What do you think of the electoral college now?

[Ulysses]

Looks like Bush will end up winning Ohio by 100k or so, but will win the popular vote by almost 4 million.

Had Ohio gone 150k the other way, we could easily have had a scenario where Bush lost the election but won the popular vote by something like 3.5 million.

How do you think you would have felt about the electoral college system had that occurred?

[lorinda]

Our third party gets something like (Way too late to get exact numbers) 25% of the vote and under 10% of the seats in parliament.

These systems are hideous.

Lori

[adios]

Good points, certainly the campaigns would be different if the electoral college was abolished.

[flytrap]

Well, the electoral college certainly could have helped Kerry, but without it, Gore would have won in 2000, and likely been re-elected tonight, so this is a pointless arguement without pointing out how it would have effected a Gore-Bush(or whoever the GOP canidate was) this year after a Gore victory in 2000.

[natedogg]

What do I think now? I think it will never go away for better or for worse as long as the union stays intact.

natedogg

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you think you would have felt about the electoral college system had that occurred?

[/ QUOTE ]

I voted for Bush.

I agree with the wisdom of the electoral college. If Kerry won Ohio and thus the election, I would not feel disenfranchised at all. Id be happy to call Kerry president even though I would wish he wasn't the president.

Stu

[Danenania]

I don't think the Electoral College is a great system, but I also think a straight popular vote system would have many problems as well. What are some of the other alternatives?

[young nut]

I agree. I support Bush, but if Kerry happened to edge out Bush in certain swing states, I would just have to deal with it.

The electoral college's purpose is so that our nations large cities (NY, Chicago, LA) can't just dictate to the rest of the country who the president will be. Having the electoral college makes the entire nation important to the elections.

[lorinda]

Transferable popular vote.

Proportional representation in the EC.

Not saying either are better, just other options

Lori

[daveymck]

[ QUOTE ]
Transferable popular vote.

Proportional representation in the EC.

Not saying either are better, just other options

Lori

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont understand why the EC doesnt split the votes on a PR basis its mad somone can poll 40%+ but gets nothing, its like over here in a majority of areas voting counts for nothing they are always one or the other without fail and its always the swing seats (or states for you) that decide the election, it ends up here that our politics is aimed at those from the demographics prevelant in those areas rather than the country as a whole.

[jdl22]

The point of the electoral college is that the smaller states would be overrepresented and hence would ratify the constitution. Like the infamous 3/5's compromise this is just one of several things in the constitution that is simply the result of a compromise reached between the large and small states that allowed the US to exist after the fail of the articles of confederation.

[lorinda]

From what I've gleaned here (only 48 states do it this way) it's that the state can assign the vote how they like, and to make the most impact as a state, it is more beneficial to assign it as a block.

Lori

[Danenania]

I think a good first step might be to divide each state into regions (perhaps using congressional lines?) then give each region electoral votes. The numbers and weighting should probably be completely revamped.

[Bulldog]

We are a republic, not a democracy. Have been for over 200 years.

[theBruiser500]

Thanks for clarifying that, Bulldog.

[Abednego]

I believe in the wisdom of the founding fathers and in the electoral college. Your what-if scenario makes a nice hypothetical question but such a result (referring to such a large popular vote/electoral college discrepancie and not the small ones we have experienced) has never happened and in all probability never will.

For your consideration:

"The presidential election system helps to form reasonable majorities through the interaction of its three distinguishing attributes: the distribution and apportionment of electoral votes in accordance with the federal principle; the requirement that the winner garner a majority of electoral votes; and the custom (followed by 48 of the 50 states) of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the popular-vote victor within that state. Working together, these features link the presidency to the federal system, discourage third parties, and induce moderation on the part of candidates and interest groups alike. No candidate can win without a broad national coalition, assembled state by state yet compelled to transcend narrow geographic, economic, and social interests"

National Review/November 8, 2004
Michael M. Uhlmann

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like Bush will end up winning Ohio by 100k or so, but will win the popular vote by almost 4 million.

Had Ohio gone 150k the other way, we could easily have had a scenario where Bush lost the election but won the popular vote by something like 3.5 million.

How do you think you would have felt about the electoral college system had that occurred?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldnt change my views at all on the electoral college. I think it is the best way to do it. If Kerry had won, so be it. I wouldnt have been happy with him as the President but it wouldnt have changed my mind and I wouldnt have challenged his legitimacy.

[Danenania]

Why is the Electoral College the best way to do it? If you don't mind me asking.

[elwoodblues]

I think part of the reason is because it gives even less incentive to campaign in small states. If in most states with 3 or 4 electoral votes each candidate could be almost guaranteed at 1 of the votes, there is even less incentive to get over there to fight for the remaining 2 or 3 votes.

[TorontoCFE]

"Working together, these features link the presidency to the federal system, discourage third parties..."

I'm wondering what the value is in discouraging third parrties (other than helping ensure a "clear majority").
In a two party system, disatisfaction with one party requires a vote for the other without much choice.

Current times may be a good indication that a valid third party may have some merit. It would make it next to impossible for a clear majority, but is that outweighed by greater choice in ideas?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is the Electoral College the best way to do it? If you don't mind me asking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me first say that I think that there are compelling arguments on both sides. For me it boils down making sure all the states have a voice in who the President. My fear with popular election is the majority of the voting power would be concentrated urban America. As someone who grew up in the rural South , I dont feel that would be of much help to the issues that concern me.

Of course some may counter by saying that the Electoral College drives the election to be decided by a few states anyways. That may be the case, but at least the politicians are forced to address the concerns of a wider demographic.

Personally, I think the Electoral College system was pure genius on the part of our founding fathers. Its amazing that they were able to create a system that has by and large held up this long.

[Abednego]

I think third parties are a joke ...... from what I can tell the exclusive domain of potheads. Most Americans are concerned about more important matters.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
For me it boils down making sure all the states have a voice in who the President

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the general argument. I just don't know if in practical terms it would make that big of a difference. Take this election, for example. It is so close that each candidate would scramble to get every vote they could. It might even make states that currently get largely ignored by the politicians (because they are too strong in either the blue or red category) to get attention from both sides because they had value to both candidates. Take Texas, for example --- I don't know this as fact but would suspect that Kerry spent nearly 0 time in Texas. If we had a different system (either straight popular or proportional distribution of electoral votes) Kerry surely would have spent time their trying to increase the 38% that he ended up with.

As our system stands now, there are several states that are largely ignored and it has little to do with size.

[vulturesrow]

You are probably correct for the most part. I did hear on the news last night that Kerry visited something like 41 states during the campaign. I suspect that number might be lower if we were going the popular vote route. I really think the net effect of the concentrated population centers would cause smaller states to be more irrelevant.

[lorinda]

If the system was proportional votes within each state it would make each state worth visiting.

An (imaginary) state that was strongly Republican might return 4 of 5 ECV for the Republicans on 80% but only return 3 of 5 on 60% , so even catering to some extra needs would be worth their while.

It would remove the concept of target states, as every vote would be important in every state, although smaller states would still get a higher % of ECVs than they would if it were done on popular vote.

Just some tired foreign thoughts.

Lori

[Beerfund]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think the Electoral College is a great system, but I also think a straight popular vote system would have many problems as well. What are some of the other alternatives?

[/ QUOTE ]

A queen

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
No candidate can win without a broad national coalition, assembled state by state yet compelled to transcend narrow geographic, economic, and social interests

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's the idea.

But take a look at the time and money the candidates spent on California, New York, and Texas.

That's probably the biggest issue I have with the current system. Yes, I'm well aware of why the electoral college exists and the intended purposes of this system. And, no, I don't have any great ideas re: a perfect solution.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
But take a look at the time and money the candidates spent on California, New York, and Texas.



[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so instead of (largely) ignoring the least populous states, 4 of the 5 largest states were largely ignored (CA, NY, IL, TX). Kind of a backwards result.

[Trainwreck]

I have thought for a long time that the EC was something that should have been done away with, a long time ago.

*I'll stick with that!*

....and public funds for campaigns should also be removed, the wasted $ on ridiculous ads is shameful compared to the good that same $ could do.

>TW<

[Kopefire]

The same way I felt in 2000 --- the electoral college is necessary otherwise a candidate need only campaign for the coasts. Rural America may not be as populated as NY, CA, TX, and FL, but we still matter. The electoral system is important for the same reason we need both the House and the Senate . ..

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
The same way I felt in 2000 --- the electoral college is necessary otherwise a candidate need only campaign for the coasts. Rural America may not be as populated as NY, CA, TX, and FL, but we still matter. The electoral system is important for the same reason we need both the House and the Senate . ..

[/ QUOTE ]

How does a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas get represented fairly in this system?

[andyfox]

In a thread sometime back, I suggested a proportional system for all the states. The winner gets half the state's electoral votes. (In a state with an odd number of electoral votes, the winner gets the extra electoral vote.) The rest of each state's electoral votes is then distributed proportionally to all candidates getting over 10% of the vote in that state. The winner of the state must get more of those remaining electoral votes in each state.

Some examples from this year:

Idaho: 4 electoral votes. Bush wins the state, so he gets 2 electoral votes. The two remaining cannot be distributed one to each candidate, since the winner of the state must get more of those remaining electoral votes. So Bush gets all 4.

California: 55 electoral votes. Kerry wins the state and thus gets 28. The remaining 27 are distributed proportionaly to the candidates' percentages, yeilding 12 for Bush and 43 for Kerry. So the millions of people who voted for Bush in California, more than voted for him in any other state , even those he won, are not disenfranchised.

Massachusetts: 12 electoral votes. Kerry won the state and gets 6. The remaining 6 are distributed according to the candidates' percentages, 4 to Kerry, 2 to Bush. So Kerry gets 10 and Bush gets 2.

Using this system, I come up with Bush with 287 electoral votes, Kerry with 251. (This is assuming Bush wins New Mexico and Kerry wins Iowa.)

Under my system, if Kerry had won Ohio, he would have gotten 263 electoral votes, and Bush 275. So, in this case, the winner of the popular vote would still have won in the electoral college.

In this way, the small states don't lose their importance. In fact, their importance might well be magnified since their electoral votes are most often given 100% to the winning candidate. And voters in the big states who vote for the candidate that loses within their state have their votes count, since they result in electoral votes for their candidate.

[Ulysses]

Sounds good to me, Andy. Let's do it.

[andyfox]

See the Andy Fox Proportional System below.

[andyfox]

Investers sought.

[luv_the_game]

Sounds good to me.

Only problem is you have to sell it on a state by state basis, and the majority in each state knows that they would be giving up EC votes.

You got my vote though. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Alobar]

Take a look at voting numbers. Do you want to know why the turnout of young people is so low? Because a group already disenfranchised with our governement, holds the (IMO correct belief) that their vote doesnt matter. Why vote when your vote isnt equal to everyone elses. Someone who votes for ralph nader in florida has way more imppact on the election that someone who votes for george bush in texas. This isnt right.

I understand why the electoral college was put into place. Because whiney little states wanted to have some sort of power and feel important. But how important really is rhode island? It was also put into place because our forefathers didnt believe the common person was smart enough to elect our leader. To an extent that may have been true 200 years ago, when not everyone could read and write, didnt have CCN or the internet to get news from. A farmer out in podunckville who was a days ride from the next nearest anyone, would have no clue about what was going on in the political system, that simply isnt true today.

"we the people of the united states" should be just that "we the people". It should everyones vote heard equally. 1 vote in texas should be worth the same as 1 vote in alaska.

You want higher voter turnout, you want more young people involved in the political system, remove the electoral college.

[andyfox]

I just refigured 2000, and, alas, Bush ends up winning, in my system, 283 to 255. If Gore wins Florida, he ends up winning 270-268. So my system would still have resulted in A) the loser of the popular vote winning the election, and by an even greater margin in the electoral college than he did; and B) the mess in Florida to determine the popular vote winner there.

[colgin]

As a Kerry supporter (not a terribly enthusiastic one, but that almost goes without saying), I would have thought it sucked. The electoral college system is bad for democracy period. I am independently upset that Kerry lost, but I am also upset that we missed an oportunity for possible reform (i.e., regardless of what some may say here, I think there would have been a hue and cry for reform had Bush lost with a 4 million vote popular lead).

[andyfox]

The wouldn't "dictate." There are more people in New York and Chicago and Los Angeles than other places. Each person in New York gets one vote and each person in Boise gets one vote.

[Kopefire]

Each state is free to mandate that that state split it's electoral votes according to the popular vote, district totals or any other way that state's population feels is fair.

[luv_the_game]

I think this is results oriented thinking. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think you system is good philosophicaly. It keeps the advantages of the EC system and does a better job of not "disenfranchising" the minority voters in a state than the system currently used by the states.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same way I felt in 2000 --- the electoral college is necessary otherwise a candidate need only campaign for the coasts. Rural America may not be as populated as NY, CA, TX, and FL, but we still matter. The electoral system is important for the same reason we need both the House and the Senate . ..

[/ QUOTE ]

How does a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas get represented fairly in this system?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does a republican in some state with two democratic senators get represented in the senate. Same question for a state with two republican senators and a democrat in that state. Does this mean we should abolish the senate?

[andyfox]

. . . the more I favor just going to a straight popular vote. The states are already represented in the Senate. Montana has just as many senators as California. How sad would it have been had the man getting the lower number of votes been elected president twice in a row, especially this time when his popular vote lead was in the millions?

The electoral college is an anachronism created two hundred and fifteen years ago in a different world. Kind of like the second amendment. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[andyfox]

I think it has a chance of being enacted too. The Constitution says nothing about how the electors are to be chosen. Perhpas if combined with an amendment specifying popular election of the electors, it would have a chance of being ratified.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The same way I felt in 2000 --- the electoral college is necessary otherwise a candidate need only campaign for the coasts. Rural America may not be as populated as NY, CA, TX, and FL, but we still matter. The electoral system is important for the same reason we need both the House and the Senate . ..

[/ QUOTE ]

How does a Republican in California or a Democrat in Texas get represented fairly in this system?

[/ QUOTE ]

How does a republican in some state with two democratic senators get represented in the senate. Same question for a state with two republican senators and a democrat in that state. Does this mean we should abolish the senate?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, thanks for that constructive contribution. I'll go ahead and respond, though.

Senators are elected by popular vote in their state. Senators campaign in the entire state and whoever wins the most votes gets elected. On the other hand, presidential candidates now effectively completely ignore some states. If you can't see the difference between those two scenarios, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

Could the legislative branch be structured in a different manner to provide for even more direct representation? Perhaps. Would it be better or more effective than the current system? I don't know. Note that we do have both the House and the Senate to address many of the issues stemming from the point you brought up. If you're not familiar with this system, let me know and I can provide you with some more detail.

[SossMan]

I like it, Andy.

[elwoodblues]

I think the fault in this system is because it gives too much power to the small states (even more than the current system in which they are already vastly overrepresented.)

[astroglide]

the popular vote isn't a true indication because many people are in states so hopelessly dominated by the other party that they do not take the time to vote

[Senor Choppy]

It also doesn't take into account the fact that both candidates largely ignore a majority of states. If Bush truly cared about the popular vote in 2000, he could've hammered CA and NY with ads and probably picked up a million or so votes instead of spending money to collect another 10k or whatever in NH, NM, and other tiny swing states.

[slavic]

Andy -

There is nothing wrong with your system but to have a State put it into practice would cause that state to give up it's one big political power block until most of the other states used the same system. Therefore a switch of any type is unlikely.

This time around swing states had a bunch of politcal pull and their issues will have more importance. If we were to go to a purely popular election, then you would only see advertising in the 20 most populas markets, and many states would be left out in the cold.

[andyfox]

"many states would be left out in the cold."

As they should be. I mean, if California has 35 million people and Alaska has 350,000 (or whatever they have), then Alaska should be left out in the cold. (Pun intended.)

To make up for it, I suggest we still allow Alaska to have the same number of senators as California despite the population disparity. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
The electoral college system is bad for democracy period.

[/ QUOTE ]

The US is not a democracy. It is a representative republic that checks and balances power among the different branches and levels of government. The federalist system places buffers at the local and state levels between the people and the federal government (this was somewhat weakened by the 17th Amendment, but still generally holds true). The founding fathers saw the problems that direct democracies throughout history had suffered with (or more often collapsed under) and they concluded (correctly) that pure democracy is not a sustainable system of government. The Electoral College is a better way to elect the president because it is not democratic.

[andyfox]

"The Electoral College is a better way to elect the president because it is not democratic."

Therein lies the crux of the matter. Those of us who favor direct election of the president believe we should be more democratic now than we were in 1789.

A good little book on the subject is political scientist Robert Dahl's "How Democratic is the U.S. Constitution?"

[HDPM]

OK, enough bashing tried and true ideas like an armed citzenry and indirect elections. Here's my lunatic proposal: 50 electoral votes. Each state gets one. DC doesn't. No popular vote. Each state legislature picks one elector. Ties decided in congress. He he he. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Therein lies the crux of the matter. Those of us who favor direct election of the president believe we should be more democratic now than we were in 1789.

[/ QUOTE ]

The founding fathers had just escaped living under tyranny. Replacing the tyranny of a king with the tyranny of the majority wouldn't have accomplished much. Our constitution was intended to protect the minority from the majority. An illustration of the danger of democracy is the 11 out of 11 states who voted to ban gay marriage. If you don't see this as dangerous, just replace "gay" with "interfaith" or "interracial" or "intercaste." Majority rules, right? So much for being the land of the free. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[aces961]

[ QUOTE ]


Well, thanks for that constructive contribution. I'll go ahead and respond, though.

Senators are elected by popular vote in their state. Senators campaign in the entire state and whoever wins the most votes gets elected. On the other hand, presidential candidates now effectively completely ignore some states. If you can't see the difference between those two scenarios, there's no point in having a discussion with you.

Could the legislative branch be structured in a different manner to provide for even more direct representation? Perhaps. Would it be better or more effective than the current system? I don't know. Note that we do have both the House and the Senate to address many of the issues stemming from the point you brought up. If you're not familiar with this system, let me know and I can provide you with some more detail.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry about the oversimplification of my view before I was trying to imply the following point and given my state of sleep deprivation from studying and watching the election I may have been a little logically challenged this morning, I don't want to know how bad my test today went.

I meant to communicate something along these lines. Consider the republicans in california, while the canidates may not campaign there they still go out to vote and if by some chance more people in california vote for the republican presidential canidate then the democratic one then california's votes go to the republican. (i.e. it is not a given that those republicans, who vote for bush, votes are ignored) I don't see how this is different than the case where say in Idaho there is a republican senate canidate and while its possible for the democrats to win that seat it would be just as unlikely for them to do that as for bush to win california. In both cases its a judgement after the fact that the votes don't matter.

I would actually think that the views of however few democrats there are in idaho probably matter less than those republicans in california, for in this election there wasn't even a democrat running for the senate in idaho while there was a chance that bush could have won california. So in that sense for people in certain states their senators have almost no incentive to listen to their viewpoints. While 22 percent of the voters in idaha may be democrats (from the exit poles on cnn), they had no canidate for senate to vote for on the ballot in many counties.

[sfer]

I'm all for scrapping the EC, but wouldn't a strict popular vote (or something more approximating it) make campaigning on issues more difficult? That is, since the target voters would be expanded to include the entire country, there is less incentive to get specific and more incentive to run almost strictly on personal appeal. Or am I talking out my arse, again.

[Nepa]

I like the EC. I don't think you can just count the popular vote for a few reasons.

1. What if it is too close to call? Recount the whole country?
2. Each state has different election laws and this could sway the popular vote. ie. The northeast would allow Felons to vote the South wouldn't
3. Utah and D.C. would make a laws that you have to vote maybe other states would follow. In Utah the fine would be death in D.C. it would be a small fine.
4. It would make the whole process less exciting.
5. I'm sure someone could come up with a better system but it will never become law anyway so you might as well forget about it.

P.S. Is it time to bring back the Whig party?

[andyfox]

It does have the virtue of simplicity. Can't be messed up like the framers did with the electoral college their first shot at it.

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
I have thought for a long time that the EC was something that should have been done away with, a long time ago.

*I'll stick with that!*

....and public funds for campaigns should also be removed, the wasted $ on ridiculous ads is shameful compared to the good that same $ could do.

>TW<

[/ QUOTE ]



Oh, so you are against free speech?

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
....and public funds for campaigns should also be removed

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, so you are against free speech?

[/ QUOTE ]

Banning private funds (like the campaign finance reform act does) violates free speech. Using public campaign funds violates individual private property rights--the government used its police power to confiscate private citizens' money just to give to political campaigns.