explain federalism?

[mordorbund]

3 hours ago, LeSellers said:

The electoral college exists to assure that the president is not selected by the people, but by the states. He is, after all, the president of the unites States of America.

Like the original senate, it is a fundamental component of federalism. Those who want a direct election for the presidency miss the fact that this is not a "nation" (under God or any other way), but a federation of sovereign states. Losing that, we'd all be subject to the power of cities, because, like it or no, that's where the population lives. And cities are, by their leech nature, going to take, take, take from the rural population.

Lehi

Senators have been selected by popular vote for a century now. And the State's Rights doctrine took a serious hit with the Civil War and following. Even Joseph Smith wanted the Federal government to step in on a State issue (the Mormon expulsion) which would fit in with the modern "balance".

It strikes me that we have conflicting models here. We have a populous that thinks the president is democratically elected by State and a constitution that says Electors stand between the people and democracy. Isn't it time to update the system to reflect the vox populi?

...

I can see you're in favor of the college. Do you want your State's electors voting as a bloc? Representative distribution? By district? Voting independently?

[anatess2]

29 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Senators have been selected by popular vote for a century now. And the State's Rights doctrine took a serious hit with the Civil War and following. Even Joseph Smith wanted the Federal government to step in on a State issue (the Mormon expulsion) which would fit in with the modern "balance".

It strikes me that we have conflicting models here. We have a populous that thinks the president is democratically elected by State and a constitution that says Electors stand between the people and democracy. Isn't it time to update the system to reflect the vox populi?

...

I can see you're in favor of the college. Do you want your State's electors voting as a bloc? Representative distribution? By district? Voting independently?

I know you're asking LeSellers but I'm going to chime in with my answer.

"Senators have been selected by popular vote for a century now." - yes.  But they don't have to be.  Each State decides who their Senators are going to be - it just so happens that all 50 choose their Senators, just like they choose their governors - by popular vote.  But, the spirit of the Senator is that he represents the State... not the people.  That's why each State has an equal number of Senators - 2.  Each State gets the same voting power in the Senate regardless of their population size.

"Isn't it time to update the system to reflect the vox populi?"  No it is not, and it never will be unless the States decide that they're going to cede the welfare of their State to the Federal government.  One thing that you will need to realize - the United States may be referred to as One Nation... but, technically, it is 50 Nations (not counting the Indian Nations).  The laws in New York does not work in Nebraska, for example.  Nor the laws in Texas work in Vermont.  Removing the electoral college (or the Senate) will effectively silence Nebraska in the face of New York, or Vermont in the face of Texas.

"Do you want your State's electors voting as a bloc? Representative distribution? By district? Voting independently?"  That's up to each State to decide.  A State doesn't have to hold Federal Presidential Elections even.  They can always just have the Governor decide who he wants as POTUS.  So the population votes for the Governor that will then decide the POTUS.  There are no states that do this.  All the states hold general elections.  If you ask me what I want in my State (I'm not American so it won't matter) - I want the State Congress to vote the POTUS in the general elections and I want the people to select the nominee to the general elections in closed party primaries.

 

 

 

Edited April 18, 2016 by anatess2

[anatess2]

On that note....

The Philippines currently have a Presidential Candidate who is promoting Federalism.  This is the stupidest thing ever presented to the Filipino people.  The Presidential Candidate promoting United States Statehood, all of a sudden, sounds sane.

Why this is... The Philippine provinces (that will become the States) are mostly homogenous to each other in both cultural, social, and economic make-up.  The few that are non-homogenous are the ones promoting an Islamic State (so they can wage jihad).  This Presidential Candidate happens to come from an economically prosperous province.  He does not want to continue having his province send all their tax revenues to the Capital only to receive a small percentage in return as the money gets spent in other provinces that are not as prosperous.  This is not a valid reason for Federalism.  Federalism should not be used to break a truly One Nation into autonomous parts.  Rather Federalism should be used to make One Nation out of already established autonomous parts.

[mordorbund]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Each State decides who their Senators are going to be - it just so happens that all 50 choose their Senators, just like they choose their governors - by popular vote.

A popular vote that was amended into the constitution. So every state has to do it that way.

 

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Removing the electoral college (or the Senate) will effectively silence Nebraska in the face of New York, or Vermont in the face of Texas.

The number of votes is proportional to the population. Nebraska only gets 5 votes anyways (compared to NY's 29) because of the size of the population. When it comes to presidential elections (the only thing the Electors do), Nebraska already is silenced by New York.

[LeSellers]

On 4/18/2016 at 10:46 AM, mordorbund said:

1) Senators have been selected by popular vote for a century now.

2) And the State's Rights doctrine took a serious hit with the Civil War and following.

3) Even Joseph Smith wanted the Federal government to step in on a State issue (the Mormon expulsion) which would fit in with the modern "balance".

1) So what? It was a bad idea then, and an even worse one now. Federalism was the genius of the Constitution.

2) States' Rights may have taken a hit, but we are still a federal republic. Until the Constitution is abolished (over my dead body) we are a federation of 50 independent states who have ceded a certain limited set of the natural powers of statehood to a central authority. With rare exception, those ceded powers involve dealings with the rest of the world and affairs between the states. In abandoning this foundational principle, we have given up our patrimony or freedom.

3) When a state, as Missouri did, tramples the God-given rights of its people, there must be an appeal made to a higher power. God told Joseph to do as he did, and when Van Buren rejected the Saints' petition, God unleashed the Civil War as a punishment. Some of the worst (and least known) fighting was in Missouri.

On 4/18/2016 at 10:46 AM, mordorbund said:

It strikes me that we have conflicting models here. We have a populous that thinks the president is democratically elected by State and a constitution that says Electors stand between the people and democracy. Isn't it time to update the system to reflect the vox populi?

Absolutely not!

God approved the original Constitution. The bastardization of the Document (or the wholesale ignoring of it) is not His will. Further, there are many of us who see it as a contract. Trying to alter the government by anything but a unanimous vote is breaking the contract. The will of the people, as Mosiah told us, may not often be evil, but in this case, it is.

On 4/18/2016 at 10:46 AM, mordorbund said:

I can see you're in favor of the college. Do you want your State's electors voting as a bloc? Representative distribution? By district? Voting independently?

I'd like them to vote en bloc, but independently, without regard to the popular election, as the Framers intended. the people's vote should be directly for the electors. These electors would declare who they favor, but all campaigning for the office of the president would go away. The states should elect the president. That's what the Founders envisioned. We can see their intent by noting what happens when the Electoral College does not choose a president: it goes to the House of Representatives, but each state has one vote. If I had my way absolutely, that's how it would be anyway: each state gets one vote and the winner is the president, with the second place candidate getting the veep office.

It's more complex than that, and I already know there are problems with this simplified explanation, but I have neither the time nor inclination to go on further.

Lehi

Edited April 24, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

The entire intent of electors and senators (originally) was to dampen the mob mentality of ... the mobs.

The senators specifically were to be the political aristocracy -- to be a parallel to the House of Lords in the British Parliament.  They needed to be political insiders and be separated from the people directly.  They were supposed to be elected by the state legislatures to allow for this separation.  Such a design was to make them inherently different from the House.

That said, we've now got a bastardized system because the House is no longer close to the people (due to the unconstitutional modification of representation) and the Senate is no longer elected to represent states, but a political party as defined by the popular vote.  Neither is functioning properly.  And that greatly impacted how the Constitution was supposed to function.

[anatess2]

7 hours ago, mordorbund said:

A popular vote that was amended into the constitution. So every state has to do it that way.

 

The number of votes is proportional to the population. Nebraska only gets 5 votes anyways (compared to NY's 29) because of the size of the population. When it comes to presidential elections (the only thing the Electors do), Nebraska already is silenced by New York.

Not quite.  Popular vote puts 18 million votes between Nebraska and New York.  The electoral college only puts 24-vote difference.  Note that it's not quite a direct proportionality because each state gets 2 representatives out the bat before population gets apportioned.  And each State gets at least 1 additional elector even if it has only a population of 1 person.  This is the same system used in the make-up of Congress.  Nebraska gets a heavy voice in Congress against New York even if there are only 5+2 of them.

Using the popular vote, you can pretty much win the popular vote by only campaigning  in the 12 most populous states.  

Edited April 19, 2016 by anatess2

[Just_A_Guy]

11 hours ago, mordorbund said:

 Even Joseph Smith wanted the Federal government to step in on a State issue (the Mormon expulsion) which would fit in with the modern "balance".

Overruling state court holdings re title of Mormon land, or mobilizing federal troops to escort the Mormons back to Missouri, would have been beyond the federal government's scope; but Congress can throw money at anyone and Van Buren could have greased some wheels in that regard.  He, and most of the Congressmen that Smith met, chose not to.

[LeSellers]

23 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The RNC and DNC are private entities that make their own rules.

Third parties have their own rules of choosing their GE nominees as well.

For some reason people do not get this. That's why the Framers rejected "party", but the people decided they wanted labels.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

10 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Using the popular vote, you can pretty much win the popular vote by only campaigning  in the 12 most populous states.  

And winning only five: California, Texas, New York, Ohio, Illinois, and one other. (Other combinations, as long as they include the first three, will also work.) There will always be fools who vote for the popular candidate even in states where sanity usually prevails.

The electoral college is absolutely  mandatory to prevent a total tyranny of the majority. Not that we don't have it already, but it's not complete, as O'bama and others-who-shall-not-be-named ardently desire.

Lehi

[mordorbund]

On 4/18/2016 at 4:11 PM, LeSellers said:

If I had my way absolutely, that's how it would be anyway: each state gets one vote an the winner is the president, with the second place candidate getting the veep office.

I myself also like the idea of one State one vote. If a State wants to exert more influence on the election, it will have to split itself up and maintain cultural and political homogeny. Power, loving itself as it does, makes this extremely unlikely. I could see a strong push in this system to make territories like Puerto Rico into full-fledged states to increase Party favor. (musing out loud...) Would this lead to a fresh Manifest Destiny?

Regarding the runner-up as the veep - my understanding is that this was discarded because it led to a fractured Executive office. The next in line just months before was slinging mud against you and may very well start up again in 3 years. I might actually like this in the modern age of Executive Orders bypassing Congress :). But then you've also got the Veep (who told everyone that a vote for the President is a vote for Satan) serving as President of the Senate - and taking the lead in determining if the President should be removed and in impeachment trials. I don't see this working (unless deadlock is the goal) without the Parties choosing a pair of candidates and convincing the States to vote for a party ticket. For the OSOV (one state one vote) system, I could see this opening up the Parties to support multiple candidates in hope that at least one gets an Executive position and ideally that they win the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Is this how you see it working? or do you think a different political game will be at play here?

On 4/18/2016 at 4:11 PM, LeSellers said:

It's more complex than that, and I already know there are problems with this simplified explanation, but I have neither the time nor inclination to go on further.

Thanks for participating all the same.

 

[LeSellers]

31 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I myself also like the idea of one State one vote. If a State wants to exert more influence on the election, it will have to split itself up and maintain cultural and political homogeny. Power, loving itself as it does, makes this extremely unlikely. I could see a strong push in this system to make territories like Puerto Rico into full-fledged states to increase Party favor. (musing out loud...) Would this lead to a fresh Manifest Destiny?

Dunno 'bout a new round of Manifest Destiny, but it would definitely firm up the federal nature of this republic.

31 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Regarding the runner-up as the veep - my understanding is that this was discarded because it led to a fractured Executive office. The next in line just months before was slinging mud against you and may very well start up again in 3 years. I might actually like this in the modern age of Executive Orders bypassing Congress :). But then you've also got the Veep (who told everyone that a vote for the President is a vote for Satan) serving as President of the Senate - and taking the lead in determining if the President should be removed and in impeachment trials. I don't see this working (unless deadlock is the goal) without the Parties choosing a pair of candidates and convincing the States to vote for a party ticket. For the OSOV (one state one vote) system, I could see this opening up the Parties to support multiple candidates in hope that at least one gets an Executive position and ideally that they win the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. Is this how you see it working? or do you think a different political game will be at play here?

I love deadlock. It helps assure that we're not being harmed. (If I could, I'd implement 250 more federal holidays, so the bureaucrats would just stay home where they aren't actively undermining liberty.  I love it when O'bama goes to Camp David for golf: he's not hurting us there.)

Further, it would have been marvelous if the vice president had been anyone other than Algore 'cuz he cast the deciding vote to raise tax rates in '93. Having a voice opposing the president sitting in the presidential chair in the senate would almost always be a good thing, even when that president is on "my side" of the argument (which rarely happens, since I favor freedom, and most politicians are slave-owner wannabes).

My crystal ball is no better than yours. I don't see it that way, exactly, but I can see how it might work out like that.

The goal of a OSOV system would be to strengthen the states, and to weaken the federal government. I'm in favor of anything that advances that agenda. I'd even like to eliminate he Senate altogether, and move all the powers now granted this body of narcissists directly to the states (who would choose how to exercise these powers, e.g., governor's approval, more numerous legislative house approval, referenda, ad hoc committees — it doesn't matter as long as the state is in charge).

Lehi

Edited April 24, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest MormonGator]

37 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

I love deadlock. It helps assure that we're not being harmed. (If I could, I'd implement 250 more federal holidays, so the bureaucrats would just stay home where they aren't actively undermining liberty.  I love it when O'bama goes to Camp David for golf: he's not hurting us there.)

 

AMEN