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).

Hmm..

[WhatAmIDoingHere]

I wonder when the IRS is going to start looking very carefully at this man's returns..

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.

It's like the daily show said...

[missing000]

the facts are biased against bush.

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.

[ageoffri]

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.

I really suggest you read the Federal Papers before you make yourself look uneducated. There was no single reason the electoral process was chosen. Distance and communication was one. Another was to avoid foreign powers having an effect on the election of the President. They used words like "prostitue the vote" and assumed an Elector would be better educated then the general public and could avoid foriegn manipulation. Yet another reason was to balance the small states vs the large states. Don't belive me, then take a look at the information from the US Government on the electoral college. Also note that the electoral college is made up of the number of Senators and Represenitives.

Nowdays one of the reasons for the electoral college is gone, but not all of them.

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

The Electoral College

[Dimwit]

The Electoral College, for those not familiar with the United States Presidental election system, is a particular group of people charged with electing the president.

The electors are charged with voting for the President - the President is elected by this group of people (much like the Holy Roman Emperor was elected by a select group of German/Italian nobles). The people technically vote for electors.

Electors are "pledged" to vote for who the people they represent voted for - but they aren't required. This (electors voting for someone other than the person the popular vote chose) has happened several times in the past, although it has never affected the outcome of the election.

Several reasons have been postulated for the Electoral College system. One, it's a check on the stupidity of the people - make sure a dicatorial demagogue isn't elected. Another reason was that the Founding Fathers didn't trust the communications of their time. For example, if, after the popular election, it was found out that the President-elect was a serial killer, the electors could change their vote.

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: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:As an outsider...

[NateTech]

Note: On the world stage, many view the entire U.S. system as skewed to the Right.

One example, politicalcompass.com puts Kerry nearly center on a graph of left/right and also of authoritarian/libertarian, with GWB further right and authoritarian than Kerry.

A differnt type of world leader, such as Ghandi and Nelson Mandella fall left and libertarian.

In that light, Kerry's the more "centered" to the world, which GWB is the radical. The far left in the Dems are probably quite a way over on the graph, but could be either authoritarian or libertarian depending on their views.

Of interesting note, virtually no world leaders fall in the Libertarian/Right quadrant - a rare person indeed.