Comments on: Letter to Rob Bishop

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:30:07 +0000

That was probably fresh on my mind because I subconsciously remembered reading it on your site earlier today. Good post (and double so for the previous post you linked to).

The founding fathers were obviously not perfect, nor is the government they setup. That being said, amending the constitution is not something that should be done hastily, as you pointed out. I wish more people thought like you. On this subject, at least. :)

By: David

David — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:15:21 +0000

Well, you’ve stumbled into a topic that I wrote about this morning – http://www.pursuit-of-liberty.com/2009/future-amendment-restore-federalism/ – as well as previously.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 22:04:21 +0000

I think that it is preferable in most cases for the EC to be relatively in sync with the popular vote to avoid the appearance of impropriety, if you will. While we aren’t a democracy, we are a representative republic that utilizes democratic principles. It is a sad statement that many people just don’t get the EC, and if the outcome doesn’t match their expectations they get up in arms without trying to understand the process or why the founding fathers found it preferable to direct democracy.

Another change I’d like to see: abandon the direct election of senators. We already have representatives that we get to elect. The senators were to be ‘above’ pandering for votes, serving to ensure that their state’s best interests were being served.

Another ‘change’ I’d like to see: recognition of and compliance with the 10th amendment.

By: David

David — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 21:53:31 +0000

If you don’t prefer straight democracy over the Electoral College system why must the electoral college closely match the popular vote? I’m not saying that the EC should blatantly ignore the popular vote, but I see no reason to tie them any closer than they are – other than the fact that I would prefer to do away with states block voting in the EC to increase their individual influence in the outcome.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 17:13:36 +0000

Thanks for the comments David. How’d you find my little piece of the blogosphere? I almost feel dirty typing “blogosphere”…

Given that the citizens of the United States cast votes for electors, having a separate vote in each congressional district for a single elector seems the most fair way of handling it. A state wide vote would handle the two at large electors. If we wanted to be really ‘fair’ we could allow the at large vote to be split between electors pledged to different candidates on a single ballot. More practically, one would mark a single option like “Electors pledged to <fill in the blank>” and be done with it.

We could handle the case of the 60/40 split by apportioning the total state electors based on percentage of vote won, with any fractional electors left going to the popular vote winner. My first preference is a district by district model, followed by elector apportionment, followed by the current system, followed by a purely democratic vote.

I would also like to see a majority vote be required to win, implemented through some system of instant runoff voting. Simple plurality vote resulted in a candidate winning three of the last five presidential elections without a majority of the popular vote. While that would still be possible even if a majority vote was required on a per elector basis, it would be far less likely, and we’d have a closer match between the outcome of the popular vote and the Electoral College.

Keeping the Electoral College maintains the benefits that the system affords (this comment is too long already to go into those benefits), while avoiding the downside of a purely democratic process. Not that the Electoral College is perfect, but I find it preferable to straight democracy.

By: Letter from Rob Bishop, Part 2 | Scottopolis

Letter from Rob Bishop, Part 2 | Scottopolis — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:30:05 +0000

[...] I wrote about a message I sent to Rob Bishop and the letter I received in reply. I indicated that I would post scans of the letter (two pages) later. Later is [...]

By: David

David — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:13:02 +0000

Wow Scott, that is quite the list of suggestions. I had not thought about the party affiliation being listed on the ballot, but that’s a good suggestion. I strongly favor removing the straight party option on ballots and I agree that we need to focus more on reforming the legislative branch (through our votes) than the executive branch. I have previously advocated for removing the winner-take-all approach to the way state delegations cast their votes in the Electoral college although the best solution eludes me. (For example how should the votes be apportioned from Utah if 40% of voters vote for the Democratic candidate for president, but the Republican candidate wins more than 50% of the vote in each congressional district?) On term limits I also agree that they would vastly benefit the nation – I don’t think I would do one term and then a one term break, right now I would favor a limit of five terms in Congress (with a six year break before running again) and two consecutive terms in the Senate with a lifetime maximum of three full Senate terms.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:45:35 +0000

I’m having the letter I received scanned so I can post it later today. <knock on wood> But to respond to your point, his response did include a word derived from immigrant, as did my message.

By: Janet

Janet — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:48:16 +0000

Great letter, Scott. And such a typical response. I wrote to Orrin Hatch a couple of years ago and received a similar canned response that had NOTHING to do with my topic other than both my and his email contained the word “computer”. I’m certain that, if you’ll just look closely at the Congressman’s response you’ll find several matching words. For example, in the small portion you have shared, I found that both letters contain the word “you”.