Polls: Romney could win popular vote and Obama the Electoral College

[Ad Orientem]

It's starting to look like the 2000 election all over again. The most recent polls suggest this is a very real possibility and moving into the realm of probable. Obama is holding a lead in enough critical states to push him over the 270 electoral votes needed to win reelection. But Romney is doing so well in some of the more conservative states that almost all national polls are putting him ahead of Obama in the popular vote.

Democrats cried foul back in 2000 and said that Bush was an illegitimate president. That of course was untrue. He was lawfully elected. But it was certainly true that he had no political mandate having lost the popular vote to Al Gore. I would expect similar screaming this time around just with the roles reversed. If this does happen for the second time in 12 years maybe Congress will finally pass a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.

[clacy]

This is an entirely plausible scenario. As a Republican I'm pulling for Romney but I am a fan of the electoral system and can accept the results if this were to happen

[MediumTex]

This is an entirely plausible scenario. As a Republican I'm pulling for Romney but I am a fan of the electoral system and can accept the results if this were to happen

I think that Romney is going to pull large majorities in a lot of red states, so I can easily see this happening.

[Ad Orientem]

A related article from WAPO...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

[murphy_p_t]

Ad Orientem...why do you feel that the system needs to be changed if the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the electoral vote? I ask because I suspect that the founding fathers would have been aware of this scenario you describe.

[Benko]

I will accept it if it happens, but it ain't going to:

1.  Polls are based on D vs R turnout as in last election which is not what the turnout is going to be.

2.  Undecides will go for Romney.

I've forgotten where I read this, but I have to agree.

[Ad Orientem]

Ad Orientem...why do you feel that the system needs to be changed if the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the electoral vote? I ask because I suspect that the founding fathers would have been aware of this scenario you describe.

Because it's shockingly undemocratic and makes us look like the kind of countries we spend a great deal of time condemning. The founding fathers approved of a lot of things we do not accept anymore. When the constitution was written only white males over 21 who were literate, owned property and or paid taxes were allowed to vote in most states. In the 1790's the only way someone like Obama could come to the President's residence was through the servants/slaves entrance. The Electoral College is an anachronistic hold over from the same sort of 18th century mentality.

I have never heard a rational argument for the Electoral College in the modern world.

[MediumTex]

Ad Orientem...why do you feel that the system needs to be changed if the winner of the popular vote is not the winner of the electoral vote? I ask because I suspect that the founding fathers would have been aware of this scenario you describe.

Because it's shockingly undemocratic and makes us look like the kind of countries we spend a great deal of time condemning. The founding fathers approved of a lot of things we do not accept anymore. When the constitution was written only white males over 21 who were literate, owned property and or paid taxes were allowed to vote in most states. In the 1790's the only way someone like Obama could come to the President's residence was through the servants/slaves entrance. The Electoral College is an anachronistic hold over from the same sort of 18th century mentality.

I have never heard a rational argument for the Electoral College in the modern world.

What do you think about the way Senators were originally elected (i.e., by appointment of their respective state legislatures)?

I think that this original means of selecting Senators was WAY better than what we have now (it certainly made it harder for the federal government to push states around the way it has since the 17th amendment was ratified in 1913).  For the same reasons I think that the electoral college makes sense in theory (i.e., it makes it harder to achieve tyranny through mob rule).  The reality, though, is that the electoral college hasn't done much in recent decades except basically make the residents of 75% of the states feel like they have no input into the selection of the President.

(I don't remember any point in my formal education where the significance of the 17th amendment was ever pointed out to me.  It was rarely ever even mentioned that Senators hadn't ALWAYS been directly elected.  Does anyone else have a different experience with this topic in their own education?)

I think you could keep the electoral college but just do away with the winner take all aspect of it, which is something that might be possible under changes to state law without a constitutional amendment (I think that Nebraska and Maine don't follow the winner take all approach).  In fact, it seems like someone might be able to bring a pretty good constitutional case arguing that a winner take all approach to electoral college voting is unconstitutional under a variety of constitutional law theories.

[Ad Orientem]

The theory behind the old way of electing Senators was reasonable. They were supposed to act as the representatives of their state governments, as opposed to people, in Congress. The problem is that in practical terms it was a disaster. Senators were usually elected based on back room deals and bribery, often flagrant. If we want this sort of government why did we separate from Great Britain in the first place? I mean they had it all. A hereditary monarchy and an upper chamber in parliament that was in theory above all of the base politics of the era because the only means of entry was accident of birth.

For the record I actually have nothing against monarchy. On my blog I describe myself as an Orthodox Christian monarchist with libertarian tendencies. Historically monarchy has been a far more libertarian system of government than democracy has. In the supposedly absolute monarchies of the Ancien Regime as long as you avoided treason or sedition, paid your taxes (which were generally a pittance compared to ours), did not attempt to subvert the established church, and did not violate the laws that every orderly society puts in place protecting persons and property you could easily spend your entire life having no contact at all with the crown or its representatives except when mailing a letter.

It was IMHO a system of government with much to recommend.

But for better or worse this country chose not to go that route. If we are gong to have the sort of undemocratic government elected in opposition to popular will why ever did we break from Britain? If you want a government run by unaccountable social elites they have always been the masters at it.

[murphy_p_t]

Ad Orientum...i'd like to check out your blog...please share address.

re: electoral college & winner take all approach...I've considered it as part of tapping the brakes on raw democracy (of which the founders rejected), although I admit I've given it little thought. Maybe another check/balance thing.

Among other things, the college makes the small and rural areas some voice in the selection of president. Without it, the candidates would just focus on the urban areas.

[MachineGhost]

Democrats cried foul back in 2000 and said that Bush was an illegitimate president. That of course was untrue. He was lawfully elected. But it was certainly true that he had no political mandate having lost the popular vote to Al Gore. I would expect similar screaming this time around just with the roles reversed. If this does happen for the second time in 12 years maybe Congress will finally pass a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.

I will fight you.  I do not want future political campaigns pandering to the ultra liberal, blue metropolitan areas and ignoring the rest of the country.  The current swing states are at least more or less evenly divided in political ideaology.  Did Hitler have to tassle with an electoral college in Germany's democracy?

If you've got something better than the electoral college that addresses all of the many valid negatives that will arise from its abolishment, then lets hear it.

[D1984]

I will fight you.  I do not want future political campaigns pandering to the ultra liberal, blue metropolitan areas and ignoring the rest of the country.  The current swing states are at least more or less evenly divided in political ideaology.  Did Hitler have to tassle with an electoral college in Germany's democracy?

If you've got something better than the electoral college that addresses all of the many valid negatives that will arise from its abolishment, then lets hear it.

Without the electoral college, I don't know that they'd "pander to the metropolitan blue areas" exclusively...EVERYTHING would change. Suddenly they'd have to "pander" in every state that they had previously just written off (because the candidate knew that on election day said states would either be overwhelming victories or embarassing routs and in neither case should he/she bother campaigning there since it probably wouldn't-Nebraska or Maine aside-effect the electoral vote outcome in those states much either way) because the goal would no longer be "just get 50.1% in the swing states and ignore the rest" but "get as many votes as you can everywhere because every vote counts."

Also, don't you think that maybe many people in metropolitan areas or blue cities are tired of politicians "pandering" to rural states as you would be of those politicians pandering to those blue staters? That maybe said people are tired of the electoral college making their votes worth "less" than those of other states' residents...3/5ths of a person rule all over again....YAY!!! (OK that last bit was kind of sarcastic)?

My own personal solution (were that it was feasible) would be to just divide the country into many smaller countries (based on ideology) so that who is in Washington doesn't matter as much but barring that just go ahead and elect the President directly (maybe with a single six year term limit like the CSA had instead of our current one four year term and then the campaigning statrts again).

[Ad Orientem]

Democrats cried foul back in 2000 and said that Bush was an illegitimate president. That of course was untrue. He was lawfully elected. But it was certainly true that he had no political mandate having lost the popular vote to Al Gore. I would expect similar screaming this time around just with the roles reversed. If this does happen for the second time in 12 years maybe Congress will finally pass a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college.

I will fight you.  I do not want future political campaigns pandering to the ultra liberal, blue metropolitan areas and ignoring the rest of the country.  The current swing states are at least more or less evenly divided in political ideaology.  Did Hitler have to tassle with an electoral college in Germany's democracy?

If you've got something better than the electoral college that addresses all of the many valid negatives that will arise from its abolishment, then lets hear it.

Sorry I can't support an undemocratic system that effectively disenfranchises half or more of the population in the name of giving an unequal and unfair representation to a minority segment of the population.

I see no negatives to its abolition. 1 man 1 vote. Why should a farmer's vote in Iowa carry more weight than mine in California?

[Ad Orientem]

Murphy
It's linked in the blue dot under my icon.

[MachineGhost]

Sorry I can't support an undemocratic system that effectively disenfranchises half or more of the population in the name of giving an unequal and unfair representation to a minority segment of the population.

I see no negatives to its abolition. 1 man 1 vote. Why should a farmer's vote in Iowa carry more weight than mine in California?

I must be an elitist then, because the "Great Unwashed" of working class, economically-illiterate, pro-Democrats will simply overwhelm and disenfranchise the newly Republican minority, forever electing Democrat presidents.  We could all be doomed on a path to the Californization and Europeanization of the entire USA.  The middle class in CA is GONE.  K-a-p-u-t.  One needs to earn six figures minimum just to live a middle class lifestyle in CA because of endless Democratic voodoo economics relentlessly driving up living costs.

On second thought, since abolishment is just limited to the Presidential election, I see that the damage can hopefully be kept in check as long as the rest of the federal political process stays representative.  What's truly dangerous is political extremism and rule by majority that doesn't allow the dynanism of dissenting/alternative ideals.

[moda0306]

I absolutely believe that pure democracy is a disaster and has to have built-in firewalls.  However, questions is what kind of firewalls are appropriate.

In the initial founding of the nation, the firewalls were.... not allowing women to vote, not allowing blacks to vote, not allowing Indians to vote, not allowing non-landowners to vote, only allowing the remaining white landowning men to vote for representatives, who then proceeded to vote for senators, and the electoral college, who then voted for president.  Also, with opposing branches of government, tyranny was more difficult to accomplish, whether said tyranny was as a direct result of democratic mob-rule or simply government bureaucracy.  One of these branches is specifically designed to limite the tyranny of the majority: The Supreme Court.  Further, many powers were given to states vs the federal government.

All these things served to limit democracy in its purest form, but my question is, who gets to decide?  Who gets to decide which forms of limitation on democracy are appropriate.  Who gets to decide that it's ok for the federal government do one thing vs another?  Who decides that states have rights?  Should states have rights any more than our federal government has rights?  Shouldn't the ultimate holder of rights be individuals?

The electoral college is nothing more than one man's way to usurp democracy in favor of "states rights" (which I think is kind of a BS term, because it almost implies state personhood, and definitely implies the legitimacy of state governments, which I think for decades if not centuries was up for debate), which simply results in counting what some people believe the gov't should do more than others believe, and, as some have said, rendering the votes of people in many states null and void.  Whether that's a good way to limit the negative effects of democracy depends on your difinition on what the bad aspects of democratic rule are, but the original Republic, to me, seemed to be built just as much on tyranny and plutocracy as it was proper separation of powers.  Rich men only wanted the government to do certain things... mainly, have the ability to draft poor men to defend their wealthin war.  Poor men probably would have preferred a different role between government and society, especailly the ability of the federal government to limit tyranny of the state governments, but they didn't get a vote, and therefore the role of government was decided by the plutocracy.  They certainly moved the ball forward and should be given loads of credit for it, but the idea that somehow problems with democraic rule mean that our original design of the Republic was anywhere close to ideal is a bit crazy to me.  Simply replacing "mob rule" with outright unfair tyranny is not a solution, to me.  We need individual protections and limitations on democratic rule, but taking a few men's definition of what constitutes "tyranny of the majority" is hardly the right way to do it, IMO.

[Xan]

I don't think there was a landowning requirement for voting in this country.  Maybe WAAY early, but I don't believe such a thing existed by 1776.  If I'm right (and I may not be), that pretty much undermines your last paragraph.

Also, states' rights are critical, as they are one of the checks against federal power.  (And one that you're not taught in elementary school anymore.)  This is a voluntary union of sovereign states, which have voluntarily designated (not surrendered) certain powers to a central government.

The Electoral College is one of the compromises of the Constitution which allowed it to be created in the first place.  It balances the rights of small states against large states.  It is critically important.

[Pointedstick]

Also, states' rights are critical, as they are one of the checks against federal power.  (And one that you're not taught in elementary school anymore.)  This is a voluntary union of sovereign states, which have voluntarily designated (not surrendered) certain powers to a central government.

That's what the Confederate States of America thought.

In theory, a lot of things are true. In practice, the union is involuntary, the commerce clause grants the federal government permission to outlaw trade, and the constitution is just a piece of paper subject to the whims of nine unelected judges. Who says? The men with the biggest guns.

In the end, even in the most civilized society, "the way things are" always boils down to whoever has the most power. In a representative government, we're just fighting over who gets to have that power, not whether or not it exists in the first place.

[Xan]

PS,

I agree with everything you said.  Just trying to do my small part to argue for the way I think things ought to be.

[moda0306]

How legitimate are state governments that enslave 40% of the population, and don't let the majority of the rest of it even vote??

The Constitution was a compromise between plutocrats.  Progressive plutocrats, yes, but plutocrats nonetheless.

[moda0306]

And I believe Andrew Jackson ended the landowning requirement in the 1820's.

[Xan]

Looks like you're right, the last landowning requirement was dropped somewhere around the Jackson administration.  Although I wouldn't say that Jackson ended it; it's a state-by-state thing.  (Another great reason for the Electoral College.)

I've never heard of a political entity that allows non-citizens to vote, regardless of their residence.

The plutocrats got it basically right.  Engaging in Marxist populism simply leads us directly to tyranny, do not pass go.

[moda0306]

Xan,

I believe "Jacksonian Democracy" had a lot to do with the ending of that requirement.  However, it's almost irrelevant.  I don't believe that any government that is simply a collective will of supposed owners of natural resources that enslaved masses is legitimate.  I find it interesting that so many can look back on those states as having "rights" that were horribly violated.  Individuals have rights.  States were a coercive tool, not too dissimilar to our federal government, to divide the power of government and keep it in check, not unlike our branches of the federal government, but were wholly beholden, often, to simply an economic elite that gained most of their power simply by claiming land as their own and organizing productive activities thereon.

Your post doesn't provide much useful analysis, as citizenship and tyranny as defined only by the few in control isn't much of a measuring stick.

And I'm not arguing for communism.  I'd hope that was obvious.  I also find it odd that you can say that Marxism will "lead" to tyranny while whistling past the tyranny of the government(s), as they existed within the union at the time, that you say they "had it right."  I do believe some levels of social safety nets are important, and that government can do some things better than the private sector.  The reason has a lot more to do with "races to the bottom," the nature of how people behave in groups, externalities, common resources, and what things break down amongst individuals each seeking their own benefit than it does to any failings of individuals that work hard in the private sector.  I believe entreprenurialism is an amazing thing.  Most things work better, not worse, as a result of the profit motive.

In the end though, it always comes down to the individual.  It was individuals working together who put a man on the moon, who invented the nuclear bomb, and who invented the iPod and microwave.  "Private enterprise" and "government" are simply quasi-controlled surroundings through which individuals will behave a certain way, and two surroundings that I believe exist in a very symbiotic way.  If you completely removed either from the economy, I believe we'd be multitudes worse off than we are now.  The key is achieving a balance of freedom, equality, and order where each actually tends to act to strengthen the other instead of debilitating it.  For instance, I believe the government freeway system has acted to free peopl in some ways in terms of allowing them to access other parts of the country more freely, just as our military has, in some ways, acted to free others in spite of committing horribly destructive acts.

[notsheigetz]

How legitimate are state governments that enslave 40% of the population, and don't let the majority of the rest of it even vote??

If the 40% of the enslaved population plus the majority of the rest aren't taking up arms against their own government can you tell me why I should sacrifice my own sons and daughters in this cause?

[moda0306]

notsheigetz,

No I wouldn't ask your sons and daughters to go rescue millions, though I don't think any of the people you mention were in a position to "take up arms" and be successful, or should be expected to do so to consider their governments tyrranical.  Just because the North Korean people don't "take up arms" against their government, I don't consider it a legitimate government.

Further, if you're referring to the Civil War, which I wasn't even attempting to make assersion on, the North wasn't calling for "daughters."  They only drafted men.  Secondly, though the South's secession probably wouldn't have occured but for the economic issues surrounding slavery and its spread westward, the North's defending of its forts was more about "preserving the Union" than rescuing slaves.  Was that a worthy goal?  I would say probably not, though I'm still trying to educate myself on the issue.

I'm not arguing for the military invasion of the South.  I'm simply arguing that judging the proper role of government and democracy based on who got to make the decisions back then is a bit of a farce.  Or at least deserves to have some independent thinking applied to it.  Whether the women and blacks of the South were in a position to revolt or not is irrelevant to the discussion of the legitimacy of the governments that oversaw them.  In fact, I find most organized military revolts to be, on their face, just as illegitimate as the governments they're revolting against when after all is said and done they commit similar atrocities without trial of the supposed former oppressers.

I don't know... maybe you can clarify the point you're trying to make.   I really don't understand what you're trying to get at.