response 1 of 107:

Nov 10 05:29 UTC 2000

The Constitution of the United States provides for the selection of the
President and Vice-president of the United States by electors appointed by
each state, in the manner directed by the state legislators.  It establishes
the number of such electors as "equal to the whole number of senators
and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress"
(Art II, Sec 1, par 2).

As originally ratified, the Constitution made the winner of the election the
President and the first runner-up the Vice-president.  However, the Twelfth
Amendment modified the procedure to provide separate votes for each office,
thus allowing candidates to pair themselves as President and Vice-president.

Both the original text and the Twelfth Amendment required a candidate to
receive both the greatest number of votes and a majority of the electors.
Both also required the House of Representatives to "immediately" choose
the President, giving each state one vote.

The procedure was modified again by the Twentieth Amendment, which also
established the dates of the terms of office for Congress (January 3),
the President and Vice-president (January 20) and provided for the
succession if the President elect should die before the beginning of
the term of office:  "If a President shall not have been chosen before
the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect
shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act
as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress
may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a
Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act
as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected,
and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President
shall have qualified" (Amendment 20, Section 3).

response 3 of 107:

Nov 10 08:35 UTC 2000

As I read your proposed ammendment, it would have thrown the 1992 and 1996
elections to the House of Representatives.  Unless that's your intent, it
would probably be better to provide for a plurality, rather than a majority,
or else you'd end up with a system less democratic than the Electoral College
any time there was a moderately strong third party showing.

Having Congress settle a tie with one vote per state seems like far more of
an anachronistic concession to the "all states should be considered equal"
supporters than the Electoral College is.  Letting each House member vote
individually would be more in tune with what you're trying to propose, I
think.

I do think the Electoral College has some merit, as a counting system.  It
seems very reasonable to me to replace human electors with an automatic
process, but that's as far as I'll go with saying something is obvious.  I'll
have to write about the rest of the question when I'm more awake.

response 5 of 107:

Nov 10 18:27 UTC 2000

Democracy is majority rule which means the individual should conform to the

collective "people"=majority rule=tyranny 
your amendment is a pro-majority rule and it's evil.
It's a republic not a democracy (usa)

response 7 of 107:

Nov 10 19:52 UTC 2000

This amendment directly attacks state's rights, which are built in elsewhere
in our constitution. 

The amendment also creates a nightmare of alternative parties, ensuring
that it will happen much more often that NO candidates get even a majority.
It would create something closer to the parliamentary system in voting -
but then how do you decide who wins when no one has a majority? The
provision in the proposal is one vote per state, which raises the question
of how the state representative will arrive at that conscensus. Since
when have state representatives had to agree on anything? Also, if done
this way, it is the ultimate "state's rights", far more extreme than
the electoral college.

It's nuts.

response 9 of 107:

Nov 10 22:07 UTC 2000

(here's what the professional proposed):


S.J. Res. 56
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring
therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of
its submission to the States for ratification: 


`Article--

`Section 1. The President and Vice President shall be elected by the
people of the several States and the district constituting the seat of
government of the United States.
`Section 2. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of Representatives in Congress from that State,
except that the legislature of any State may prescribe less restrictive
qualifications with respect to residence and Congress may establish
uniform residence and age qualifications. Congress shall establish
qualifications for electors in the district constituting the seat of
government of the United States.
`Section 3. The persons having the greatest number of votes for President
and Vice President shall be elected, if such number be at least 40 per
centum of the whole number of votes cast for such offices in the general
election. If no persons have such number, a runoff election shall be held
21 days after the general election. In the runoff election, the choice of
President and Vice President shall be made from the persons who received
the two highest numbers of votes for each office in the general election.
`Section 4. The times, places, and manner of holding such elections, and
entitlement to inclusion on the ballot for the general election, shall be
prescribed in each State by the legislature thereof; but Congress may at
any time by law make or alter such regulations. Congress shall prescribe
by law the time, place, and manner in which the results of such elections
shall be ascertained and declared.
`Section 5. Each elector shall cast a single vote jointly applicable to
President and Vice President in any such election. Names of candidates
shall not be joined unless they shall have consented thereto and no
candidate shall consent to his or her name's being joined with that of
more than one other person.
`Section 6. Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any
candidate for President or Vice President before the day on which the
President-elect or the Vice President-elect has been chosen; and for the
case of a tie in any such election.
`Section 7. Congress shall have the power to implement and enforce this
article by appropriate legislation.
`Section 8. This article shall take effect one year after the twenty-first
day of January following ratification.'.


(http://www.senate.gov/~durbin/PressReleases/001101b.htm)

response 11 of 107:

Nov 11 01:48 UTC 2000

NB:  The text of the 1977 proposal can be found at

        http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012501.htm

It was introduced in the Senate, where it failed.

response 13 of 107:

Nov 11 02:12 UTC 2000

I wasn't trying to create a "representational" system; I was trying
to create a direct-election system.  My only goal was to eliminate the
electoral college.  I've seen no argument to convince me that the current
system of resolving ties (or other failures to elect) needed changing.

Personally, I think it very UNLIKELY that many elections would go to the
Congress for resolution.  I think knowing that a majority of qualified
voters (AKA "electors") was required to elect a President would inspire
more people to vote.

response 15 of 107:

Nov 11 05:49 UTC 2000

51% of the 60% of qualified electors (i.e., registered voters) who
voted is not enough to win the election described in #0.  Deliberately.
With malice afore thought.

So a three-party race like the ones with Perot is likely to end up in
the House, true.

Will this make it harder for a third party to win an election?  I don't
know.  Probably, given the past successes of third parties.  Then again,
the rules would have changed.  Perhaps enough to affect the way people
play the game, making it easier for any given candidate to persuade a
sufficient number of people to vote for her, despite party affiliations.

response 17 of 107:

Nov 11 09:42 UTC 2000

As I suggested elsewhere in Agora, a simple fix to the Electoral College
would be to add a slate of at-large electors, equal in number to the
electors from the largest state, and award those to the winner of the
popular vote plurality.

If that system had been in effect this year, Bush or Gore would win
another 54 electoral votes as a bonus for getting the most votes
nationwide.

response 19 of 107:

Nov 11 22:17 UTC 2000

To be consistent with the rest of the system, yes, they would be
actual slates of electors.  The idea is to do the absolute minimum
change necessary.  "Faithless electors" are not really much of a
problem.

response 21 of 107:

Nov 12 01:54 UTC 2000

Re 20.  That would make sense.

response 23 of 107:

Nov 12 08:39 UTC 2000

No, no, no, states control election law.  Most states DO NOT have the
automatic recount trigger.  Michigan, for example, does not.