A revision to the electoral college system?
 

First, I politely request that Strange Famous and Endymon32 refrain from posting on this thread.

-----

I think that the current all-or-none system for statewide electoral votes unfairly favors a two-party system. A "third party" has very little chance of winning any national election if they can't pick up a few electoral votes in each state, rather than having to win entire states.

Is the current system in any way fair representation to those who are apart from the two major parties? What sort of downside would there be of allocating electoral votes based on percentage of the popular vote in each state? (i.e. if Nebraska holds 20 electoral votes, and candidate A gets 20% of the vote, they get 4 electoral votes)

The electoral system was instituted in a time when people took days to travel and a presidential election by popular was impossible or impractical.

That is not the case anymore.

For that reason I am in favor of abolishing the EC in favor of a popular vote.

The side benefit would be breaking the two party strangle hold.

I was asked not to participate, but I resent being grouped with Strange Famous.

If this were to happen, then the smaller states would be irrelavant. Canditates would campaign only for what New York and California want, while ignoring the needs of Maine and other states.

Well, part of the benefit of the electoral system is that if 51% of the population lives in California, they will not -- as a single state of the union -- control national elections.

Before you can start to question the electoral college we need to look at why we have it.

The electoral college was formed for a couple reasons. First and foremost the founding fathers did not want high-population areas (the coasts) to have sweeping power over the lower population areas (midwest). This way you would not have urban areas completely controling rural areas. This would still be a concern today. If you do the math you can see that smaller states get more electoral votes per person. Even though the number of electoral votes they get are very small.

Second before we had instant communication relaying the talleys of votes to washington was a daunting task, it was much simpler to send a representative to say which canidatate the state supports rather than try to send the information of every ballot. This obviously would not be a problem any more today.

There are some major flaws with the electoral college. The first is the people who relay the votes are appointed officials and not elected. The reason this is a big flaw will be clear in a second. In addition the appointies are not required to vote the same way as the state. That is a state could vote 90% in favor of one canidate and that canidate could still loose the election if the appointe voted differently. Since they are not elected the public would have no reprisal.

There are some serious flaws in the electoral college but there are some good strengths also. Any replacement to the electoral college would have to address the first point in some way.

For the record, I think that the electoral college should be reformed, not replaced. Here's a reform I'd really like to see:

Each state is not "Winner Take All". The two senatorial electors are, but the representative electors vote as the district their corresponding congressman represents did.

Im for at least reformign the EC anyways as many points have made out, much of the system was created long in the past, and new forms of communication and new population distributions have made many parts of the EC relatively outdated.

Isn't it what democracy is all about ? That the decision of the majority affects the minority.In the past rural areas were more populated than urban areas, but now towns are much more populated than rural areas.It's only fair than in a democracy where all individual interests are equally valid, everyone weights the same.It can't be fair to have some citizens voice more than others because of their location, race, or social situation or any other thing.
I find this highly discirmative and I fail to see how someone would support this, and I think the EC vote should be abolished at least for that. Can't see the strong points in that system really.

We need a system like the electoral college to keep high-density population areas from dominating the issues.

But why ?

because you will have 5% of the country deciding what is right for 95% (land mass wise). Polititions would cater only to the largest of cities and all the other places would be ignored. Campaigning would only happen in the large cities. It would be a major travisty if the large cities were able to lower their taxes considerably on the backs of raising the taxes of rural america. There are a lot of issues with useing a pure democracy. I have only touched on a couple of them.

Because if the country was run specifically to please, say, NYC, needs of the rest of the country would be ignored. Poverty would be astronomical, and the slums surrounding NYC would extend halfway to Chicago and Atlanta.

The problem with electoral voting is that it can deny the will of the majority of citizens.
The problem with popular voting is that it can deny the will of 49% of citizens.
With both systems, the will of whole groups of people (states, races, people in rural areas, the lower class, etc.) can be overwhelmed by the desire of the majority (or near-majority sometimes in the electoral case).

The main problem I see is not how we vote (although I support a popular vote in our current times) but what government does. Government does not exist to determine a preference for an in-demand set of people and to provide that group with unnecessary, often expensive, and sometimes counterproductive benefits. A government should be such so that no matter who wins an election, the winner has limited power to make changes that would hurt one group at the expense of another, except in cases that overwhelmingly support the national interest with minimal detriment to anyone (as opposed to measures that support the interests of just people who voted for you). Pork-barrel spending and the like should be recognized as the corrupt practices they are.

http://eire.census.gov/popest/data/s...EST2003-01.php

From the 2000 population cenus we can see that it would only take 9 states to decide an election if it were done by popular vote. This would mean polititions would spend all their time in these 9 states and neglect the states down at the bottem. In fact the states at the way bottom of the population percentage would be comepletly ignored as their total worth in population is less than half a percent of the USA.

Why should people in California say what is right and wrong for people in South Dakota? They are geographically completly different. The needs of people in South Dakota is much different that the needs of people in California. This is why we have multiple levels of government in the US: Federal, State, County, and City.

If the elections were decided by popular vote alone then we would have a major problem with everyone flocking to the urban areas so that they could be heard by polititions. I can pretty much guarentee you that the polititions wouldn't care one bit about corparate farming or other ruraral problems.

This is also the same reason that the UN cannot be a ruling body that works by popular vote. What would the world be like if China decided everything for everyone? Like the US the UN does not work by popular vote unfortunatly at the moment it works by every country has an equal vote which is unfortunate. As you can see it would be bad if South Dakota had the same ammount of say in elections as California.

The founding fathers of the American constitution were very wise. Probably because these people had just fought a revolution from European nations, which had very poor and unfair political structures. These men knew much better than any of us do what it was like to live under the rule of a government that does not treat its people fairly, a government that descriminated against them, and a government that gave them nothing. They based this nation on the principals that they knew were important, the very things that were withheld from them under these other governments. Things like freedom of speech, free press, and a right to a fair trial. These men did their best to make the constitution fair for all people. And they did a damned good job.

Even today the constitution stands with relitivaly few modifications. Because the founding fathers developed a government that serves the people instead of the reverse which was true in most other nations at the time and unfortunatly is still true in many nations today.

Sorry to cut 90% of your post, but you've got this backwards. This is the effect of the electoral college. Not everyone in a state thinks the same way, but the electoral college allows the majority of a state to silence the rest. Taking PA as an example, the two cities of Pittsburgh and Philadelphia are primarily liberal. The rest of the state is primarily conservative. The electoral college allows the greater population to grab the votes. If we had a straight popular vote, everyone would get a voice. I honestly don't know how people can be for the EC. As for politicians spending most of their time on population centers, that's generally what's going to happen anyway, because they can talk to the most people there. They want to get their message to more people so more people will decide to vote for them, regardless of whether we use the EC or not. You're just not going to get a politician spending time in North Haverbrook (population 225) unless it's a move to show he cares about the people.

The fact that states are all or nothing is another flaw of the electoral college but that doesn't change my initial arguments that you need something in a fair election system to maintain fairness between urban and rural areas. If we didn't have some form of an electoral college there would be probably 15-20 states that would NEVER see a presidential canidate. In fact those 15-20 states would basically have no say at all in any federal election. And thus the sovernty of the states would be lost. Remember that the US started as a union between states and still maintains that status. Many governments (state) under one federal government with a strong destinction between state and federal power (ie protect the rights of the states).

I can see both sides of the argument, but I DO want to point out something:

If a city dominates the rural area, chances are, thats democracy, because there may damn well be more people in the cities than the surrounding areas!

By the Pennsylvania example, while only two cities may vote one way.. think about it this way. If those two cities were the majority of people in the state, why not?

Thats why I think some change is needed because what the EC CAN do is deny the will of the majority of citizens as it is right now, and obviously, its not really great in the name of democracy for that to happen in our own country as it is.

Re: A revision to the electoral college system?
 

I LIKE the two party system. Stability and gridlock are good. Going by a % of the population only gives the fringe groups more power.

Sure if you basically agree with the fringe group it sounds good. I'd love to see more libertarians in congress, but it goes the other way to. I can only cringe in horror of a green (communist) + democrat unholy alliance, with the greens being the key to a democrat majority.

Government is best when its growth is stunted, its power crippled from birth, every roadblock is a blessing.

I'm more interested in establishing a rule set that the EC electorates MUST vote for the candidate they were nominated and elected to represent. Several states do not have this provision built into their systems for chosing EC electorates. Kind of annoying ...

Moreover, I always understood the EC system to be a means that the founding fathers used to buffer the common man out of politics. We see this same struggle between Jeffersonian and John Adams policy making in the US' earlier years. Cooler minds prevail sort of mentality ...

Kind of a "we'll vote for electorates to gather and discuss presidential candidates (mini-campaigns) then have a vote among the elite" sorta thing.

That's how I learned it though. Could be wrong.

I think it should be more of a popular vote. Since current trends allegedly point to increasing urbanization it only seems democratic to give the majority more power than the minority. I think there should be runoff elections in instances where there is a lack of majority support. Also, if president's day is a national holiday, election day should be a national holiday. Even though i know many americans only worship dead presidents anyway, it seems like the day that defines democracy should get more respect in our country. Having work off or shortened would also give people one less reason not to vote.

If 51% of the people decide the other 49% should be slaves, its a democratic and 'fair' decision.

A majority alone can not be trusted any more then a despot.

The majority is trusted in nearly every election besides the presidential, how can you claim that it can't be trusted? The will of the majority is put in check by the constitution.


You're example is irrelevant and means nothing. How is letting a popular vote elect the president bear any similarity to 51% of the population voting to enslave 49%? Do you think that the american public may fall under the spell of a presidential candidate promising to enslave all who vote against him/her? That wouldn't seem to be a very likely platform to get you into the oval office. Even if that did happen, how would the president implement that plan? How would they do it without violating the constitution? That is why there is the constitution, to protect the minority from oppression. I suppose they could try to amend the constitution, but that would take years and much more than 51% of eligible voters.

Here's why not. PA is 23 electoral votes, a major piece of the pie. If PA is split 51-49, the 51 percent swing all 23 votes their way. A popular vote that split 51-49 would be an insignificant victory for the "winner." What the EC does is screw up the power of the majority.

Further, the fact that electoral votes are reported throughout the day affects the voting process. Once people in Nevada see that NY, PA, OH and FL have gone to one of the candidates, they are less likely to vote because the election is probably decided. If it were a popular vote the people might feel less disenfranchised and we could actually see some voter turnout.

As for the thinking that the EC protects us from our moronic selves, no thank you. I'd like it if we could sin our own sins.

Re: Re: A revision to the electoral college system?
 

I tend to agree with Ustwo. In countries that have multiparty systems, the only way to get elected is to create coalitions with the smaller "fringe" groups. This allows these groups to gain more power than their numbers deserve. If an idea/movement is good, it will, overtime, become part of one of the mainstream parties. If you think there is a lot of "horse-trading" and special interests influence now, it will only get worse in a strong multi-party system. While the EC could use some reform, I feel it should stand.

Damnit, Ustwo! Every time I write you off you have to go an say something completely sensible like that. Efficiency is the enemy of deliberation, and, so far as legislation goes, deliberation is a good thing. Stability is good. Gridlock is good. You have hit the nail on the head!

And the tyranny of the majority is every bit as, well, tyrannical as any other tyranny.

Of course, you can look at the "alliance" between the goddamn Greens and the Democratic party a couple of way. If you are predisposed to dislike both, well, then you've got it nailed again. If you belive that the political center has moved too far toward the conservatives and authoritarians, as I do, then the whole phenomenon of a American goddamn Green party looks more like folks frustrated with the rightward motion of the Democratic Party during the Clinton administration trying to pull it back where it belongs. If the Democratic nominee for President is liberal, most or all of these folks will come back, leaving the goddamn Greens twisting in the wind. That's why I quote "alliance". It's not.

Still another way to look at it is that Greens are to Democrats as Fundamentalist pseudo-Christians are to Republicans. With luck, though, there will never be a goddamn Green leading this country. Would that I could say the same for Fundies.

Personally i wish political parties would be abolished and people would vote on issues based on what they believe not what the party says is right.

Every election EXCEPT the Presidential election is for a candidate on the local (state, city, or community) level.

And???

There's no county electoral system in any state to protect the citizens of the state from the tyranny of the majority. What if the easily swayed, foolish massed elected a horribly unqualified governor for the wrong reasons (ahem california)? What if 51% of the citizens of montana voted to enslave the other 49%?
There's no electoral system to save those folks. I haven't heard yet if that has been a huge problem, but i'll keep you posted.

The difference is they are local elections. You are a lot less likely to shit on your neighbor then the guy on the other side of the nation. In addition if a state were to kill its own infrastructure it would be in a lot of trouble. But Montana's infrastructure has no bearing on California's economy.

Exactly. Local elections don't need the EC because they are local. And, as the saying goes, "all politics are local." State and community issues do not diverge to the degree that national issues do.

Take tariffs, for example. The recent protectionist steel tariffs were great. . .if you are in the steel industry in Pennsylvania. But they were bad for our economy as a whole because the tariffs meant that consumer products containing steel had to use more expensive domestic steel in the manufacturing process, and they price for these products was driven up to prop up the steel industry. Also, port cities (like mine) felt the pinch because there were fewer jobs and hours for dock workers because the tariffs drastically cut down on the amount of steel being imported, and steel has historically made up a large proportion of imports into the Port of New Orleans. It's only through an EC-type system that my poor little city of New Orleans can even get the President's ear to plead our case as to how the steel tariffs are shredding our local economy and emptying our state coffers.

Anyway, filtherton, you make a reasonable point. I'm not religiously devoted to the EC, but I have some serious misgivings (fears) about changing the current system. Your observations raise legitimate questions, though.

Damn, that's civil. You bring up good points too. I feel like i've stumbled into some sort of bizzarro tfc politics board.

I think the Electoral College raises some serious voter disenfranchisement issues, for example having states being "locked" red or blue. Where's the incentive to vote, when you know it isn't going to make a difference. I live in VA, granted we just elected a 'blue' governor, but the idea of it, or Texas, going for Dean or Gephardt instead of Bush is kind of laughable, in my opinion. Same with California and New York, just reversed. All of those voters are told over and over and over and over that their votes don't matter, and it infuriates me to have to concede the point.

A related problem when speaking of voter disenfranchisement is the congressional redistricting scams state legislatures have been running for the last however many years now. They have computer models so accurate these days they can seperate houses on the same block into different districts, in a shameful effort to make a district as 'safe' as possible. And I'm not pointing fingers at one party, red and blue, you're both just as guilty of it.

End result: A 96% incumbency re-election rate. Welcome to our very own Politburo: The U.S. House of Representatives.

My two suggestions:

Dump the electoral college, and make every vote count.

Take the power of redistricting out of the hands of the politicians trying to get re-elected, and give it to:
a) Some gubernatorially-appointed bipartisan commission, with the governor as the tie-breaking vote (easiest, and therefore least likely to solve the problem)
b) Give the power to the judicial branch, perhaps a 3 judge panel, all of whom have lifetime seats (more controversial, but more equitable IMO)
c) Use a computer model that doesn't factor in political party, only population and geographic area

Maybe if we can get back to the days when the Democrats in Congress didn't have to pander to their liberal base, and the Republicans in Congress didn't have to pander to their conservative base, and get back to the days when we had liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats, we can start unifying and stop dividing.

Its interesting that you use Nebraska as your example because in Nebraska they actually do have a slightly different approach to the electoral college. You see Nebraska has only 3 votes, but they can be divided among different candidates based upon who wins each district. While the small number of votes and the intensely conservative nature of the state make this change a moot point here, I do think that this is a great idea for allowing third parties more representation and as a way to more fairly distribute votes to mainstream candidates.

This incumbency rate is also related to pork-barrel vote-buying programs.

Every rep and senator grabs as much as they can grab from the coffers, then they parade around campaigning in their home state bragging about how much excessive spending they could secure them.

And then you have the marketing. . . uh, "re-election". . . budgets that the incumbants have which often double those of their most serious opposition, and you have some very difficult obstacles to overcome to make a change in a seat in the U.S Congress.

As former Governer Edwin Edwards used to say down here in Louisiana:. . . . "as long as he don't get caught with a dead girl or a live boy in his bed" . . . the incumbant is likely to win.

While agree with your statements regarding the redistricting fiasco and especially your last statement, I think the EC as a whole should stay. Instead of the people being told in the exit polls that their votes no longer matter you would be telling 41 states that their votes no longer matter. The issues of less populated states would never carry any weight in an election. You certainly wouldn't have anybody campaigning on promises to farmers. You wouldn't need anybody campaigning in the south. Just because there are more people in one central location, doesn't mean that rural issues should go unnoticed. Granted that may or may not happen if the EC were abolished, but it "could" very easily become a reality. I like the idea of assigning the electoral votes based on percentage of popular votes, but I'm sure there would be roadblocks there too. The EC balances votes geographically, which I still see as very important because cultures, values, languages, issues, and ideas, very geographically as well.

41 states with votes that don't matter... Sounds a lot like our current system, don't you think? I just don't buy into the argument that just because you live in Florida, or Missouri, or any of a very small handful of battleground states (don't get me started on Iowa and New Hampshire deciding presidential nominees) that you're vote should count for more than mine. I'm a citizen of United States of America, just like you, and resent being discounted at the polls.

Full disclosure: While I do live in VA, I am a Florida resident, and I will be voting absentee ;)