The Electoral College Revisited

[andyfox]

In the three biggest states, there will be no campaigning this year. Kerry will win New York and California and Bush will win Texas. Those electoral votes are, in effect, already decided.

So millions of people will effectively be disenfranchised. Bush will probably receive more votes in California than any other state except Texas, but those votes will count for nothing.

Why not a proportional system? If California has 54 electoral votes, give the winner of the state half of those votes, and then divide the rest proportionally according to the vote. So if Kerry gets, say, 60%, he would get 27 + 16 electoral votes, and Bush would get 11.

Maybe someone more industrious than I can figure out how the 2000 election would have come out had this system been in place.

[Ray Zee]

maybe all peoples votes should be equal, and do away with the electoral college. its main purpose (imho) is to limit the amount of candidates to two. this way we dont have so much to worry about.

[Ed Miller]

Why not a proportional system?

It's still not quite "right," as what happens when someone wins 51% of the vote in Wyoming? How about 72%?

But furthermore, I believe the states decide how to elect their electors. Short of a Constitutional amendment, there's no way to alter this. And if there is a Constitutional amendment, then I think we clearly should simply ditch the whole College.

[eLROY]

Sure, that's easy. If the vote was proportional, then the candidate favored by the most dishonest state would have won the 2000 election. You would have had a nationwide recount in every state, in a race to see who could lie the most.

There was not perfect voting information and monitoring technology in the time of the founding fathers, or in our time or any time in the future. It's a pretty safe assumption that state authorities would always say all their votes went for whomever they voted 51% for, in an effort to maximize each state's role in the republic.

The cost of dishonest voting must always be weighed against the benefit. If you create a situation where the benefit is too big, and where there are no natural checks and balances, you increase lying. Do you think states want federal incumbents running state elections?

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
But furthermore, I believe the states decide how to elect their electors. Short of a Constitutional amendment, there's no way to alter this. And if there is a Constitutional amendment, then I think we clearly should simply ditch the whole College.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a practical solution that would not require 3/4 of the states to approve (the number needed to pass an amendment)

If a group of states (swing states especially) decided that they would award all of their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, the dynamics of the current system would die on the vine.

No one could win without the block of say 150 electoral votes that 15 states could deliver to the popular vote winner. So the value of a vote everywhere would now matter, since everyone's vote in every state is included in the national popular vote.

The states have a right to assign their votes this way if they choose, and only a minority of states would have to agree to do it.

[andyfox]

I've done the math; see my And the Winner Is . . . post

[benfranklin]

The Electoral College was designed to prevent very large, high-population states from dominating the smaller states solely on the basis of their population. The Founding Fathers saw that as necessary at the time. If we have out-grown that need, and I am not convinced that we have, there are several options. One is a Constitutonal amendment to change to a simple majority or plurality system. Catch-22: never happen, because the smaller states would never ratify such an amendment.

The other option is for the states to change their Electoral system. The federal rules do not mandate a winner take all system. A state has X electoral votes, which it can award in any way it chooses by state law. The vast majority simply give all of its votes to the majority winner of the popular vote in that state. A few states (I believe Nebraska is one) provide for allocating electoral votes based on popular vote.

My memory is hazy, but this is how I think the Nebraska system works. The state has 2 Senators and 3 Representatives, and therefore gets 5 electoral votes. The 2 "Senate" votes go to the candidate that gets the over-all popular majority in the state. Each of the 3 "Representatives" votes goes to the winner of the popular vote within each of the three Congressional districts. In a relatively small state like Nebraska, I would think that this would usually translate into a 5-0 vote distribution most of the time, and occasionally a 4-1 vote. But I could see a much wider distribution in the biggest states, where the "loser" might pick up as much as 25% of the electoral votes, based on regional differences within the state.

Catch 22 revisited: The dominant party in a state is not going to make any changes to its electoral laws that would give anything away to the minority party. And the feds are not going to make any changes in the system to take the decisions away from the states. In fact, I don't think that the feds could make the states do it any one particular way without a Constitutional amendment.

[Toro]

I'm not a history expert by any means but the way I understand it, there is actually a reason for the Electoral College. The concern is that small States will be ignored. Just as it is set up that each State regardless of size gets two representatives to the U.S. Senate, the electoral college prevents the candidates from just campaigning in the most popualted States and ignoring the rest.

I'm not saying I agree with the rationale, just stating it as I have heard it explained.

[eLROY]

Hah! Let's give all our votes to whomever Oklahoma voted for. I'm sure that would go over well in Texas.

[MMMMMM]

^

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
The states have a right to assign their votes this way if they choose, and only a minority of states would have to agree to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No state would ever chose to do it. At any given moment in time, a state is "Republican" or "Democratic". If the majority of voters in a state are Republican, and/or the legislature is controlled by the Republicans, currently all of its electoral votes go to the Republican candidate. No Republican would ever agree to a change in a system that gave them all the votes. If the Democrats later gained power in that state, they would not want to change the old system, because now they have the power, and all the electoral votes go to the Democratic candidate.

[andyfox]

Bush 270; Gore 267; Nader 1.

For the states with 3 electoral votes, I gave one to the losing candidate if he got 40% of the popular vote or more; otherwise I gave all 3 to the popular vote winner.

Nader got his electoral vote in California: with 54 electoral votes, his 4% got him 4% of 27 electoral votes = 1.

While the results were remarkably similar to the actual election results, voters in big states are not disenfranchised. Bush got 4,567,429 votes in California, more than he got in any other state, including Texas, yet he got zero electoral votes; in my system he got 11. Gore got 2,912,253 votes in Florida and zero electoral votes; in my system he got 6.

BTW, according to the Census Bureau there were 205,815,000 people of voting age and 51.% of them cast a vote for president.

[andyfox]

But they cheat now. If half the votes were proportional, there'd be less electoral votes the cheaters would have at their disposal. In the Florida fiasco, for example, the fight was over 25 electoral votes. In my system, the winner gets 13 votes. No matter who won, since it was so close, each candidate would be assured of 6 of the other 12 electoral votes.

[andyfox]

There's a good argument for direct popular election of the president, in addition to increasing democracy. The small states already have, in effect, an unfair advantage in the Senate. Alaska is represented by the same number of senators as California. Why give them an advantage, as well, in the presidential elections? The president is the president of all the people and if more people live in California than Alaska, that's the way it goes, no?

[HDPM]

No. The Constitution was designed to give small states some protection. It is not an "unfair" advantage. Mobocracy is not a good system. Without strict limits on governmental power, protections for individual rights, and limits on what direct votes can dictate, democracy is not necessarily better than any other form of government and will likely devolve into mob rule. We are close to that when pillaging hordes can steal my money for boo hoo programs. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[andyfox]

So I guess we know where you stand on the Hamiltonian/Jefersonian scale. About a thousand miles tothe right of Hamilton [which is a good position if Aaron Burr happen to be nearby]. [BTW, not many people now realize Hamilton was responsible for getting his enemy Thomas Jefferson elected president when he realized even Jefferson was preferable to Burr.]

I like the mob. According to our nation's principles they're supposed to be in charge. Of the people, by the people and all that.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

You suggestion is logical, therefore it will never happen /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a good argument for direct popular election of the president, in addition to increasing democracy. The small states already have, in effect, an unfair advantage in the Senate. Alaska is represented by the same number of senators as California. Why give them an advantage, as well, in the presidential elections? The president is the president of all the people and if more people live in California than Alaska, that's the way it goes, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

A major problem is that the governmental system has greatly changed over the years, while the electoral system has not. The Founding Fathers designed a strong state/weak federal form of government. The Electoral College reflected that philosophy. The Founders had great respect for the rights and abilities of the individual, and feared that these tended to suffer under pure majority rule. That is why the country was not established as a democracy. They did not want pure majority rule. They distrusted pure majority rule. With good reason, I might add. (He said, throwing raw meat on the floor of the lion cage.)

Over time, the country has evolved into a strong federal/weak state form, with more and more power (and money) flowing to Washington. The Electoral College appears to be at odds with the federal system now in place, and it is. Many people jump to the conclusion that the quick and dirty answer is to get rid of the Electoral College. Some people, ahem, think that the problems perhaps is with the way the government has evolved, and that the Electoral College is one of the few remaining brakes on runaway Federalism.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

There is a practical solution that would not require 3/4 of the states to approve (the number needed to pass an amendment)


But within your answer lies the problem. The process of amending the constitution was specifically designed to make changing difficult. I agree with that idea, even though I believe that the electoral college is an anachronism.

Congress doesn't like constitutional amendments (they cause "gridlock"). The media won't like direct elections (what would they do with all the complex graphics, not to mention Tim Russert's slate?)

We don't need "solutions" that circumvent constitutional mandates, we need politicians with spines (or fewer politicians).

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

I like the mob. According to our nation's principles they're supposed to be in charge. Of the people, by the people and all that.

[/ QUOTE ]

BBBZZZZZ!! Sorry, wrong answer. If that were correct, our nation would have been founded as a democracy, which it was not, and we would not have the Electoral College and many other checks and balances. The Founding Fathers had great respect for the common folk as individuals, and great distrust of them acting together.

[elwoodblues]

For every 575,000 people in the state of New York they get 1 electoral vote.

Right next door in Vermont, every 200,000 people get 1 electoral vote.

[andyfox]

It's time to make it a democracy. Many of the framers were indeed elitists, scared of the common folk, the mob.

Lincoln was pandering?

[slamdunkpro]

There's a good argument for NOT directy electing the president va popular vote. It's called Canada. They elect their PM via popular vote. Since over 70% of Canada's population lives in the east., guess where the PM always comes from. The western provences just have to suck it up and take it.

Any of our Alberta or BC posters want to jump in here?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
The Founding Fathers had great respect for the common folk as individuals, and great distrust of them acting together

[/ QUOTE ]

And you wonder where the comments about the founding fathers being elitist comes from /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[andyfox]

Good post.

"They did not want pure majority rule. They distrusted pure majority rule. With good reason, I might add."

The reason is they thought the elite should govern. Time to get away from that kind of thinking. The mob should govern. (He said throwing raw meat on the floor of the lion cage.)

[elwoodblues]

It's a problem that the leader comes from where the most people live?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It's time to make it a democracy

[/ QUOTE ]

with the Constitutional protections for the rights of the minority

[MMMMMM]

"It's time to make it a democracy."

Very, very bad idea, Andy.

Individuals need protection; minorities need protection; tyranny of the majority is the inevitable result of pure democracy. A democratic constitutional republic is far superior, immeasurably superior, to a pure democracy.

If your state, or country, was run on pure democracy, and they voted to take away all the property and money of everyone whose initials were AF, what would you think of that?

How about the most populous states voting to take all federal funds for themselves and give sparsely populated states nothing? Democracy rules, doesn't it?

[andyfox]

What's to stop them from doing it now?

[elwoodblues]

Couldn't agree more.

[andyfox]

No reasonable person, reading Madison's notes on the federal convention, could come to any other conclusion.

[MMMMMM]

What's to stop the most populous states from doing that now? Let's see...maybe the fact that each state has two senators only?

[MMMMMM]

Don't tell me you don't think leaders won't be biased towards legislation favoring their home area--at the expense of distant areas?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I've always said that the 2000 election was good for the country because it pointed out systemic flaws that had gone undetected because there hadn't been an election this close in generations. The election was a virtual tie. Gore's 543,895 edge in poular vote amounted to slightly more than 1/2 of 1% of the votes cast. Statistically, counting error is between .5% and 1.5% of the total votes cast. Thus either candidate could have really gotten as much as a million votes more than accepted as the "official" tally.

Your analysis bears this out. The election was too close to call. The winner was decided by the only means(flawed though they may be) we had with which to make the decision.

[elwoodblues]

Of course they'll be biased. Just as a leader chosen from one of the lesser populated areas would be biased. Any time you pick one person (president, PM, etc.) you won't have someone whose personal interests are representative of everyone. The congress/parliament is where that comes into play. If we wanted a more fair/balanced executive we would have that power vested in an executive committee elected like we do the legislative branch.

I don't have a problem with a biased executive. If his/her biases disagree with mine, I'll vote against them and persuade others to do the same. If his/her biases are unpopular ones they'll be voted out of office. If they are popular we'll get the PATRIOT Act part 6 /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the mob. According to our nation's principles they're supposed to be in charge. Of the people, by the people and all that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. And we certainly have gotten what we deserve, haven't we. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

In 2002, when taken by a sudden fit of civic duty; I marched down to vote and received a small round red sticker that stated "My Vote Counted". How uplifting.

I like the voting system in Mexico. You wake up in the morning and start drinking, then check with the local PRI official or PAN official and collect your money for the vote that you sold. Now you have more money for drinking and a leisurely visit to the local brothel. After various sexual indulgences you continue drinking and stumble into the nearest place to cast your ballot. Then you eat and party some more, watch fireworks, and head for home on your burro. While riding home you notice all the local politicos dowsing ballot boxes with gasoline, setting them on fire, and tossing them into the nearest Barranca. You continue home and there sleep the peaceful slumber of the Gods.

In the morning you ride your burro to the plaza and while slowly munching on breakfast note that Mexico has some new president. You then go about your business just as you have the all the other previous years of your life, knowing that the good drives out the bad, the sun shines on those that pray, that democracy is alive and vibrate, and that this is the best of all possible worlds.

Shalom, my old friend

-Zeno

[andyfox]

"You wake up in the morning and start drinking, then check with the local PRI official or PAN official and collect your money for the vote that you sold. Now you have more money for drinking and a leisurely visit to the local brothel. After various sexual indulgences you continue drinking and stumble into the nearest place to cast your ballot. Then you eat and party some more, watch fireworks, and head for home on your burro. While riding home you notice all the local politicos dowsing ballot boxes with gasoline, setting them on fire, and tossing them into the nearest Barranca. You continue home and there sleep the peaceful slumber of the Gods."

Funny, that's the same system we use in Beverly Hills.

Jed Clampett won the last election for mayor.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a practical solution that would not require 3/4 of the states to approve (the number needed to pass an amendment)


But within your answer lies the problem. The process of amending the constitution was specifically designed to make changing difficult. I agree with that idea, even though I believe that the electoral college is an anachronism.

Congress doesn't like constitutional amendments (they cause "gridlock"). The media won't like direct elections (what would they do with all the complex graphics, not to mention Tim Russert's slate?)

We don't need "solutions" that circumvent constitutional mandates, we need politicians with spines (or fewer politicians).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a solution to "circumvent" a constitutional mandate. The constitution says nothing about how a state must choose its electors, just that it is up to the state legislature to decide. Before the 1820s, most were selected by the state legislatures. You aren't violating the constitution if it freely allows the states to use whatever method they choose.

Your whole constitution argument is all wet.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The states have a right to assign their votes this way if they choose, and only a minority of states would have to agree to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No state would ever chose to do it. At any given moment in time, a state is "Republican" or "Democratic". If the majority of voters in a state are Republican, and/or the legislature is controlled by the Republicans, currently all of its electoral votes go to the Republican candidate. No Republican would ever agree to a change in a system that gave them all the votes. If the Democrats later gained power in that state, they would not want to change the old system, because now they have the power, and all the electoral votes go to the Democratic candidate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are mistaken. State legislators are often consistently one party, while the people vote consistently for the other party. 10 years ago most Southern state were still run by Democrats while their electoral votes usually went Republican. You think those Democrats were too dumb to see the benefit of my plan to their party?

[bingledork]

The presidency is won by winning more states, not by winning more people.

A sports analogy:
The World Series is won by winning more games, not by scoring more runs. How would you feel about the two teams playing 7 games and then adding up the scores to see who wins?

[elwoodblues]

How would you feal if runs scored in the 8th inning were worth 2.5 times more than those scored in the 9th.

[tyfromm]

[ QUOTE ]
How would you feal if runs scored in the 8th inning were worth 2.5 times more than those scored in the 9th.

[/ QUOTE ]

thems the breaks. Isn't a monster hand worth a lot more on the final table than in the early going?

[elwoodblues]

In a tournament, yes. In a ring game, no. A ring game is more analogous.

[MMMMMM]

"I don't have a problem with a biased executive. If his/her biases disagree with mine, I'll vote against them and persuade others to do the same. If his/her biases are unpopular ones they'll be voted out of office."

But that's exactly the problem which we are discussing--they may be voted out of office, but replaced with someone from the same densely populated area with the same area-favoring bias--as earlier in this thread it was pointed out that Canada's PM's always come from the East.

Less populated states need some protection too--which is why the two-Senator-per-state sytem in the US is the perfect balance to population-based members of the House of Representatives. The overall majority gets a say and the states get a say too.

[MMMMMM]

Lennon's analogy is more apt than yours; yours has an arbitrary component with no rationale behind it.

Let's try this though:

The world series is decided on twofold criteria:

1) the number of games won

2) the number of runs scored


If it is a split then it is decided by the number of innings won.

This is still not a great analogy but at least we are working our way closer /images/graemlins/smile.gif /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[andyfox]

The analogy fails because it is a precondition that the winner is the first team to win four games. The runs don't hold over to the next game.

In the election, the winner is whomever gets the greatest number of electoral votes. Since the Constitution doesn't specify how each state is to award its electoral votes, we can alter the way they are awarded and still be playing by the rules.

[MMMMMM]

Simply change the precondition to stopping the match after one team wins four games, then apply the other criteria;-)

I'm not saying your system would be inherently flawed.

Does the Constitution say each state must award its electoral votes in the same manner as every other state? My guess is no.

[superleeds]

The Republicans and Democrats are pretty indistingishable in modern day politics so it is highly unlikely either will enact something that will upset the two party system. As long as one gets in the others just have a holiday for a bit. Fuk democracy, messy business.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a good argument for NOT directy electing the president va popular vote. It's called Canada. They elect their PM via popular vote. Since over 70% of Canada's population lives in the east., guess where the PM always comes from. The western provences just have to suck it up and take it.

Any of our Alberta or BC posters want to jump in here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on, there's enough nonsense on this forum already. We don't need people on here acting like Canada's a real country.

[andyfox]

No. It doesn't specify how the electoral vote is to be determined. There doesn't even have to be a popular vote in the states.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature therof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." Sounds like the framers expected the state legislatures to elect the Executive.

[jcx]

[ QUOTE ]
It's time to make it a democracy. Many of the framers were indeed elitists, scared of the common folk, the mob.



[/ QUOTE ]

They were scared with good reason. They knew that in a pure democracy people would vote themselves bread and circuses and utter chaos would ensue. The Republic would have never existed in the first place unless compromises between the large and small states were struck. The surest way to guarantee another civil war would be to throw out the electoral college for popular vote. People in smaller states would not stand for it and would certainly riot, if not outright revolt. I suppose by your logic the mob should then be sent in with clubs to beat these people into submission for daring to question what the majority wants, even if the "majority" is a bunch of lazy Jerry Springer watching slobs who demand that the productive class turn over their property to them.

As a matter of fact, given today's technology, there really is no need for a President/Congress anymore at all! The technology exists to wire every home in America to a central voting database. The unwashed from all over America could decide to pick the pockets of the industrious from the convenience of their barcalounger. Some stooges could be put in place in Washington to simply ensure the people's will is carried out. Want free universal health care? Check. How about tripling Social Security benefits? You bet! Free college for anyone and everyone! And no state school mind you, I deserve Ivy League, baby. Majority rules, after all.

[GWB]

Those founding fathers were pretty smart. They constructed a carefully balanced republican system of government. Compare that to the failures of the French system established around the same time.

States are key to to balance (not just the 3 branches of the Federal government). Leaving control of the electoral college and electoral procedures to states is part of the whole balance thing.

Don't forget, the goal of an election is to select a winner, not to make everyone happy about voting. The electoral college does a better job because it naturally focuses the contest on the candidates with a plausible chance of winning, and it ensures the campaign must be of a national character.

[M.B.E.]

Canada does not elect the Prime Minister by popular vote.

Also, two of the last six prime ministers have been from the western provinces.

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
Canada does not elect the Prime Minister by popular vote.

Also, two of the last six prime ministers have been from the western provinces.

[/ QUOTE ]

On the other hand, consider this. Since after the 1960 election (thats 44 years) every single elected President has come from the southern half of the USA (the southern 1/3 population wise).

[M.B.E.]

I skimmed this thread, and nobody has satisfactorily answered Andy's original question.

Why don't states like California, Texas, and New York alter the way they choose electors in the electoral college? (As others have noted, this would not require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which already provides that the state legislatures may choose the electors however they like.)

Benfranklin suggests the reason is that it would normally hurt the party with a majority in the state legislature. For example, the Texas legislature is majority-Republican, so they don't want to make a change which would give more electoral-college votes to the Democratic presidential ticket. In any event, as long as the president is a Texan, Texas is not hurting much under the current system.

New York and California are different stories, however. Both have Republican governors, even though their legislatures are (I believe) Democratic. Surely the Democrats in the legislature of those states can see that even though their party might be hurt by a system choosing their electoral-college members through PR rather than winner-take-all, the public interest of the state would be served because the candidates would have a greater incentive to address the concerns of those states.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not a proportional system? If California has 54 electoral votes, give the winner of the state half of those votes, and then divide the rest proportionally according to the vote. So if Kerry gets, say, 60%, he would get 27 + 16 electoral votes, and Bush would get 11.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmmm, I'm not sure this particular system would change much. Under this proposal, if Kerry increased his share of California voters from 60% to 65%, he'd only get 2 more electoral votes -- hardly significant enough to make him focus his campaign on California.

[GWB]

I think states rightly realize that the most bang for their buck comes from making the all or nothing choice, even if they are neglected in a particular election.

Don't forget, they can not be ignored by an incumbant President even when they are not competitive. 12% of the House seats are elected from California, and at least 12% of political contributions - truly California [and other big states] is not being ignored.

[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
Since after the 1960 election (thats 44 years) every single elected President has come from the southern half of the USA (the southern 1/3 population wise).

[/ QUOTE ]
When you say "since after the 1960 election" you mean "since the 1964 election" so it's really only 40 years, not 44. Also two of those presidents were from California, which might technically be a "southern" state but does not have much in common with the other southern states.

Actually I believe Ronald Reagan was not from California but from Illinois. And wasn't George H.W. Bush from Maine?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since after the 1960 election (thats 44 years) every single elected President has come from the southern half of the USA (the southern 1/3 population wise).

[/ QUOTE ]
When you say "since after the 1960 election" you mean "since the 1964 election" so it's really only 40 years, not 44.



[/ QUOTE ]

Not to quibble, but I did say "after" 1960, the last year a northerner was elected (but a few years more or less is irrelevant to the point).

[ QUOTE ]
Also two of those presidents were from California, which might technically be a "southern" state but does not have much in common with the other southern states.


[/ QUOTE ]
I was refering to geography not historically named regions of the country. If you prefer we can say they are all from the "sunbelt".

[ QUOTE ]

Actually I believe Ronald Reagan was not from California but from Illinois. And wasn't George H.W. Bush from Maine?

[/ QUOTE ]

Reagan grew up in Illinois, but hadn't live there since the 1930s, and his political career was in California.

Kennebunkport was my Dad's vacation home acquired from his Aunt, remember that he served as a Texas Congressman. He has lived in Texas since the 1940s.