Interview With Rand Paul

[JeremiahJohnson]

I believe there have only been four presidents elected by the EC that did not receive a majority of the popular vote:

John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824
Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876
Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888
George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

Adams was a conservative (National Repuplicans and Whigs) even though there were no national conventions or "parties" at the time of his presidency. The remaining three were Republicans.

It would appear the EC favors conservatives or Republicans.

 

[MisterChester]

I believe there have only been four presidents elected by the EC that did not receive a majority of the popular vote:

John Quincy Adams who lost by 44,804 votes to Andrew Jackson in 1824
Rutherford B. Hayes who lost by 264,292 votes to Samuel J. Tilden in 1876
Benjamin Harrison who lost by 95,713 votes to Grover Cleveland in 1888
George W. Bush who lost by 543,816 votes to Al Gore in the 2000 election.

Adams was a conservative (National Repuplicans and Whigs) even though there were no national conventions or "parties" at the time of his presidency. The remaining three were Republicans.

It would appear the EC favors conservatives or Republicans.

When we have a system that lets losers win, we shouldn't be surprised when they do.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The constitution grants the states the power to decide how they pick their electoral votes. Article 2 section 1:



also, the DOJ precleared California's entry into the compact in 2012. I doubt the plaintiff would have a case since it's in the constitution and the federal government allows it.

[h=2]Article XIV[/h]1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,[SUP]15[/SUP] and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number ofmale citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. [SUP]affects 2[/SUP]
3: No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4: The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

It seems to me that we may have a problem here with apportioning electors based on national popular vote because that does effectively deny the right to vote for electors as described in the 14th Amendment.

Incidentally, you don't really expect Holder's DOJ to bother with such a trifle as following the Constitution in this case while making standard practice of ignoring it, do you?

 

[IndyDave1776]

When we have a system that lets losers win, we shouldn't be surprised when they do.

This is a prime example of the head-on collision between a republic and a democracy in spite of the fact we are repetitively told that there is no difference. The reason why this is possible, once again, is the balance of apportionment of representation per person and per state. While over time I have invested a significant amount of effort addressing this topic, if so few people as it appears understand the difference, I might as well shut up and keep busy storing beans, bullets, and band-aids.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

This is a prime example of the head-on collision between a republic and a democracy in spite of the fact we are repetitively told that there is no difference. The reason why this is possible, once again, is the balance of apportionment of representation per person and per state. While over time I have invested a significant amount of effort addressing this topic, if so few people as it appears understand the difference, I might as well shut up and keep busy storing beans, bullets, and band-aids.

I get it Dave - had it before you explained it (and that very well I might add). A Republic is not a Democracy. I was merely pointing out that there were three instances where the EC reversed the popular vote in the 19th centry, but only once in recent history and all four favored the conservative/Republican representative.

I thought I was hearing the EC responsible for (in some part) electing more liberal candidates to office, but history does not support that supposition - if that indeed is what I heard.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I get it Dave - had it before you explained it (and that very well I might add). A Republic is not a Democracy. I was merely pointing out that there were three instances where the EC reversed the popular vote in the 19th centry, but only once in recent history and all four favored the conservative/Republican representative.

I thought I was hearing the EC responsible for (in some part) electing more liberal candidates to office, but history does not support that supposition - if that indeed is what I heard.

I was just getting frustrated with Chester standing in as the resident cheerleader for democracy rather than the republic.

 

[JeremiahJohnson]

I was just getting frustrated with Chester standing in as the resident cheerleader for democracy rather than the republic.

[video=youtube;p5mmFPyDK_8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p5mmFPyDK_8[/video]

 

[MisterChester]

As I said before, I'm not all that fond of EC. I think that if anything it would tend more to validate the vote of every citizen above what the EC does now. Republicans in California and New York must feel pretty disenfranchised as their state's electoral votes go for democrats.

Another reason why it's a bad system. It's not unreasonable to think many people stay home simply because they know their state won't vote the way they do. Without the system, everybody counts, no excuse to stay home anymore.

 

[MisterChester]

I was just getting frustrated with Chester standing in as the resident cheerleader for democracy rather than the republic.

Is it really that simple why you are so adamantly opposed to the abolishment of the EC?

We don't have to pick electors for our mayors, reps, senators, or governors. Now, I don't think the founding fathers sat down and and said "okay, we have to develop a system to elect a president that has the possibility of failing by the same standards the people elect every other public representative office!" It might have been good for the time, but we don't need it anymore. All it does is cause candidates to completely ignore over half of the states in favor of those few big juicy swing states.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Is it really that simple why you are so adamantly opposed to the abolishment of the EC?

We don't have to pick electors for our mayors, reps, senators, or governors. Now, I don't think the founding fathers sat down and and said "okay, we have to develop a system to elect a president that has the possibility of failing by the same standards the people elect every other public representative office!" It might have been good for the time, but we don't need it anymore. All it does is cause candidates to completely ignore over half of the states in favor of those few big juicy swing states.

First, given that the popular and electoral votes are generally parallel, it is rarely a deciding factor. Second, contrary to popular belief, the EC gives the smaller states more leverage than they would have otherwise. Third, all other elections you mentioned are confined within one state. The purpose of federalism is to afford an equitable apportionment of influence in Washington between the states which the EC was a brilliant part of that effort, with the other major element being the two-house legislative branch. Both, incidentally, were established as they were for the same reason. Fourth, eliminating the EC is tantamount to repudiating federalism in favor of a nationalist democracy, which is exactly what our founders sought to avoid for reasons I find perfectly reasonable even if they seem unnecessary by the standards of those in the present who do not understand those reasons. As for not needing it any more, I would argue the exact opposite. We need the balance of power to swing further toward the states rather than Washington, not the other way around. By virtue of cutting the state governments out of the process, direct election of senators was a major step toward the aforementioned nationalist government (as opposed to federalism). Direct popular vote for president would have a similar effect. I am not surprised by the support for such a scheme given that we now have a population which has been largely trained to accept states as super-counties rather than the self-determining entities they were established to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

 

[arthrimus]

Why should any electoral system be skewed, period? Why should some people's vote count for more or less than their neighbors? What your claiming makes the states sound more important than the people themselves. It pretends that fewer people live where they do and more people live where they don't.

They are.

If it was to give more power to small states, then it has failed completely. Just look at which states have gotten even a single visit by a presidential candidate in the most recent elections. Small states like NH and Maine may have gotten a visit or two, but what about states like Wyoming or Montana? Candidates don't care about small states, so then what is the point of it?

Only if your measure of success is how many visits each state gets from presidential candidates, rather than which candidates most effectively represent the interests of each state. Anybody can win an argument when the measure of success is a completely arbitrary variable that favors their argument.

It is a relic that must be abolished. Not to mention it has failed three times in its history.

I disagree. It is the popular vote that has failed three times. The Electoral Collage can't fail, it works the way it was designed to every time. The popular vote is the number that has no structure or rules, it is simply a tally that has no bearing on the proper functioning of the electoral system. You can disagree with the way that the Electoral Collage works, but don't lie about it's supposed "failures" based on an arbitrary comparison of two unrelated numbers.

Theoretically someone can win the electoral college with only 22% of the popular vote. Does that sound reasonable?

Yes, theoretically under completely absurd circumstances mathematically it is possible. Practically though, it is a completely implausible scenario, and has no place in a rational debate of the virtue of the electoral collage.

 

[MisterChester]

First, given that the popular and electoral votes are generally parallel, it is rarely a deciding factor. Second, contrary to popular belief, the EC gives the smaller states more leverage than they would have otherwise

Rarely a deciding factor? Where were you in 2000? It could have been a non-issue if the EC didn't exist. I'm not saying that just because I would have taken Gore over Bush any day of the week, I'm saying that because I cannot support a system that allows losers to win because of some weird consequence of rules.

I pointed out in a previous post on how this "leverage" that small states have is not an important factor. If it did give them the leverage that is oh-so important, then candidates would visit states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, and every other state that only has 3 or 4 votes. But they don't. The only states that got any attention from candidates in that range were New Hampshire and Maine. And it was only one or two visits, at best. If they don't get any attention by candidates, then the leverage is meaningless.

Third, all other elections you mentioned are confined within one state. The purpose of federalism is to afford an equitable apportionment of influence in Washington between the states which the EC was a brilliant part of that effort, with the other major element being the two-house legislative branch. Both, incidentally, were established as they were for the same reason. Fourth, eliminating the EC is tantamount to repudiating federalism in favor of a nationalist democracy, which is exactly what our founders sought to avoid for reasons I find perfectly reasonable even if they seem unnecessary by the standards of those in the present who do not understand those reasons. As for not needing it any more, I would argue the exact opposite. We need the balance of power to swing further toward the states rather than Washington, not the other way around. By virtue of cutting the state governments out of the process, direct election of senators was a major step toward the aforementioned nationalist government (as opposed to federalism). Direct popular vote for president would have a similar effect. I am not surprised by the support for such a scheme given that we now have a population which has been largely trained to accept states as super-counties rather than the self-determining entities they were established to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

There is a reason why we decided to directly elect senators. If it worked as intended, we would not have changed it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Issues

The office of the President is the only office of the federal government where citizens of every state vote for the same candidates. There is no need for the states to get involved in this election. The founding fathers, as brilliant as they were, were far from perfect. They got many more things right than they did wrong. The fugitive slave law is in the constitution and is still technically the law of the land. So is the 3/5ths Compromise. I believe they were wrong on how to elect presidents as well. If we have democratic, direct votes of our representatives then there is no reason to have the same for the president. Like I said before, the states are not required to even have elections for the electors. Even in a republic, that is a rare find. So rare that not a single government in the world that is a western democracy/republic has a system like we do. A loser winning the EC can and probably will happen again in the future.

 

[Bravo-4-2]

First, given that the popular and electoral votes are generally parallel, it is rarely a deciding factor. Second, contrary to popular belief, the EC gives the smaller states more leverage than they would have otherwise. Third, all other elections you mentioned are confined within one state. The purpose of federalism is to afford an equitable apportionment of influence in Washington between the states which the EC was a brilliant part of that effort, with the other major element being the two-house legislative branch. Both, incidentally, were established as they were for the same reason. Fourth, eliminating the EC is tantamount to repudiating federalism in favor of a nationalist democracy, which is exactly what our founders sought to avoid for reasons I find perfectly reasonable even if they seem unnecessary by the standards of those in the present who do not understand those reasons. As for not needing it any more, I would argue the exact opposite. We need the balance of power to swing further toward the states rather than Washington, not the other way around. By virtue of cutting the state governments out of the process, direct election of senators was a major step toward the aforementioned nationalist government (as opposed to federalism). Direct popular vote for president would have a similar effect. I am not surprised by the support for such a scheme given that we now have a population which has been largely trained to accept states as super-counties rather than the self-determining entities they were established to be at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

I had concluded that there was no one who visits this site, other than myself, who has a damn clue regarding how our government was intended to work by the Founders and how it has been bastardized since. Your post gives me hope that there may at least be 2 of us......

 

[MisterChester]

I disagree. It is the popular vote that has failed three times.

 

[arthrimus]

What's so funny, your argument simply presupposes that the popular vote is the right and just number which we should all follow. My argument presupposes that the founding fathers were right to design a system which was not directly tied to a national popular vote. Obviously my argument does not fit with your sensibilities, but it is no less valid.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You are laughing, but how about applying your idea of right and proper to the legislative branch. The parallel of abolishing the EC would be to abolish the Senate and have a unicameral legislature and perhaps allow two or more smaller states who would not meet the numerical threshold for one representative to pool together for a shared seat. Does that sound like a good idea?

 

[jamil]

Rarely a deciding factor? Where were you in 2000? It could have been a non-issue if the EC didn't exist. I'm not saying that just because I would have taken Gore over Bush any day of the week, I'm saying that because I cannot support a system that allows losers to win because of some weird consequence of rules.\

The popular vote for POTUS has never mattered. It is irrelevant. The electoral college has determined every president since its establishment. To claim that Bush's victory in 2K or any of the other victories in history where the winning candidate lost the popular vote, was somehow illegitimate or a lesser victory, is disingenuous. To think that the EC doesn't effect people's decisions to bother voting in any state that's not a swing state is absurd. The fact is, we don't really know what the popular vote would have been if it actually mattered, because it doesn't. We only know which candidates win which electoral votes. Bush's victory in 2000 was as legitimate as Ronald Reagan's landslide victory in both popular and EC in 1984.

 

[jamil]

What's so funny, your argument simply presupposes that the popular vote is the right and just number which we should all follow. My argument presupposes that the founding fathers were right to design a system which was not directly tied to a national popular vote. Obviously my argument does not fit with your sensibilities, but it is no less valid.

His argument also presupposes that the popular vote that actually happened would be the same without the EC. We have no way of knowing. The popular vote has failed every time because it doesn't matter.

 

[arthrimus]

His argument also presupposes that the popular vote that actually happened would be the same without the EC. We have no way of knowing. The popular vote has failed every time because it doesn't matter.

Quite true. The popular vote is a red herring. Why we even tally it is beyond me.

 

[jamil]

I get it Dave - had it before you explained it (and that very well I might add). A Republic is not a Democracy. I was merely pointing out that there were three instances where the EC reversed the popular vote in the 19th centry, but only once in recent history and all four favored the conservative/Republican representative.

I thought I was hearing the EC responsible for (in some part) electing more liberal candidates to office, but history does not support that supposition - if that indeed is what I heard.

JJ, maybe you got that idea from me, but that's not what I'm arguing really. History only tells us what might be if the conditions that caused the history are repeated. I'm saying the game is changing. As the nation has become more polarized, all of the big EC states, except for Texas and Florida, have become a lock for liberal candidates. As the retired conservative old farts in Florida die off, new more liberal old farts will take their place. Think millennials in retirement. MisterChester, perhaps. Florida will be a lock for liberals.

I have always believed in and supported the EC. But as the large states have become more polarized, I just see a future dynasty of collectivist tyranny over the smaller states. I'm not saying that popular vote is the answer. But I do see a future where the EC may become a liability. Maybe I'd quit *****ing about it if California decided to break into smaller states.