Explaining To Thais American Electoral College

[Jingthing]

Its only been a problem twice in American history. Keep it.

We, from opposite parties, agree on this. Keep the system; our forefathers devised it for a reason.

AMEN!!

If only our contemporary leaders had the wisdom of the founding fathers

Yes, as far as I am concerned, the bad result of the last problem in 2000 was caused by the Supreme Court, not the electoral college system. Shame on the Supreme Court as it was one of their most tragically bad decisions in history.

Shame on the court? The court decided with the Demos, you can recount the ballots, but,,, you must recount all counties in the state not a select few demo strongholds. You might be protesting fairness.

Additionally Owlgore send hundreds of lawyers into the state into every county and sucessfully stopped the counting of the absentee ballots of military personal that arrived late. No fault of the soldiers, but of the delivery system.

I didn't have a dog in that fight haveing voted Libertarian, but I can read the courts decision, and a court with a liberal slant, verdict was fair and equalible.

I know how you Foxheads love "fair and balanced" so here it is:

Harvard Law's Dershowitz (Reasonable Doubt, etc.) takes on the now famous, or infamous, Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore, which ended the recount of votes in Florida and in effect handed the election to Bush. This decision, writes Dershowitz, was "the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history," based not on law but on the desire for "partisan advantage" and "personal gain." He launches a three-pronged attack, first on the decision itself, which found that different counties using different methods of hand counts violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. This is, Dershowitz argues in detail, a bizarre and unique application of this clause with no precedents, no clear victim of discrimination and no clear intent of discrimination, and as the Court stated applicable to this case alone. He next examines prior decisions of the Court in general and the five individual justices who formed the majority and concludes that nothing in their past remotely indicated their actions here. He thus looks to motivation, and while he finds no "smoking gun," he does suggest the justices were sufficiently partisan that they should have recused themselves from the decision. In short, Dershowitz offers a forceful condemnation of the Court's action, in findings that are strikingly similar to those of Vincent Bugliosi's The Betrayal of America (Forecasts, May 21). But where Bugliosi's prose recalls the fire-and-brimstone of a fundamentalist preacher, Dershowitz, at least at times, writes as if he were addressing a constitutional law seminar at Harvard interesting if not always exciting. Still, this is an excellent analysis of a troubling case. If these two books are any indication, controversy over Bush v. Gore is not soon to go away. (June 18)

Edited December 23, 2007 by Jingthing

[alaina]

After the coup, I asked some of the students that I teach at international school if they believed that a "government of the people" was something that was good for Thailand. The students realize that one out of six Thais lives in Bangkok and that the country is very lopsided as far as education and economics. The answer was, "no" from the students. Having the image of democracy looks evolved to the West, but many of the nation's elite don't want the opinions of the provinces counted nor do they want them to have the economic power and education to be considered as something other than lowly subsistence farmers.

Alaina, should you not have quoted correctly from Lincoln's famous Gettysburg Address? A government OF the people, By the people FOR the people and stressed the FOR the people part. Doubt if your students would have disagreed.

But, "The people" were white males over 21 at that point in time. "The people" in most famous American documents didn't really mean ALL the people.

[Spee]

Harvard Law's Dershowitz (Reasonable Doubt, etc.) takes on the now famous, or infamous, Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore

Sour grapes from a hack left wing professor not good enough to make in the real world, trying to sustain the sour grapes of a career hack politician. Gore felt as entitled to the presidency then as the Hildabeast does now. For anyone that truly understands and appreciates the size of Gore's ego, is to know that he would have never walked away from the battle if there was a snowball's chance that he was in the right. In a contrary twist to this thread, is there something that the Thai way of life could teach to the American way of life and American politics? Mai bpen rai, anyone?

[Beardog]

Harvard Law's Dershowitz (Reasonable Doubt, etc.) takes on the now famous, or infamous, Supreme Court decision Bush v. Gore

Sour grapes from a hack left wing professor not good enough to make in the real world, trying to sustain the sour grapes of a career hack politician. Gore felt as entitled to the presidency then as the Hildabeast does now. For anyone that truly understands and appreciates the size of Gore's ego, is to know that he would have never walked away from the battle if there was a snowball's chance that he was in the right. In a contrary twist to this thread, is there something that the Thai way of life could teach to the American way of life and American politics? Mai bpen rai, anyone?

As much as I love my country, I would have to probably answer that as a no.

America is caught playing hide the Salami.

Probably making us not the best role model for other countries.

Unfortunately It is always business as usual.

You put the money in a pipe. I'll stick mine in the freezer while Moe larry & Curly make the necessary arrangements with special

interests on the floor.

By the way this is a great thread! No matter what are views are this thread is stimulating & interesting!

[Hawkup2000]

As a non american I would explain it like this:

Election. Two man. People like two man same same. One man jai dee never cheat. He lose. Other win. Later the man lose get nobel peace prize. The other man who win start war in country far far away.

Seriously, I consider myself fairly educated (double MSc from HPU) but your electoral voting system is quite hard to grasp for non americans. I have to agree, don´t expect all non americans to know it all.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Hawkup2000

[Jingthing]

Sour grapes from a hack left wing professor not good enough to make in the real world

Dershowitz is our leading living constitutional scholar.

Right wingers are notorious anti-intellectuals, so your tripe bomb is as expected.

Edited December 24, 2007 by Jingthing

[Spee]

Dershowitz is our leading living constitutional scholar.

Is that so? Looks like another Jing "ready, Fire, AIM!" moment.

His website bio says many things, but it doesn't say jack squat about being any sort of leading expert in constitutional law:

http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php

The top living constitutional scholars recently met. Funny though, his name isn't on the list.

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=24868

Right wingers are notorious anti-intellectuals, so your tripe bomb is as expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

sez .....

"Much of Dershowitz's legal career has focused on criminal law, and his clients have included high-profile figures such as Patricia Hearst, Harry Reems, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, O.J. Simpson and Kirtanananda Swami."

So the most prominent cases for our "leading living constitutional scholar" are defending high profile (and in many cases wealthy) womanizers, hypocrites, frauds and murderers. Noble work perhaps, but likely as much in the pursuit of fame, book material and money as anything.

And I'm the one dropping "tripe bombs?"

[Jingthing]

OK, so Dershowitz is controversial, he is a very prominent Harvard Law Prof (the top school in America) and he does teach constitutional issues.

Back to an even better source, the DISSENTING opinion:

The dissenting opinions were notable for their unusually harsh treatment of the majority. Justice Stevens' dissent concluded:[32]

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.

I respectfully dissent.

Justice Stevens

[kdvsn]

As a non american I would explain it like this:

Election. Two man. People like two man same same. One man jai dee never cheat. He lose. Other win. Later the man lose get nobel peace prize. The other man who win start war in country far far away.

Seriously, I consider myself fairly educated (double MSc from HPU) but your electoral voting system is quite hard to grasp for non americans. I have to agree, don´t expect all non americans to know it all.

Interestingly, that jai dee never made his now signature issue an campaign issue during the 2000 campaign. It's nice that he got a nobel peace prize for courageously advancing the topic when he had nothing to lose politically by doing so, but it would have been even nicer if he was a courageous enough leader to stand behind his beliefs when seeking the highest office in the land. Maybe, just maybe, if he showed just a little bit of back bone and if he didn't try to distance himself Clinton during the campaign, he would have won by the margin that you would expect the vice president of a popular incumbent to win by. The circumstances in Florida may have made him a maytr in the eyes of people who are sympathetic to his politics, but the fact of the matter is that he ran an extremely poor campaign and exhibited poor judgment at every juncture. Neither the electoral college nor the Supreme Court were his problem, he was his own problem.

[Jingthing]

It is true that Gore made some mistakes in his campaign. I don't think not making global warming a big political issue at that time was one of them.

[chicowoodduck]

I've tried explaining to my Thai friends, when they ask me about American elections, the American electoral college and that sometimes the candidates for President & Vice president, even though they may win the popular vote, lose the election because of the electoral college. This happened in the past.

Anyway is difficult to try to explain to Thais about the Electoral college and how each State has a fixed number of electors(some more, some less) who are the ones who really vote for the Pres & vice pres. and when Citizens vote, they are not really voting directly for the candidates but for electors.

Their reaction is usually "Americans crazy". I just smile and change the subject.

Any American in LOS expats out there encounter the same problem when Thai people ask them about American elections?

With all due respect, I think most Americans are also confused by the concept of the electoral college. And perhaps some of those (Americans) who do understand it question the need for its existence in modern times.

Confused might be an understatement. My dad is still pissed because he was thinking I was getting a full ride to EC!

[billaaa777]

I found this on the internet, authored by somebody that actually knows what he is talking about. Just like everybody that post here! Ha, Ha.

Electoral College: Is this a democratic way to pick a president?

© 2001 John W. Cooper

The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy. I can remember the first time I exercised this right. I was proud to finally participate in a process that has kept our democracy the envy of the world. The election that I voted in was unusual, however. For the last 100 years, the presidential candidate who won the most popular votes won the election, but this time things were different. The candidate who won the presidency in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush, actually received fewer popular votes than the losing candidate, Al Gore. This raises some interesting questions: is the process by which Americans currently elect presidents democratic? If all Americans are equal, should not one American equal one vote? Does the Electoral College work, even though it disproportionably represents the votes of some Americans, or should we switch to a direct voting system?

There is some support for keeping the current system. One benefit is that generally, the Electoral College adds legitimacy to the winner of the popular vote by exaggerating the margin of the victory. For example, the Electoral College made it look as if John F. Kennedy was the clear winner of the 1960 presidential election. He received 303 electoral votes, while his opponent, Richard Nixon, received only 219 electoral votes.i The popular vote, on the other hand, was much closer: John F. Kennedy received 49.72% of the popular vote, while Richard Nixon received 49.55% of the popular vote.[ii] However, the winner of the most popular votes is not always the winner of the Electoral College. There have been four cases, one being the last election, where the winner of the most popular votes lost the presidency.

Another conceivable benefit of the Electoral College is that it can lessen the negative effects of third-party candidates who have no chance of winning. In order to win the presidency you have to win over half of the available electoral votes: 270 electors of the 538 electoral votes. A direct voting system makes it significantly more difficult for a candidate to win a majority. The winner still has to receive over half of the available votes. What does this mean? Currently, under the Electoral College, for better or worse, third-party candidates rarely interfere with the election results. The 1996 and 1992 presidential elections illustrate this point. The winner, in both of these elections, succeeded in winning over half of the necessary electoral votes, while failing to win over 50% of the popular vote.[iii] This happens, because even if a third party candidate is running strong nationally, let us say 20% of the popular vote, he or she has to win a majority in an individual state to receive a single vote in the Electoral College. Without the Electoral College, runoff elections in both 1992 and 1996 would have been needed. This definitely is another inconvenience of eliminating the Electoral College, but the more important question is, inconveniences aside, does the Electoral College have the “right” candidate win, whomever that may be?

The problem comes when determining who is the “right” candidate. Critics of the Electoral College often point to the fact that Gore won by roughly 1/3 of a million votes, and still lost the presidency. In a direct election, all the votes would go in the same pot and Gore would have won. Why continue the archaic practice of electing the president with the Electoral College when the technology exists to have all the votes placed in the same pot? Although eliminating the Electoral College would seem to be fairer, in actuality that could not be farther from the truth. The process may seem somewhat unfair, but the results are more important than the appearance of the process. The results of eliminating the Electoral College are far-reaching and unpleasant.

If the Electoral College were eliminated, campaigns would change. Grassroots efforts would disappear for they would no longer really serve a valuable purpose. Currently, grassroots efforts, which involve Americans in the political process, are responsible for swinging highly contested states for one candidate or another. Their efforts change the results of the Electoral College significantly more than the results of the popular vote, because under the Electoral College a state can only send its electors to vote for one candidate. In a direct election, these grassroots efforts would lose their significance. Americans can expect increased national polling to determine what the most popular view is, and an unprecedented amount of money spent in densely populated states. Oh, and let us not forget the endless TV commercials of political candidates championing the causes of the latest public opinion poll.

Candidates run for president to win. It may be an unfortunate truth, but money matters; running a cost-effective campaign is essential to winning. Currently, the Electoral College provides an incentive for candidates to win the majority of the voters in all of the states and not only the popular vote, regardless of the state. When running a cost-effective campaign, there is no logical reason to waste valuable advertising dollars in states like Maine when the money can be spent in densely populated states like New York or California. Politicians no longer have to concern themselves with individual states’ issues if the Electoral College is eliminated. Sure, with a direct voting system votes are “equal,” but there are even fewer incentives for politicians to pay attention to the needs of smaller states. Moreover, minority populations are generally clumped within certain states. This means that even if on the national level they only make up a small percentage of the vote, in certain states, they make all the difference to winning. In the eyes of a politician attempting to win the presidency without the Electoral College, smaller states and minority voters, which currently matter, would no longer matter, and consequently every vote would not be equal under a direct voting system.

Nightmare scenarios begin to emerge if the densely populated areas along the east and west coast begin to control the nation and the nation becomes divided. The division is not as improbable as it may at first appear. In the last presidential election, Bush won 30 of 50 states and lost the popular vote. A majority of the people in 3/5 of the states favored Bush, but under a direct-voting system, he would have lost the election. This could become more extreme. Imagine a president losing 4/5 of the states and winning the election. Is this American? Targeting only the majority of American voters could create deep divisions along state lines. The president should be the leader of the nation as a whole and not over a particularly densely populated region. The president should have the support of the majority of the people in the states so that one state’s citizens are not sacrificed for the citizens of another. Eliminating the Electoral College undermines these principles. Every voter should matter. Every vote should be valued, not just the votes of highly populated states, not just the voters of California and Texas, but also the voters of Maine and Connecticut.

We live in a Representative Democracy, a Republic. Americans are not in favor of eliminating the Senate, because it is not fair to the states with a larger population, nor are Americans from smaller states suggesting that eliminating the House of Representatives would make America more democratic. Most Americans respect the importance of the balance of power between states’ rights and the rights of the population as a whole. This balance of power in our legislature has served our nation well. The Electoral College is nothing more than a continuation of these principles because states receive one electoral vote for each member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, which totals 538 electors (435 House + 100 Senate + 3 District of Columbia).i The founders of our country divided the legislature’s power to guard the less populated states from those with a greater share of the population. To argue that the Electoral College is undemocratic or not American is not far from arguing that the distribution of power in our nation’s legislature is undemocratic and needs reform. The Electoral College is nothing more than a combination of two essential components of our democracy. The Electoral College strikes a delicate balance between the rights of the minority and the majority so that all voices are heard.

Edited December 24, 2007 by billaaa777

[billaaa777]

Here is a another view of the system.

This web page demonstrates that the Electoral College is a primary source of inequality and injustice in the United States. The Electoral College rules governing presidential elections grant unequal voting power per voter across the states, giving greater voting power to voters in states with less than average population and less to those with greater than average population. This bias discriminates against half the voters in the United States-regardless of gender, race, ethnic heritage or religion. However, because of the distribution of minority groups to larger states, this bias especially discriminates against minority populations compared to the majority white population. It is shown that a vote in a minority population is generally worth significantly less than a vote in the white population --about 10 percent less for Hispanic, Jewish, and immigrant voters, 6 percent less for African-American voters, and 3 percent less for Asian and Pacific Island voters. The Electoral College rules effectively disenfranchise millions of minority votes in every presidential election. Although it was intended to protect minority populations against domination by larger populations, the Electoral College now creates a substantial bias against minority populations.

The Electoral College rules cause unequal treatment of minority voters and constitute a direct violation of the 14th Amendment--the Equal Protection clause--and present a long-standing moral dilemma to the nation and its public servants. The contradiction between the 14th Amendment and the Electoral College allows the law to be used for immoral ends- --discrimination against minority citizens and diminishing their voice in government. The same contradiction detracts from the legitimacy of the President and all Presidential appointments-including those to the Supreme Court. Equally important, the Electoral College alone prevents the United States from full compliance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which calls for elections by universal and EQUAL suffrage as a basic, unalienable right of all mankind.

The flaws in the Electoral College are too serious to be ignored. If Americans are not equal at the ballot box, they are not equal under the law. The consequences of such inequality can be disasterous to a people or a nation. It was because Americans were not treated as equals by the British that we declared our independence from England and created the United States of America. It was the unequal rights of slaves that led to the US Civil war.

For these reasons, the Electoral College has become a major source of constitutionally sanctioned inequality and social injustice in the United States. It must be reformed if the United States is to avoid increasing social, political, and minority unrest in the future.

The Electoral College biases for and against the larger and smaller states of the United States--and the consequences of these biases--are examined on this web site. The only Electoral College reform options that can eliminate these biases are: 1) the direct election of the president without the encumbrance of the Electoral College and the states; or 2) the House plan --also called the neo-Wilson option--that rremoves the senatorial electors but keeps everything else about the Electoral College intact. Because it involves the minimum change to the Constitution, the House plan is recommended.

This web site provides the facts for you to understand the problems caused by the Electoral College and the tools for you to take action. The Constitution must be changed, and only an informed citizenry acting in their own best interests can do it. You must take action now to preserve America and make it a better place for future generations.

[JimGant]

Really, a *no brainer* to explain.

The US was actually established as a 'confederacy' of sovereign states, each with 2 senators to give equal representation -- at least at one level -- to each sovereign entity regardless of population. The Electoral College is merely an extension of this concept. Population, of course, is handicapped in with House members proportional to each state's population. And again, the Electoral College factors-in this concept.

In the 19th century, the common phrase was "the United States of America ARE." Today we say "United States... IS." And the balancing act continues as to who should have the most power -- the parts, or the whole -- with the Constitution and its Supreme Court determining.

The Europe Union should be the most understanding of the Electoral College concept, allowing the 'little guy' some extra horsepower by virtue of being a 'sovereign entity.'

That an underpopulated, redneck state can have such disproportional power is what drives the liberals crazy. They should just be happy we moved on from the Articles of Confederation.

[kat]

Dershowitz is our leading living constitutional scholar.

Is that so? Looks like another Jing "ready, Fire, AIM!" moment.

His website bio says many things, but it doesn't say jack squat about being any sort of leading expert in constitutional law:

http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php

The top living constitutional scholars recently met. Funny though, his name isn't on the list.

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=24868

Right wingers are notorious anti-intellectuals, so your tripe bomb is as expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

sez .....

"Much of Dershowitz's legal career has focused on criminal law, and his clients have included high-profile figures such as Patricia Hearst, Harry Reems, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, O.J. Simpson and Kirtanananda Swami."

So the most prominent cases for our "leading living constitutional scholar" are defending high profile (and in many cases wealthy) womanizers, hypocrites, frauds and murderers. Noble work perhaps, but likely as much in the pursuit of fame, book material and money as anything.

And I'm the one dropping "tripe bombs?"

Well, actually, yes, you are the one. First of all, your prior message alludes to the anti-intellectual bias that highly educated scholars are professors because they can't "do" or make it anywhere else. That is a bunch of tripe, because as we know, many professors teach, research, write books and often practice in their field as well. According to the bio that you posted, Dershowitz joined the facutly of Harvard Law at age 25. He became the youngest full professor in the history of Harvard at 28. I think you have to be a fairly desperate zealot to make the argument that this is a sign of "failure."

Secondly, your example of the cases he represented is a scarecrow argument and has the added benefit of nullifying your first, because Dershowitz is a high-profile criminal lawyer in addition to being a professor. You do realize that in the American justice system, "criminals" as well as those innocent until proven guilty are entitled to the best representation that they can afford, surely. He has also published Op-eds, books, and articles on law for both a popular audience and legal pundits. I don't really agree with all that Dershowitz says or represents, but I do disagree with you.

So, yes, I have to concur that you are spouting tripe.

[Pepe']

Dershowitz is our leading living constitutional scholar.

Is that so? Looks like another Jing "ready, Fire, AIM!" moment.

His website bio says many things, but it doesn't say jack squat about being any sort of leading expert in constitutional law:

http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php

The top living constitutional scholars recently met. Funny though, his name isn't on the list.

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/content.cfm?topicid=24868

Right wingers are notorious anti-intellectuals, so your tripe bomb is as expected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz

sez .....

"Much of Dershowitz's legal career has focused on criminal law, and his clients have included high-profile figures such as Patricia Hearst, Harry Reems, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson, Michael Milken, O.J. Simpson and Kirtanananda Swami."

So the most prominent cases for our "leading living constitutional scholar" are defending high profile (and in many cases wealthy) womanizers, hypocrites, frauds and murderers. Noble work perhaps, but likely as much in the pursuit of fame, book material and money as anything.

And I'm the one dropping "tripe bombs?"

Well, actually, yes, you are the one. First of all, your prior message alludes to the anti-intellectual bias that highly educated scholars are professors because they can't "do" or make it anywhere else. That is a bunch of tripe, because as we know, many professors teach, research, write books and often practice in their field as well. According to the bio that you posted, Dershowitz joined the facutly of Harvard Law at age 25. He became the youngest full professor in the history of Harvard at 28. I think you have to be a fairly desperate zealot to make the argument that this is a sign of "failure."

Secondly, your example of the cases he represented is a scarecrow argument and has the added benefit of nullifying your first, because Dershowitz is a high-profile criminal lawyer in addition to being a professor. You do realize that in the American justice system, "criminals" as well as those innocent until proven guilty are entitled to the best representation that they can afford, surely. He has also published Op-eds, books, and articles on law for both a popular audience and legal pundits. I don't really agree with all that Dershowitz says or represents, but I do disagree with you.

So, yes, I have to concur that you are spouting tripe.

------------------------

Kat, "Will you marry me?"

[kat]

I don't have time; I'm supposed to be finishing my Ph.D applications right now.

Maybe another time.

[Pepe']

I don't have time; I'm supposed to be finishing my Ph.D applications right now.

Maybe another time.

--------------------

Maybe?

Maybe is good!

[backflip]

"Without the electoral college only a handful of states and the majority of that vote from a handful of metro areas would decide the outcome of every election..."

According to your post, EVERY US president elected has lost the popular vote, and only won because of the electoral college. That simply is not true.

[cm-happy]

"Without the electoral college only a handful of states and the majority of that vote from a handful of metro areas would decide the outcome of every election..."

According to your post, EVERY US president elected has lost the popular vote, and only won because of the electoral college. That simply is not true.

Read carefully Bubba, post said sometimes. twice to be exact.

1876 Hays® v Tilden(D)

1888 Harrison® V Cleveland(D)

Both winners because of electoral college were Rep. dirt bags winning under a cloud of scandal. without a plurality but by electoral college votes.

But it is a fact the the electoral college are the ones who elect the pres and vice pres, not the popular vote. Winners need not have a plurality. If you doubt , look it up.

[kat]

Well, you won't have to look far - just look up the 2000 election.

[Ijustwannateach]

I hate to be the wet blanket, but except for a very few attempts on the first page, this thread has had nothing to do with Thailand (or explaining foreign politics to Thais) and appears to be a backdoor attempt to continue the recent unfortunate back-and-forth about America. Thread closed.

"S"