That's a wholly different argument to the one you made originally. It is in fact the traditional justification for retention of the EC, and of course it does have merit. The obvious counterargument here is that protecting the interests of the less populous regions is what the Senate is for. Do you really need to do that in respect of Presidential elections too ? As it stands, for example, Steve's vote in Presidential elections is wholly symbolic due to where he lives and what his politics are. If he were Cuban and living in Miami then his vote would be incomparably more valuable. So given a choice between appealing to Steve's worldview or the worldview of our hypothetical Cuban in Miami, which do you think will be better catered for ?

I don't understand what you mean by that, sorry. Except for the bit about the Senate.

But again, the Senate is half the power of the legislature. We're talking about the executive branch here.

What I'm saying is that the protection that the EC may afford to some limited extent to those who live in Wyoming or South Dakota is offset to a very significant degree by the fact that some votes are worth infinitely more than others under that system. If there were no EC then the vote of a Cuban American in Miami would be worth the same as a conservative in Massachusetts, or for that matter as a rancher in Wyoming. As it stands the vote of the former is worth far more than either of the other two.

hacker

. Yeah, sure, it's "democratic" but it's not fair. You're ignoring a lot of people's interests. Geographical interests are still important, even in a democracy. Pure democracy is not necessarily "more fair".

Most governments are structured as is the SU, to ascertain that local issues can be managed with local governance.
State governments are there to respond to statewide concerns.
Local governments local concerns.
Nation wide ...nationwide concerns/.
Layering in arcane structures like the electoral college in a national election distorts democracy. And deliberately so, to affect the election of the one office that must represent a national interest. Should this person not be chosen by as true a majority as possible?

Certainly a reasonably valid argument, ricky. But I cannot entirely agree.

I would agree that there are certain situations that exist today that didn't in 1789. But some conditions still do exist that did. I'm looking at this in a merely realist manner, rather than an appeal to what is "more democratic." It all depends on how you define democracy, right? Does as direct as possible democracy always work?

hacker

Does as direct as possible democracy always work?

It would work fine in a a nationwide presidential election.
Simpler. Less prone to distortion.

Would you want just the election of the President to be done via the total vote of the people, or are there other legislations that should be nationwide.

Just curious...

It would work fine in a a nationwide presidential election.
Simpler. Less prone to distortion.

To believe that you can have "pure" democracy; one must live in Utopia Fantasyland.

Would you want just the election of the President to be done via the total vote of the people, or are there other legislations that should be nationwide.

Just curious...

I'm not sure it would really work in any other context. Every other election you're voting for a representative of a particular region. In the case of a Presidential election the region in question in the whole of the United States.

I should add btw that I don't think the EC is a particularly big deal. I do happen to think that doing away with it would be a marginal improvement to your constitution, but given that examples of the popular vote and the EC going in opposite directions are so rare it probably doesn't matter all that much.

sass

but given that examples of the popular vote and the EC going in opposite directions are so rare it probably doesn't matter all that much.

But that's not the only reason to make a change.
Since the ability to make a change is near impossible it is probably moot however.

What, then is the reason to make a change, Ricky? Considering what Sass just said--that the EC contradicting the popular vote is rare. (2 occasions since popular votes have been used nationwide, e.g., 1864).

hacker

What, then is the reason to make a change, Ricky? Considering what Sass just said--that the EC contradicting the popular vote is rare. (2 occasions since popular votes have been used nationwide, e.g., 1864)

Twice, and the potential for another, is enough. Prevention of a third contradictory event is enough.
Plus...

Layering in arcane structures like the electoral college in a national election distorts democracy. And deliberately so, to affect the election of the one office that must represent a national interest. Should this person not be chosen by as true a majority as possible

My point is that the cure would be worse than the disease.

And back we come to the beginning... If you think the cure would be worse than the disease then give some evidence for that. Your military example has failed, do you have any other examples ?

What are you asking me to explain specifically? I realize I'm not Mr. Articulate, but I doubt the "failure" to prove my point is entirely my fault. Not that it's someone else's; but I think I've raised a valid concern, or set of concerns here.

There is a lot of BS talked about the early American government, even by American academics. They seem to think that the government, as it is now, emerged from the womb fully formed, by 1789. This is of course pure fantasy. The idea of three, co-equal branches of government, capable of checking and balancing each other in tandem, was not the idea conceived. A while ago, I tried to explain to Ricky that the structure and execution of the US government is NOT a static affair, held in place by a rigid constitution; but a gradual evolution.

The government has become more democratic over time in many ways. Whatever one may say about the small states being overrepresented in the EC (and I find this complaint to be exaggerated, though there is a grain of truth to it) the largest states still have their share of the power over the system. But my point is that something purely democratic is not necessarily "good", even in a democracy.

here's an example of what I mean. In the republics of ancient Greece, they had democracy; but they did not really have liberty, like we enjoy. The decisions of the 50%+1 over the 50%-1 were binding on the community and there was no court of appeal. In fact, there certainly wasn't an independent judiciary, even. That was a community decision--trials were public and the jury pool was more or less the whole of Athens (or a good bit of it). That was pure democracy: the people (OK, the free men of Athens over 18) ruled absolutely.

In today's democracies, we don't have such "pure" democracy that ricky seems to think is possible in the election of a head of state.

But Ricky you did say "simpler/less prone to distortion". What do you mean by distortion?