On  Wed, 21 Jul 2004 09:24:22 -0700
Glenn Paden <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Something that hasn't been mentioned that I think is worth mentioning is
> that there iRe: OT: Republicans riot in Las Vegas a somewhat, to me,
> strange way in which the Electoral College is composed that made this
> all possible. States are allowed to determine the electors however they
> choose

Recall that the President of the United States is elected by the  the
United States Congress and by no other body.  The purpose of the
electoral collage is simply to determine which candidates for
President and Vice-President are presented to Congress for election,
not to elect those offices.  Note as well that both offices are
elected separately.  That present practice conceals these legalities
from public consciousness does not change them.

The electoral collage is a device created to prevent direct
democratic election of the chief magistrates of the United States.
Something that the draftsmen of the U.S. constitution were at pains
to prevent in order to avoid what was considered a fatal flaw in
Roman politics, one that in their view lead to the degeneration of
the Republic and the creation of the Empire, mob rule.  Thia device
was created long before the dominant bipolar political regime that
most Americans consider normal today was ever a possibility.

A second consideration that the constitutional assembly went to some
lengths to guarantee was that individual states retain nearly
complete control over how those candidates are selected and how their
electoral votes are distributed among candidates.  This was a vital
issue in the early republic as the corrupting influence of enlarged
central powers was considered a great evil that had to be controlled
by preserving considerable political power for the individual states.
 In the aftermath of the American Civil War this evil was not
considered by many to be as great as those that flourished under a
decentralized system and so reforms were proposed.

In the late 19C and early 20C a pronounced trend towards populist
politics and progressive democracy resulted in many changes intended
to lend a more "democratic" air to U.S. federal politics and to curb
State powers.  One of these changes caused State Legislatures to give
up their right to appoint Senators and to allow direct election of
that body.  Another reform provided for direct popular election of
Electors to the College rather than appointment by the State
Legislatures.  However, the States retained the power to determine
how the Electors should vote.

One consequence of this change is that "first past the post gets all"
now rules the Electoral College in most states, where the winner of
the popular vote gets all the votes.  However, this is not mandated
by federal law and in two states, Maine and Nebraska, alternative
regimes apportioning EC votes based on popular will is practised to
some degree. Distribution of EC votes in federal elections is thus
controlled by State laws, many of which have provisions that probably
would not withstand a constitutional challenge, whose effect is to
direct Electors' votes in the manner that the State Legislatures
generally wished.  That is that all the votes of a State go towards a
single candidate.

Interestingly, the bipolar nature of present day U.S. politics
probably has its roots in the nature of the Presidential election
process and the deep social devisiveness prevalent during the
reconstruction period following the American Civil War.  Under the
United States system, if one candidate for President receives an
absolute majority of the EC votes cast then the Senate must simply
ratify the election.  If however, no single candidate gets an
absolute majority then the House of Representatives must choose a
president from among the top three EC vote getters.

However, in that event every State (and D.C.) must vote en bloc in
the House for their choice of President.  In other words, all of the
Representatives for a single State must each vote the same way for
President regardless of political affiliation.  If the House cannot
elect a President with an absolute majority in this fashion then the
Senate must elect one from between the top two EC vote getters.
Unlike Representatives, Senators cast their votes for President and
Vice-President individually and do not vote by State. The effect of
reducing the selection to the top two candidates and removing the
requirement to vote by state guarantees that in the final eventuality
one candidate with an absolute majority will prevail in the Senate.

The political and social purposes served by this convoluted procedure
is much debated by scholars but its effect on U.S. federal politics
is clear and dramatic.  In order to avoid having the decision made in
Congress it is necessary to present a candidate with an absolute
majority of EC votes. In a viable multi-party system this would only
occur a vanishingly remote number of times.  Therefore it is against
the interests of those who profit from control and operation of
political parties to tolerate a viable alternative to the binary
system existent.  Whether this serves the interests of the people or
is in keeping with the spirit of the Constitution is an open
question.

In my view, the citizens of the U.S.A. are not well served by this
bipolar regime for, as is evident to all who contemplate its effects,
it acts to stifle and suppress moderation within and to exaggerate
devisiveness without.  The lack of viable alternative forms of
political expression drives many people who hold more moderate,
centrist views, from active participation in politics altogether,
leaving the crass and the immoderate disproportionately represented.


As a further footnote.  It is a Constitutional requirement that
electoral college voters may not vote for both a presidential and
vice-presidential candidate from the same State.  Richard Cheney and
G.W. Bush are both from Texas.  Mr. Cheney altered his voter
registration in 2000 when he was nominated as GWB running mate, an
act whose clear intent to evade an election law raises rather
interesting questions in itself.

Regards,
Jim

--


***     e-mail is NOT a secure channel     ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB.<token>@Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3CE               delivery <token> = hal

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *