Clinton Interview on Fox News

[Vulcan]

Nebraska is the other state. In the last election Colorado had a vote to split their electoral college but I believe it was defeated.

Nice to know that we've concluded the USA isn't a democracy at all but a republic, never mind more democratic then Canada. Joking, but I remember at the time of the Iraq invasion some media was claiming that the US was the world's first democracy. The trouble with the media and others playing fast and loose with history is people start to believe it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Nebraska is the other state. In the last election Colorado had a vote to split their electoral college but I believe it was defeated.

Nice to know that we've concluded the USA isn't a democracy at all but a republic, never mind more democratic then Canada. Joking, but I remember at the time of the Iraq invasion some media was claiming that the US was the world's first democracy. The trouble with the media and others playing fast and loose with history is people start to believe it.

The world's first? Not even close. Greece gets the honours for that, even though voting was pretty limited. Theirs wasn't continuous--the longest continuous democracy is of course Iceland (), who've been running theirs since the middle ages.

The U.S. might have been the "first English-speaking New World Democracy."

Thanks for the heads up on Nebraska, btw. My sense is all their votes will go to the GOP anyway, but it's interesting nevertheless.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Flash: I didn't know about that rule. It does seem a bit weird to me to stipulate voting your conscience--how do you know when that rule's being broken? But the Strom Thurmond example of that is pretty interesting--a telling breakdown in the system, IMO. I guess I always thought that he had won those states.

One thought: would it be worthwhile to start another thread to discuss the electoral system issue? It's kind of a pet hobby of mine--I'll follow the discussion either way, but it seems like we've ranged pretty far afield from Clinton's temper-tantrum.

This is where it gets dificult to separate what we feel the electoral college is, and what it actually is. Time and again I came back to the same point you raise: if this was supposed to be a democratic system, then why would they allow for these 'loopholes'? The answer is really quite simple, and though you yourself have answered the question before you asked it, it's still hard to wrap your head around. The system was never designed to be democratic. This was not something the framers didn't see coming, or failed to plan for, this was the design. It's like a fail safe. The populace was never supposed to have direct access or control over the executive powers of the country. Congress was designed to, and until 50 years ago was, the most powerful and important body in American government. Congress was designed to have the authority over the executive, and as such, they control the powers of the election, not as a whole, but as individual representatives of their constituency.

It doesn't seem so odd if you approach the electoral college as the will of congress. If you take my example of the 1960 election, i'm sure we'd all agree (I'd hope so anyway) that thurmond's platform was preposterous, and would never gain any sort of national support, however, the electors felt it was in the best interest of themselves (and the state which they are citizens of) to segregate blacks and whites. I'm not sure how those electors were chosen (there is probably a record of it, but I havent checked), but I'm sure their views and opinions were known to those who selected them and therefore loosely the will of the people.

I see it as an act of defiance. Those electors would've known they had no chance of upsetting either Nixon or Kennedy, but they were acting in 'their' best interest, exactly the way the system was supposed to work. The system isn't broken in any substantial way, it's just a really crappy system that allows for the occasional failure. It's crappy as a form of 'democracy' regardless of whether it's working or not, but if you aren't looking for democracy, then it's I guess it's actually a great system. This is loose, but it's akin to political feudalism

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I see it as an act of defiance. Those electors would've known they had no chance of upsetting either Nixon or Kennedy, but they were acting in 'their' best interest, exactly the way the system was supposed to work. The system isn't broken in any substantial way, it's just a really crappy system that allows for the occasional failure. It's crappy as a form of 'democracy' regardless of whether it's working or not, but if you aren't looking for democracy, then it's I guess it's actually a great system. This is loose, but it's akin to political feudalism

If the system's broken, it's because it has to an extent transformed itself into a nominal democracy--it just doesn't work very well as one. I do think Dis is right that to do a straight up popular vote for the president would be bad. I'd imagine it would be opposed by Republicans in any case, since it would mean that if turnout stays low the Democrats could win a presidential election by increasing turnout only in the 14 most populous counties in the nation, forgetting about rural voters altogether. But most Americans do believe that the electoral college is simply a way of tallying votes, rather than an institution designed to separate them from actual power. It's at worst a blemish on their "democracy" and at best a totally antiquated system (and again--not trying to defend Canada's "first-past-the-post" boondoggle here, just offering a critique of the U.S. system).

And changing it shouldn't be impossible--after all, the political culture has undergone massive changes over time; Jefferson probably could not have imagined a President as powerful as Lincoln, but nowadays they all have that wide-ranging executive power. There are many circumstances the framers couldn't have foreseen, and many limitations to how they were able to imagine the shape of the nation/polity they were creating. One of the biggest problems in American politics is this reference to the "founding fathers" as though they were infallible divine ancestors, whose will must be obeyed.

In all honesty, their system isn't designed for an "America" as a distinct and self-sufficient nation, but as a way of structuring a relationship between independent and self-sufficient states. Once that has changed, one wonders whether the rest could be thrown out the window as well.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If the system's broken, it's because it has to an extent transformed itself into a nominal democracy--it just doesn't work very well as one. I do think Dis is right that to do a straight up popular vote for the president would be bad. I'd imagine it would be opposed by Republicans in any case, since it would mean that if turnout stays low the Democrats could win a presidential election by increasing turnout only in the 14 most populous counties in the nation, forgetting about rural voters altogether. But most Americans do believe that the electoral college is simply a way of tallying votes, rather than an institution designed to separate them from actual power. It's at worst a blemish on their "democracy" and at best a totally antiquated system (and again--not trying to defend Canada's "first-past-the-post" boondoggle here, just offering a critique of the U.S. system).

And changing it shouldn't be impossible--after all, the political culture has undergone massive changes over time; Jefferson probably could not have imagined a President as powerful as Lincoln, but nowadays they all have that wide-ranging executive power. There are many circumstances the framers couldn't have foreseen, and many limitations to how they were able to imagine the shape of the nation/polity they were creating. One of the biggest problems in American politics is this reference to the "founding fathers" as though they were infallible divine ancestors, whose will must be obeyed.

In all honesty, their system isn't designed for an "America" as a distinct and self-sufficient nation, but as a way of structuring a relationship between independent and self-sufficient states. Once that has changed, one wonders whether the rest could be thrown out the window as well.

I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you wrote here.

edit: except that changing it shouldn't be impossible. Abollishing the electoral college requires significant alterations to the constitution and it's amendments, which is a discussion I really don't want to get into.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I'm pretty sure I agree with everything you wrote here.

edit: except that changing it shouldn't be impossible. Abollishing the electoral college requires significant alterations to the constitution and it's amendments, which is a discussion I really don't want to get into.

Why not? Seems like you and I are the only ones still interested--but that's exactly the kind of discussion I'd like to have.

Hey--the constitution's been amended what--19 times? Is the electoral college a basic enough rule that the baby has to go out with the bathwater? As in the story I linked above, I think there is starting to be some political will to change the system--even if in some cases, it's by doing an end run around the constitution rather than by making changes to it.

Otherwise, we just admit that changes to the American polity CAN happen--but only if they're bad changes that serve the interests of the nominal oligarchs. There's no shortage of democratic values around here--just of a democratic infrastructure. I have to believe there's a way of creating it.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Why not? Seems like you and I are the only ones still interested--but that's exactly the kind of discussion I'd like to have.

Hey--the constitution's been amended what--19 times? Is the electoral college a basic enough rule that the baby has to go out with the bathwater? As in the story I linked above, I think there is starting to be some political will to change the system--even if in some cases, it's by doing an end run around the constitution rather than by making changes to it.

Otherwise, we just admit that changes to the American polity CAN happen--but only if they're bad changes that serve the interests of the nominal oligarchs. There's no shortage of democratic values around here--just of a democratic infrastructure. I have to believe there's a way of creating it.

I think the only palpable solution to any kind of electoral reform is either through a national standard of choosing electors, or various state-level approaches that hold the electors to their region's vote.

Why I don't want to get into a discussion about the constitution is that I find debates about amending it wholly boring. I understand the importance of the constitution, but like you mentioned of the 'forefathers', I find it nauseating the reverence that it receives as some sort of Ten Commandment Tablet that no one can dare question, like the forefathers, though, I feel as if I'm already getting into the discussion

The reason I don't see it changing is that the two methods of altering the constitution seem so out of touch with the political and social culture of today that near consensus on an issue is simpily unrealistic. I don't think there's any way to get 3/4 of the states to agree on anything, let alone altering the national platform of the electoral college, seeing as how right now there isn't even a real debate on the issue outside the world of academia (and calgarypuck, wootwoot). The other way of amending it seems even less likely, as it involves some sort of cohesive, national, populace movement to propose change which in a way would invalidate part of the Constitution, something that is terrifying to the vast majority of Americans. Think of the vietnam anti-war movement, and triple it, that's the kind of populace movement you'd need to even get things rolling. There's a reason it's never been done before, and to put it bluntly, the general population is ignorant and uninterested.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Hey I've spent the last 6 years doing a PhD in English Lit. I thrive on boring and arcane discussions!

I see all of those points, but I find it to be a fatalistic viewpoint. The constitution's been amended before, and if a groundswell of reformist sentiment could somehow be created, I have to think that would lead to positive change. The alternative, in my view, is a gradual return to the tyranny against which the framers rebelled in the first place. (there's even a new "King George"!)

On the other hand, if the 2000 election didn't create enough sentiment for change, I don't know what will.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Hey I've spent the last 6 years doing a PhD in English Lit. I thrive on boring and arcane discussions!

I see all of those points, but I find it to be a fatalistic viewpoint. The constitution's been amended before, and if a groundswell of reformist sentiment could somehow be created, I have to think that would lead to positive change. The alternative, in my view, is a gradual return to the tyranny against which the framers rebelled in the first place. (there's even a new "King George"!)

On the other hand, if the 2000 election didn't create enough sentiment for change, I don't know what will.

I don't know if I'd call it fatalistic. The 2000 (and 2004 election) created a lot of stir regarding the electoral college. Unfortunately for the ground swell, the media was not interested in the story, because neither party was interested. There was serious fraud documented in Ohio in '04, the swing state, and though the grassroots were screaming for attention to be brought to the issue, no mainstream media felt it was important enough to cover (or, more correctly, too important to cover), and the dems weren't interested in examining the case either.

Even if, somehow, the populace were to get ornery enough on their own to demand some kind of action, I have zero faith that it would be picked up in any manner by any sort of national voice. I just can't see it changing.