West Virginian Mayor Might Defy Popular Vote

gleam writes "A maverick Republican mayor in West Virginia is reportedly considering not casting his vote in the Electoral College for Bush, even if Bush wins the popular vote there. South Charleston Mayor Richie Robb says, 'I know that among some in my own party, what I'm discussing would be considered treasonous, but I'm not going to cheerlead us down the primrose path when I know we're being led in the wrong direction.' It wouldn't be the first time a West Virginian Elector defied the popular vote: In 1988 an Elector cast her vote for Michael Dukakis's running mate, Lloyd Bentsen, even though Dukakis won the state's popular vote."

Comments

Wild prediction

[deanj]

...People that agree with him will call him "honorable". People that don't will call him a "traitor".

Re:Wild prediction

[caseih]

I don't know. If I was in his state and he didn't vote according to the popular vote then I'd feel very much like he stole from me personally my right to influence the election process. Doing what he proposes is morally questionable, to say nothing of legality. How can he, being an elected official, simply ignore the wishes of the citizens of his state who voted (should the vote come in favor of Bush).

Re:Wild prediction

[Golias]

While I'm a Bush voter (this time around) and I'm fine with what this guy is doing. This is what the system is. If the people of West Virginia don't like it, it's up to them to change it.

I also think that the President should never be chosen by simple popular vote in a nation of almost 300 million people divided into 50 different states which each have interests that are sometimes in conflict with one another. Popular vote alone would produce a President of The Northeast and Southwest Coasts in charge of the whole nation, without the need for even a pretense of giving a crap about "fly-over" country.

So we've both proved that the grandparent poster is wrong. Some people form their opinions according to their basic principles, rather than partisan cheerleading.

The Electoral College in Action

[ElForesto]

This is exactly what the electoral college is designed for, as a check against a popularly-elected president that horrifies Congress. It's usually in the best interests of the electors to go with the flow and approve who the voters choose, but it exists in case the next Hitler comes along so that even with a popular vote such a person would not come to power. (No, I don't think anyone running is the next Hitler, but hyperbole is great for driving points home.)

Re:The Electoral College in Action

[thelenm]

I think Godwin's Law may be applicable here. :-)

Seriously though, since I've never been entirely clear exactly how electors are chosen, I just became interested enough to look it up. Interesting that we as common voters are not casting our votes for president and vice president. We are casting them for electors. And the ballot has choices between "Electors for X" and "Electors for Y", whose names have been submitted by the various political parties.

It is the electors' prerogative to vote their consciences. At the same time, if Mayor Robb was chosen as a Bush elector by the Republican Party, I assume it was with the understanding that he would vote for Bush. Either he's changed his mind since becoming an elector, or else he became a Bush elector without ever intending to vote for Bush. Either way, I'm not sure I agree with his decision to go back on the "understood" agreement that he would vote for Bush. But it is his decision.

Actually, I like the way Maine and Nebraska choose their electors. Instead of each party choosing a slate of electors that everyone in the state votes for, there are two statewide electors plus one elector chosen from each Congressional district. I think the electors would be much more representative of the overall will of the people if they were chosen this way, instead of on a statewide basis.

Re:The Electoral College in Action

[CGP314]

t's usually in the best interests of the electors to go with the flow and approve who the voters choose, but it exists in case the next Hitler comes along so that even with a popular vote such a person would not come to power.

So the next Hitler only has to bribe the voters in the electoral college and not the whole population? Interesting.

Re:Stand behind the president? What?

[deanj]

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. He said "if he wins West Virginia". The states DO represent the popular vote, and the only way this joker can be the elector would be if Bush does win the popular vote.

If Bush doesn't win the popular vote there, then the Democrat electors will cast the votes in the electorial college.

There are two sets of electoral college voters... one for each party.

The Tally for Today

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-Bush articles:3 (Michael Moore, Bush's ANG service, and now this)
Anti-Kerry articles:0.

CmdrTaco did say you guys were going to be fair right? So far, this politics section has been nothing but a Republican-bashing site since Day 1.

You guys could at least fake it, instead of being so obvious and two-faced about it.

Re:The Tally for Today

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

What about this story is anti bush or is even bashing anybody?

The man in the story said that he's going to use the power he has in the election to make the choice he believes is right.

Total nonsense.

[brunes69]

This is exactly what the electoral college is designed for...

...but it exists in case the next Hitler comes along so that even with a popular vote such a person would not come to power. (No, I don't think anyone running is the next Hitler, but hyperbole is great for driving points home

I am really getting sick of people spouting this BS in articles like this lately.

The electoral college system was designed because 200 years ago, it was the only logical way to do things. You didn't have cars, planes, or busses. All you had was horses.

Imagine a country-wide vote in 1800. Imagine the mountains and mountains of paper that would all have to be delivered to Washington by horseback. Imagine the number of postman involved, any one of which could easily be picked off, or bribed. Imagine how long it would take to count.

The electoral college was developed so that you only had to send one person / state to Washington. The individual states could each count the votes in their state, then they know what to tell their guy to vote for. it is the only thing that made sense logistically.

Nowadays, however, all the reasons for it are gone. Your argument is rubbish - why are the electoral college voters more suited for judging character than the populace as a whole? I wouldn't trust most of the politicians I know with keys to my house, let alone keys to the country's vote.

Re:Total nonsense.

[ComputerSlicer23]

Unless you have some historical basis for this from the Founding Father's original papers, I'm thinking you are wrong, or at least it's not the only reason. The original poster you are replying to has it roughly correct, but is missing a few details.

As it's been taught to me, and from what I've read of the Constitution and other important documents from the Founding Father's, the critical reason for the Electoral College is that we are a collection of states. It is split for exactly the same reasons we have both the House and the Senate, where in the House each state gets votes according to their population, but in the Senate it was one state, two votes.

The reason for the split (and also the reason that both the Vice President and President can't come from the same state), is that the original colonies we're afraid that the most populace (I believe Virgina and Pennsylvania at the time) would dominate Rhode Island (which by the way, isn't the original name of the state), Connecticut, Delaware and Maryland. They wouldn't have ratified the Constitution. It was a political compromise (just like requiring that all of the appropriations of money start in the House of Representatives is). If we didn't have an electoral college any guy who promised huge benefits to a few densely populated states would win out, and abuse the other smaller states.

It's still protecting us today, because otherwise carrying California, Texas, New York, Massachusates, and a handful of other very densely populated areas would be all you had to do. In fact, to see this, go find the chart for the election results by county from 2000 (I can't find a link, but I remember roughly what it looked like). It looked almost exactly like a photograph of the US at night from space. All the really dark areas won Bush, all the really light areas were for Gore. It was an absolute landslide in for Bush in those terms. However, Gore carried the most populated areas. The founding father's feared such a diacotomy, it'd end up with a government who had no interest in representing a large group of people's interests, because they weren't popular enough. South and North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, Nebraska, Iowa, Mississippi, New Mexico, and probably a few other states, would be vastly under represented precisely because they we're a minority.

The Founding Father's felt that the state was the proper unit to give authority to. We are a collection of States who band together for protection and bargining rights when dealing with foreign nations, and to facilitate resolutions to internal conflict. That's what the Federal Government original was designed to do. Read up on the Federalist system sometime. State's have authority.

I'll point out, that it's just as easy to bribe an electoral voter as it is a postman. Remember, that at the time the Founding Father's setup the government, there were not all the states that currently existed. I'd be shocked if it would have taken more then 3-4 weeks to travel the length and breadth of the country then, even on horse back. Remember people used to travel from the east coast to the West Coast on horseback in about 6 months (you could only travel during warm weather, and hence and to get across the Rockies within a relatively specific time frame). There wasn't a state west of West Virgina at the time. It's also why states have from the first week of November until Dec 18, of the year to get the electoral college votes to Washington D.C.

Kirby

Checks and Balances

[ElForesto]

It's just another layer of "check and balance" that's been built into this system. I'm not surprised that you (and I imagine many like-minded people) want to throw it out as I'm sure it seems arcane, but you must more carefully consider it. A lot of people said the same thing about US Senators, that the people should be trusted to choose them directly instead of letting the legislatures choose them. Are we better off now with direct election of Senators, or worse off?

I'd tend to say that we are worse off now. Senators operate largely on the same basis as the House: whoever brings home the most bacon gets re-elected. It also means the legislative body represents the interests of the people only and not of the states. While the Founders were distrustful of power and authority, there were also distrustful of allowing direct control of all government by the people as a whole.

I think you need to do a little reconsidering of your position. After having read on several of the Founders, I doubt they were more concerned with election fraud than direct elections.

Re:Checks and Balances

[brunes69]

The problem with Senators in the US is that they are elected. Thus, they really serve no purpose at all. They are just another copy of the lower house.

In most every other democracy in the that has a two-house system, the upper house is appointed - not elected, and members serve for life (or until they retire).

While the idea of an unelected house may seem un-democratic, it has many attributes that make it a much better "buffer" than an elected upper house. Since the body appointing the members is of a particular party, they will appoint people who favor their views. however, since a member of Senate serves for life, over the long term, rather than have one viewpoint in majority, the Senate will always have a huge diversity of opinions. Thus, you will likely *never* have a situation where one viewpoint controls both the lower, upper, and executive, branches of government.

Damn. /. is really broken

[johnnliu]

Yes, politics section is good - for all the political posts.

1. I'm not in US, I don't really understand or care, really, who these people are. But I'm open to accept that Americans probably care about their politics. And they probably want it on their /. front page.

2. A smart /. would have worked that out, may be from my "Time Zone / Daylight Savings Time" information - which puts me in GMT +10

3. I go to my preferences and check off both "Politics" (did anyone notice there are two?

4. As usual, politics posts still appear on my /. front page along with YRO. All of which should HAVE BEEN FILTERED.

Gosh, damn. A nerd website that is broken and buggy? Where's your pride?

I call bullshit.

[ubiquitin]

This isn't a "Republicans" article. By pretending to be fair and having both a Republicans and a Democrats section here, the clearly left-leaning editors can encourage their friends and berate their enemies to their hearts content. Seriously, this is my last /. politics post. I'm banning Democrats, Republicans, and Politics from my homepage. When I want real politics news and discussion I know where to get it. Not here.

Re:What if it was Kerry?

[moofdaddy]

Yes! Of course it would have you stupid paranoid fuck. This is a big issue regardless of party affiliation. After the beating the electoral college took in the last election and the claims of illegitamcey that haunted bush through his whole first term, if this actually happens and has a deciding factor on the election it will be of insane importance.

It will likely kill the electoral college, it will further decrease voting turnout and it will be a serious albatrose around the neck of the elected president.

Then why...

[Rufus88]

The electoral college was developed so that you only had to send one person / state to Washington

Then why wasn't the system codified to require the elector to merely report the majority vote for the state, and not allow him/her the option to ignore the will of the people?

Re:As an outsider...

[Jerf]

It is a two party system because of emergent effects from the voting system (about 1/3rd of the way in to that piece). I also think that link is the best defense of the current system. I used to think our voting system was flawed for the usual reasons trotted out on Slashdot but now I think not many people understand how well our system works; voting between "two evils" is actually something of a feature.

Also note that today's Republican Party is a third party. They killed off the Whig party a long time ago. It is not impossible for that to happen again. If the Democrats don't shed their radical leftists*, it may happen again really soon.

(Bi-Partisan note: Part of the reason the Republicans are doing so well is that they analysed their failures during the Clinton era and marginalized some groups like the Christian Right that were detrimental to them. (Criticisms that the Republicans are controlled by them are now out of date.) Hopefully, after Kerry tanks the Democrats will do some housecleaning and re-align with the center a little better. I could never vote for Kerry, but if they put forth someone who doesn't have to pander to the loony left, I might consider it. (Bi-Partison note the second: Yes, I would say the Republicans shook off their loony right. "Loonies" here are people who consider a person or position 100% evil with no chance of facts changing their mind.))

Re:I don't get it.

[AHumbleOpinion]

So I don't really see what's so wrong if he openly declares his wishes. If people vote him in and they want him to vote for Bush they're stupid.

We don't vote for the electors, we actually vote for the presidential candidates. The popular vote within a state determines which party's electors are then sent to the electoral college.

Yes, it made more sense two hundred years ago when news and electors traveled by horse. However there are still some benefits to the indirect election of a president. Smaller states have more of a say and therefore can not be ignored. With a direct popular vote candidates would not really care what people outside of major metropolitan areas care about.

Re:A deeper meaning?

[AHumbleOpinion]

The thing is, that's the entire point of the electoral college system: that the people *don't* get to elect a leader. The people only get to recommend them. There have been a handful of times already in history when the popular vote didn't go the way of the electoral vote. Not many, but it's happened.

I believe you are mistaken. Presidents elected with a popular minority are not the result of electors ignoring the "recommendation". It is a results of the winner take all nature of determining which electors go to Washington, it is a rounding error in some ways.

This is a good thing

[Dunkirk]

The entire system of the electoral college was supposed to shield the decision of selecting a president from an ignorant public. In my opinion, the situation in Florida in 2000 was a perfect example of the sort of buffer it provides. I desperately wished that Florida's electoral college representatives would have just split their votes and given the odd one to Bush. That would have been a fair resolution to all the recounting. If it really was too close to call, then make it up in the electoral vote. If it was due to Republicans trying to disenfranchise black voters, if it was due to Democrats trying to disenfranchise military absentee voters, if it was due to Dan Rather calling the election for Gore an hour before the polls closed, whatever the case, make it up in the electoral vote. If all of these battleground states -- if ALL the states -- would cast their votes according to the percentage of the votes that go towards the candidates, we'd have a system that could still correct this sort of confusion, and would still get really close to a system of a popular vote. Don't let anyone fool you, we've had craziness in our voting all along. It's just that technology has provided both the insight to catch it and, more importantly, the means to communicate it immediately. The electoral college may be even more forward-thinking than we knew, but the people who make up the system are going to have to change their attitudes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only tradition that keeps things the way they are. I don't know of any laws that force the delegates to cast their votes a certain way. If they think that the public of their state has made a mistake, it's their duty to cast their vote according to their conscience. (But then we get into a situation were we need to examine how those people get into the position of casting their vote. I have no idea how they are selected.)

Re:As an outsider...

[bonkedproducer]

How is voting my conscience throwing away my vote? Independants and third parties have won many offices in our nation, if I strongly disagree with the two major party candidates, and feel they are unfit to lead, and strongly agree with a third party candidate who is on the ballot - it is my civic duty and moral obligation to vote for the individual I feel best qualified to take the post.