Superbelt

Poor District of Columbia. Separate from both Maryland and Virginia. Home of the nation but not allowed to help steer the nation outside fo 3 electoral votes for President. I think DC encapsulates two wrongs with this nation that need righted. Their lack of representation in government and the worthlessness of our electoral college system.

DC has 80k more people than tiny in population but high in land area Wyoming (493K), DC has a nonvoting delegate in the House and no senators. They are really left out of the processes of our governance.

Wyoming gets 3 Electoral votes. Rhode Island has more than twice the population of Wyoming and only has 4 electoral votes. That makes the RI residents LESS VALUABLE than Wyomings.
New Mexico has more than 3 TIMES the pop of Wyo and only has 5 votes. That ain't right.

Popular vote is the only fair way. It isn't right that I can move to a state like Wyo or ND/SD and my vote effectively doubles.

Why does DC continue to be Americas red headed stepchild? Well, it's because of the fact that the Republicans will NEVER allow DC to have senators. Why? They went 90% of the vote to Kerry. That guarantees that their representative and both senators would be sure thing Democrats. Hell, if DC can't have a rep, Wyoming shouldn't be allowed to either. The Districts vote, which goes in higher numbers to the Democrats, is absolutely nullified by the even smaller Wyoming. And Wyo still gets to send senators and a congressman to DC.

Now, the democrats lost the popular vote by 3.5 million, I still want to see the EC removed, and I would do almost anything to see Bush NOT be president. There once was a day where we needed it because the smaller states would get lost in the shuffle, that day is gone. We can, and do run elections through media markets now. That is how it should be.

SecretMethod70

I am 100% supportive of statehood for DC with 2 senators and 1 congressman per 700,000 population (at least that's the ratio it is now).

Taxation without representation = wrong.

As for the electoral college argument I am vehemently against that part. It completely ignored states' rights. The federal government already greatly oversteps its bounds in duties - the states don't need to be stripped of any more power than they already have been. The electoral college being set up in the way it is is directly related to our biacmeral system of government. The only awy in which stripping the electoral college would make any consistant sense (and I would still be opposed to this) is to scrap the constitution, become unicameral, and move to a parliamentary system.

As it stands, I think it's much more reasonable and better to work towards restoring the United States as a FEDERATION just like it was designed.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Ustwo

Someone wants 2 free democrat senators.

No way.

You would never support this SB if they were Republican voters.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

Then remove Wyoming's senators. Why should less people get more voice just because of geography?

Why do these people, who live INSIDE the continental borders of this nation, and host the capital of this nation, not deserve a voice in our government that states smaller and equal to them enjoy?

As of the 2000 Census, your states (And DC) under 1,000,000 total population
Why are all these states more deserving than DC?

Hell, you don't have to give them a states rights, just let them caucus with Virginia or Maryland to get a vote.

http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/l03/map/vanv.gif
East of the river is Maryland, West is Virginia. DC is on both sides of the River

aliali

They are deserving of being states because they are states. D.C. is not a state, nor is puerto rico, american samoa, and lots of other places.

I can't help but think your post-election concern over the rights of the good people of D.C. stems from the fact that the good people of D.C. vote overwhelmingly democratic.

Maybe it's not fair, but its been that way for a long time and no one is forced to live there.

I don't care if the EC is abolished altogether, but disagree that the reasons supporting it have vanished. If it were gone, more and more attn would be paid to those that live close to one another at the expense of those who live further away from other people. It will not just change the campaigns, it will change how people are governed and how tax dollars are apportioned.

On the taxation issue, how many tax dollars are spent on the good people of the D.C. as a percentage of what they pay?

Superbelt

No, actually I care about the voting rights of DC irregardless of the election.
DC is not a territory, it always has been and always will be a part of america.
This country was founded on the rights of representation, yet we deny it to residents of our nations capital?

SirSeymour

And DC was founded to be part of no state so that no state got the prestige of hosting the capital of the country. Those who live there or move there know the situation. There is no law keeping them there.

I prefer the capital of my nation not being part of any given state.

__________________
SQL query
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
Zero rows returned....

djtestudo

Just so you know, the part you mention on the Virginia side is actually Arlington County, Virginia. It was given back in the 1850's (or thereabouts), so DC is now completely on the Maryland side.

Personally, I think DC should be it's own state, as long as they agree to take Montgomery and Prince George's counties as well to get them the hell out of Maryland .

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

SirSeymour

Are you sure about this? I know that Lorton Prison is in VA, or was when I lived there full time some 15 years ago or so, and is owned by Washington DC. It was the only part of the VA property kept by DC.

__________________
SQL query
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
Zero rows returned....

KMA-628

The best point made in this thread, in my opinion.

SecretMethod70

You lived in Lorton Prison full time??

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

djtestudo

Well, the District is on the Maryland side

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

SirSeymour

LOL - Hmmmm, seems I misspoke myself here a bit. I lived in Va full time, about an hour south of Lorton. Does that clear it up?

The point is that both VA and MD contributed land to create DC from. Only the land on the MD side was used for the city proper and in the end DC returned the land offered by VA except for the area where they build Lorton Prison, which remained part of the District.

__________________
SQL query
SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
Zero rows returned....

Publius

Time to break out the ol’boys I see. As to why D.C. should be NOT be a state or any part thereof ...

James Madison, Federalist # 43 (italics mine) ...“To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislatures of the States in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.” The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated. The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc. , established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, requires that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend, to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated, by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned, in every such establishment ...

Now as to the defense of the Electoral College ...

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 4: The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

Article 12, The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President ...

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #68. (italics/underlining mine) THE mode of appointment of the Chief Magistrate of the United States is almost the only part of the system, of any consequence, which has escaped without severe censure, or which has received the slightest mark of approbation from its opponents. The most plausible of these, who has appeared in print, has even deigned to admit that the election of the President is pretty well guarded. I venture somewhat further, and hesitate not to affirm, that if the manner of it be not perfect, it is at least excellent. It unites in an eminent degree all the advantages, the union of which was to be wished for.
It was desirable that the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the person to whom so important a trust was to be confided. This end will be answered by committing the right of making it, not to any preestablished body, but to men chosen by the people for the special purpose, and at the particular conjuncture.
It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.
It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.
Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias. Their transient existence, and their detached situation, already taken notice of, afford a satisfactory prospect of their continuing so, to the conclusion of it. The business of corruption, when it is to embrace so considerable a number of men, requires time as well as means. Nor would it be found easy suddenly to embark them, dispersed as they would be over thirteen States, in any combinations founded upon motives, which though they could not properly be denominated corrupt, might yet be of a nature to mislead them from their duty.
Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves. He might otherwise be tempted to sacrifice his duty to his complaisance for those whose favor was necessary to the duration of his official consequence. This advantage will also be secured, by making his re-election to depend on a special body of representatives, deputed by the society for the single purpose of making the important choice.
All these advantages will happily combine in the plan devised by the convention; which is, that the people of each State shall choose a number of persons as electors, equal to the number of senators and representatives of such State in the national government, who shall assemble within the State, and vote for some fit person as President. Their votes, thus given, are to be transmitted to the seat of the national government, and the person who may happen to have a majority of the whole number of votes will be the President. But as a majority of the votes might not always happen to centre in one man, and as it might be unsafe to permit less than a majority to be conclusive, it is provided that, in such a contingency, the House of Representatives shall select out of the candidates who shall have the five highest number of votes, the man who in their opinion may be best qualified for the office.
The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue. And this will be thought no inconsiderable recommendation of the Constitution, by those who are able to estimate the share which the executive in every government must necessarily have in its good or ill administration. Though we cannot acquiesce in the political heresy of the poet who says: ``For forms of government let fools contest That which is best administered is best,'' yet we may safely pronounce, that the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration.

Couldn’t have said it any better myself.

smooth

Publius,

What's your opinion on whether DC should have representation in Congress?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

aKula

I like the idea of a popular vote. I think a popular vote with a preferential system would encourage people to vote for who they feel truly represents them, as opposed to feeling that 'voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away' (which I don't think is necessarily the case).

Moskie

While I think Mr. Madison's points are valid, there must be a middle ground that could be decided on. There must be a way to avoid what he is talking about, without disenfranchising so many people. DC is pretty big city, with a ton of people who have nothing to do with the government. They're normal people living in a normal city. They're taxed just like everyone else, and they should be represented just like everyone else.

Also, there are plenty of federal employees who work in DC, but live in Maryland or Virginia. Should they not be allowed to vote for their states' representatives? Actually, the idea of commuters muddies the situation quite a bit. This is an aspect that Madison did not consider, as far as I can see. Madison's concern is that federal employees (as DC residents) would exercise a sort of unfair advantage though their congressional representation. But, this seems to assume that all of DC's federal employees live in DC, which is absolutely not the case.

Perhaps the solution is not allow federal employees the right to vote for state representatives? Seems a bit extreme, and I don't think I'd agree with it, but does that accomplish what Madison wanted?

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Superbelt

To expand on what Moskie said, back in the time of Madison, if you lived outside of DC, you would spend your entire waking day either at work or commuting to or from work. You had to live in the city you worked in.
That isn't the case anymore. My congressman commutes daily from SOUTHERN PA to get to work in DC. That would be a several day journey for Madison.

Publius

The problem I always face when debating on discussions like this one is that I oft assume a position without providing the perspective from which I am arguing. Now that I have provided that perspective I feel better equipped to present my arguments.

First, and I think this is very important to this debate, it should be pointed out that most, if not all, of the arguments concerning the appropriate representation of D.C. and the usefulness of the Electoral College (E.C.) are not new to the debate but have been made since before the ratification of the Constitution (over 200 years now and we are still having the same debate).

Let me first address the status of D.C. I believe that Madison makes a very clear argument for why D.C. should not be part of a state (see last half of Fed. 43). Even today I think this argument holds true. However, Moskie (and others) make a very good argument that there are many people living in D.C. who do not work for the Federal Government (or in any support function thereof) who feel disenfranchised because they do not have Federal representation.

What answer would I purpose, then, that solve this problem? Well I would have to ask myself what common sense would tell us to do, and upon reflection I believe the answer is a simple one in which most parties could agree. Keep D.C. an independent entity (a city-state if you will) that would not fall under the jurisdiction of any one state (including a true state of its own) but devise a method for including the D.C. population in the census population for Maryland (with a possible split with Virginia) for the purpose of Congressional distribution of representatives, including D.C. as a congressional district of that state(s), thus giving D.C. residents congressional representation. Note: I am well aware that this would only give D.C. representation in the House and not the Senate, but as D.C. is not and should not be counted as a state, I believe this answer to be the best compromise between the two sides of the debate.

Now on to the question of the E.C. Here I think it should first be pointed out that no where in either the constitution or in the Federalist Papers does it ever mention that the citizenry should have the right to vote for Presidential representation. Let me again point you to Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, ... Now while tradition has provided that we the people “vote for the president”, we are actually voting for electors who in turn are charged with voting for the candidate they best see fit to fulfill the role of president (In fact each state is allowed to decide how it’s presidential electors are selected meaning they could, if they so desired, chose to have the state legislature pick the electors and skip the whole mess of a popular state vote).

Instead of arguing that the E.C. is an outdated mechanism that should be discarded I would argue that, if used as it was originally intended, the E.C. would provide the very results what many here so desire. Do reach those result, however, the E.C. and our current political system in most states needs to be overhauled to strengthen not weaken the E.C. One of the best options, in my opinion, is for all the (48) states to follow the lead of Maine and Nebraska allowing for split E.C. representation instead of the winner-take-all approach they now have. Firstly, this would force presidential candidates to spend more time campaigning in larger areas of the country instead of focusing solely on only key swing states. Secondly, this would also open the door for 3rd party candidates because they could now conceivably win E.C. districts whereas they could not carry a entire state.

Now for the more controversial part of my argument concerning the E.C. Let me first point you back to Hamilton’s argument in Fed. # 68: “It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations ... The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”

What Hamilton is arguing here is basically that the mass population is too easily swayed by transcendental political rhetoric and a president should be insulated from these mere whims of the masses. A president should not take action based upon what is popular at that particular juncture in time, but should always take action for the best interest of the country. The E.C. was devised as a mechanism by which to provide the president with that insolation. To a large extent it has worked. Strengthening the E.C. would provide better insolation for the president and, I believe, also weaken our present 2-party system (although it may take some time).

As for attempting to reach an equal apportionment of electorates so that everyone’s vote counted the same, I would just like to point out that “states are people too”, at least in the legal sense, and the present apportionment insures that each “state” has an equal say in who is President. (Each state has two votes, better known as Senators). Remember, the House is the body of the People, the Senate is the body of the States (Of course this is not entirely true any more because of the 17th amendment, but the justification of which is a topic of debate for a different post).

Superbelt

I could definetley live with that. I wasn't even arguing that DC should be assimilated into either MD or VA, just caucus with either state in selecting representatives, so someone has accountability to them.

And proportional EC votes is also probrably the best solution. Colorado tried to do this but the people failed it, perhaps there needs to be a federal law to require all states to do this instead?

shakran

And you WOULD support it if they were republican voters. Who cares? It's a wrong that should be made right no matter what the political affiliation of the population is.

Ustwo

Nope, Guam votes republican, you don't see me whining they don't get senators.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

Guam is a territory, not a state, (much like Puerto Rico). They are all citizens and any US-born citizens who are there cast absentee ballots to their home state anyway.

/Edit/ I believe as a territory, they are exempt from certain duties, like eligibility for the draft, federal taxes etc. Until they qualify for and vote to become a state and fully participate, no, they do not deserve senators or congressmen.

/Edit2/ also, as specified in the Guam Organic Act, those who receive their citizenship through this act do not receive full protections of the US Constitution.

Actually, their situation is kind of crappy, they are in limbo between freedom and being a colonial holding.

In no way the kind of situation that DC is in. DC by itself could qualify for statehood, though It would be best to caucus with one or both of it's neighbors to gain representation.

SecretMethod70

I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

Colorado tried to make it proportional to the popular vote. I think the method which Maine and Nebraska use is better. I would support a law (constitutional amendment really) to require states to apportion their electoral votes by congressional district, but it I think it would also be necessary then to have a law (amendment) that they use independent boards to determine congressional districts after censuses, like Iowa does, so as to prevent the majority of gerrymandering.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

smooth

SM, what's the practical difference between apportioning by popular vote versus district?

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

djtestudo

I think that you could very easily do EC voting by district. Also, under that situation you could keep part of the old system by having the two "senator" votes go to the winner of the state.

So, for example, Maryland has 10 votes (eight reps and two senators). Three of the districts vote Republican, with the rest Democrat and them winning the state. Instead of all 10 votes going to the Democrat, they would get seven and the Republican three. I use Maryland because that's what I know, but a state like New York or Florida could be much more pronounced in the split.

I'd be curious if anyone knows of a map of voting by congressional district.

__________________
"Final thought: I just rented Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Frankly, it was the worst sports movie I've ever seen."
--Peter Schmuck, The (Baltimore) Sun

Moskie

Nice response, Publius. Interesting thoughts on how to give D.C. representation. Ideal? Maybe not, but you've given it a lot more thorough thought than I have.

Another question on the matter: does the current situation (or the one you proposed) fully avoid the problems that Madison feared? Madison claims that there is a certain set of people who should not be represented in Congress. But, as we've pointed out, commuters muck things up. People who belong in this set DO have congressional representation since they can live outside the city limits of DC. Should there be a system in place that takes these people's representation away?

This leads down the road of defining this set of people not by where they live, but instead by who they are. So, why not apply that method across the board? Give DC residents full representation, but the only people who can vote are those not among this set of people that Madsion claims should not have representation.

Granted, figuring out who that set of people is might be impossible, and actually implementing this scheme could be doubly impossible. But hey who we kidding, it ain't gonna happen anyway.

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

ubertuber

I don't think commuters really muck the situation up - there are plenty of cities that are close to state borders that have large commuting working forces. NY, Philadelphia, and Cincinatti all come to mind. People should be counted where they reside, not where they work.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Publius

I am glad to see that we have some good debate going here on how best to distribute the electorate votes so as to reach a better representation of the people. It took me a little bit of time with my spreadsheet to run some numbers to give you an idea of how different systems might look using the available numbers from this present election. I compared the number that were reached under our current system with those that might be reached under other alternate systems. The first of these alternative systems (henceforth known as AS) was one in which would distribute the E.V. by congressional district (working under the faulty presumption that each district would vote fore the same party for President as they did for congressional representative), doing the same with Senators as well (note: this is similar to the system suggested by djtestudo only it takes into account that many states often split their vote concerning Senate representatives. What can I say? I’m lazy and his formulation would be much more complicated to figure out, and I think would also defeat the purpose, but that’s my opinion). The second AS I compared would distribute E.V. as a % of the popular vote from each state (rounding in favor of the winner of each state when necessary). The last AS I analyzed compared what the E.V. would be if expressed as a % of the national vote. The answers I got were somewhat surprising and will be good for furthering our debate.

E.V. under the current system: (projected) Bush 286. Kerry 252. Others 0.

AS E.V. 1, by Congressional District: (projected) Bush 286. Kerry 244+3 from D.C. Others 2. Unaccounted for 3. (I am not sure why these are unaccounted for but I believe it is because either these seats are vacant or the vote is still too close to call.)

AS E.V. 2, as a % of state popular vote: Bush 278. Kerry 260. Others 0.

AS E.V. 3 as expressed as a % of national vote: Bush 274. Kerry 259. Others 5.

Now for the debate over what these numbers mean (if anything). The system that I found that would probably work best to both strengthen the E.V. while allowing matching up most closely with the express wish of the population of each state is AS 2 that would award E.V. based upon the % of votes each candidate received. There are several reasons I would argue for this system over the others. 1st the current system does not encourage the candidates to campaign in all of the country, rather only certain strongholds and swing states (and I think most people here are in agreement that something should be done to rectify the current system). Secondly, AS E.V. 1 would actually work against the goal we (or maybe just I) are working to achieve, that being a more accurate E.V. system that better reflects the will of the people. The reason I make this claim is because AS E.V. 1 would be prone to manipulation from the various state legislators (as SecretMethod70 rightly noted), and even baring this we would eventually run into the same problems we are experiencing with the current system, ie candidates would only campaign in those districts that they believed could be won and disregard the rest. Additionally, in most parts of the country anyway, it would be even more difficult for a 3rd party candidate to win votes under AS E.V.1 then under the current system. And lastly (and then I will move on to discuss the others) as many of you have probably noticed by now, AS E.V.1 would actually result in a greater disparity between the % of E.V. a candidate would receive and the national % in popular vote.
As I have stated before I am not in favor of completely disregarding the E.V. which, in effect, is what AS E.V. 3 is doing. I believe that AS E.V. 2 is the best of the available options that I have laid out because it not only retains the E.V. system (making it stronger in my opinion the our system that our founders current system) it also retains many of the good qualities of the current system. Under AS E.V.2 the E.V. in each state would run at large meaning that it would still be somewhat of a blind vote for your E.V. representative, but all voters (at least in a 2 party system) from each state would be represented in the final tally of E.V. ballots cast for president rather then whom ever wins the majority in each state (and I believe that this is the most important aspect of this system). Under this system I can imagine then that voter apathy would be reduces because each voter would know that their vote was really going to be counted and not disregarded if they were in the minority. This system would also open the door for 3rd parties (at least in the larger states, but you have to start somewhere). So anyway that’s my two-cents on this issue, I will be looking forward to hear all your opinions once you have had a chance to look over these numbers.

Ok, and now to address some of the other issues going on in this debate if I can. First, thanks to everyone for your feedback. I’m sorry I don’t have a newsletter SecretMethod70, I find that my posts here, although rare at times, are always quit lengthy as you may have noticed.

As for a map of congressional voting districts in this years election (djtestudo) the best I could find was one located at CNN and can be found here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pag...house/map.html

Lastly, (but certainly not least) to your question Moskie concerning Madison’s claim that there existed a certain set of people who should not be represented in Congress. Although I have seen several people debate this topic in this post I am actually at a loss to see from where this claim arises. Would you be so kind as to supply the quote (or paraphrase) from Madison so I can better address this issue? (I’m probably just bind).

Moskie

Madison refers to "the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government", and claims that these people can have an unfair influence if they had congressional representation. Are "members of the general government" who commute from outside DC included in that definition? If not, should the proper definition of this set of people be redefined to include them? Why or why not?

__________________
Greetings and salutations.

Publius

Ahhh the light dawns. Thanks for the quote Moskie now at least I know what you are referring too. Let us look at this selection to see what Madison is referring too.

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

So let us dissect this section to see what Madison is saying. First: “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it.” Here Madison is saying that the need for the national seat of government to be free of dependance on any one state (or State legislature) is self evident. Second: “It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy.” Here Madison is referring to the “complete authority” mentioned in the previous sentence. And now for the last part: “Without it (it being the “complete authority”), not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity (by the state government in which it resides); but a dependence of the members of the general government (national government) on the State comprehending the seat of the government (in other words; “on the State in which the national capital resides”) , for protection in the exercise of their duty (their referring here to the National Government), might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence (rephrase; might give the State Government in which the National Capitol resides undo influence with other nations), equally dishonorable to the government (the National Government) and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy (the other States in the Union).”

What I see Madison arguing here, then, is not that there are a certain set of people (presumably nationally elected officials, federal employees, etc) who should not be represented in Congress, rather, Madison is arguing that if the Nation’s Capitol were to reside in a single state, that state (and state’s legislature) would be able to legislate governing law over the National Government (and members there of) which of course would run in contradiction to the idea of a Federal Government having power over the many states.

We must keep in mind when reading the Federalist Papers what Madison (along with Hamilton and John Jay) are attempting to “sell”, if you will, the idea of Federal Government to the population in the states prior to the ratification of the Constitution. They are coming out of the failure of the Articles of Confederation to produce a national government strong enough to bind the many states together. One such problem was that with the capitol located in Philadelphia the state of Pennsylvania had in many peoples minds held too much power and influence over the national government. Madison’s argument, then, is to demonstrate how the new Capitol should not be located within any one state so as to insulate it from the this sort of control.

I hope that this explains a little better an answer to your question.

jcookc6

I think it would be rather interesting to see Marion Barry as Senator.

joeshoe

I agree that popular vote is the best way to do it. The electoral college is outdated. But you know it'll never change, because overrepresented states still get two senators no matter what, and they'll block it.