Chris Bruce, not German but living in Germany, brought this up a few
weeks ago and inspired me to read Henry Adams history of the first term
of Jefferson's administration. A lot was posted during this
discussion. It ended, perhaps coincidentally after finding a web site
that listed all the forms of government in the world. Not as many as
you might think choose their leader by direct popular vote. Germany it
turned out uses an electoral system. Britain where the Guardian
originates is a Monarchy. One might object that the Monarch does not
rule Britain today, but the person who does isn't chosen by direct vote
either. More words can be used to describe the intricacies of all these
forms, but one thing we can see is that once a government is formed it
is very difficult to change it. The electoral system as we see in
Henry Adams history was one of the devices used to encourage the smaller
states to join the Union. At the time there was nothing but
conversation available to influence their decisions. And it wasn't the
Southern States who needed to be influenced. Virginia was the most
influential state back then. The first four presidents were from
Virginia. The Southern States were interested in forming a Union. It
was the small New England states dragging their feet.
But also, the common man was not trusted to make an informed decision
about governmental matters. And he still isn't. While it is much
easier for the common man of today to inform himself, does he? Not in
the sense someone on this forum might inform himself of a favorite
philosopher or poet. Very few individuals put themselves forward as
having done it. And each of these few whether on TV, Radio, Newspapers,
blogs, etc has a following, people that trust them. Thus, if we got
away with the formal Electoral system we would still have the informal
one, because the common man isn't going to study everything on his
own. I recently spent a good deal of time studying one thing, how the
electoral college was formed. The writer of the Guardian article didn't
do that. One can tell by the wrongness of what he said. At the time the
electoral college was formed, in 1801 I believe, the college wasn't
needed to protect slavery. Slavery was still practiced in many of the
Northern States at the time. The Electoral College was one of the
devices put forward to protect small New England states who were
reluctant to join a Union governed by large populous states like
Massachusetts.
And these anti-electoral-college complaints would seem more rational and
dispassionate if there weren't such a pervading odor of sour grapes in
the air while they are advanced. Clinton's campaign leaders were
worried that when Trump lost he wouldn't accept his loss but would fight
on in some unpleasant way. They feared he would refuse to accept the
results of the election. Not one of Clinton's campaign people feared
that the electoral college system would be a problem for them. It is
the system of our nation. They were used to it. They campaigned in the
way they saw fit in order to win the most electoral votes. And it
hasn't been Clinton who has complained about the electoral college vote
going against her. It is people further down the political chain,
people who if they are true to type don't do independent analysis of
each issue but accept the analysis of someone higher up, whether in the
party, in the Newspapers, on TV, in blogs, etc.
Now some people are going to disagree with me and say that they know
enough to have their vote trusted. They know that Hillary is going to
favor big government, cradle to the grave policies, the semi-socialism
so popular in European countries. In short, more power to a centralized
government that we trust to take care of us.
And people on the right will disagree with me and say that they know
enough to have their vote trusted. They know that Trump is going to
favor small government, lower taxes favoring business and entrepreneurs
but also favoring individuals who prefer to make up their own minds
about things. In short, more power to individual states and individuals
personally.
But it is true that our constitution and Bill of Rights did not favor a
strong centralized government so those favoring Clinton have a genuine
complaint. The form of government Jefferson, the chief spokesman
against a strong centralized government at the time was against, was the
monarchy, but he was equally appalled by what was going on in France,
and we have other forms of centralized governments today.
Lawrence
On 12/14/2016 12:01 AM, Donal McEvoy (Redacted sender donalmcevoyuk for
DMARC) wrote:
It appears not all Americans are enamoured with the EC.
"Though it’s not gone unremarked upon, the fact that the loser of the popular vote has won the election for the second time in 16 years is an entirely home-grown disgrace. It would be nice if we spent at least as much time talking about how the electoral college, a bizarre institution originally designed to protect the power of slaveholders <http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/electoral-college-slavery-constitution/>, perverts democracy. But it is widely considered an immutable feature of our political system."
Elsewhere I have read that the EC system favours larger states being over-represented in the vote [the key to the EC system being that not all votes by citizens will carry equal weight - that is why the loser of the popular vote can win with less weight of votes were they measured as equal] and so does not work to protect smaller states from overbearing large ones or any of that fair-sounding justification.
The extent to which these points are true may be matter for debate, but nothing has emerged that justifies the EC system so that we would say "If we didn't have it, we'd probably introduce it, such are its advantages compared to its disadvantages."
This appears so far from being the case, it surely indicates how the EC system is now an anachronism.
My own understanding is that the EC system had some practical justification before the age of mass communications but also was a product of a view where voters elect 'wiser men' of the EC who then decide who should be President - a view which arguably now belongs in the same corner with the view that men should only have the vote because they will cast it wisely for the household on behalf of their wife.
The article as a whole may be worth reading.
Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did | Doug Henwood <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/13/putin-trump-election-hillary-clinton>
Putin didn't win this election for Trump. Hillary Clinton did |
Doug He...
By Doug Henwood
Democrats would rather point to shady foreign operators than think about why Hillary Clinton will not be the one...
<https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/13/putin-trump-election-hillary-clinton>
