Electoral College: Can it be changed?

[mtaystl03]

OK, first of all I am no big-time political activist or anything of the sort. I am a democrat that believes this country would be better off with John Kerry running things. That is all I am going to say about that.

The problem I have goes deeper, beyond the scope of democrat-republican or gay rights-Iraq or any issue that divides the nation. I have a fundamental problem with the way the electoral college is manipulating the votes.

Four years ago Bush received less votes and won the presidency. I am sure everybody is aware of that and how rediculous it is. The fact that 500,000 more votes for Al Gore gets him diddly is ludacris.

Let's shift the focus to this year. Bush did win the popular vote by around 3.5 million (my numbers may be a little off) and the fact remains that if John Kerry received close to 200,000 more votes from Ohioans (?) HE would be the next president!!!

Isn't it about time to change this stuff?

Adding, this brings up the question of "WHY" and the only thing I can think of is the fact that the media can treat it like a football game by keeping score and getting updates and having countdowns and coming up with crazy situations. It gives the media something to cover other than simply 'who has more votes'. Is it entertaining? Sure. Is it right? No.

That brings up the next question I have. If people do decide it is time to change this. How is it done? I really have no idea.

This was definately sparked by Bill Maher tonight but don't hold that against me. This is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed. Right after the voter fraud and all that stuff

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by mtaystl03

Four years ago Bush received less votes and won the presidency. I am sure everybody is aware of that and how rediculous it is. The fact that 500,000 more votes for Al Gore gets him diddly is ludacris.

The rapper? Seriously, I don't have a problem with the Presidency not being decided by a popular vote, for reasons I'll get into in a moment...

Let's shift the focus to this year. Bush did win the popular vote by around 3.5 million (my numbers may be a little off) and the fact remains that if John Kerry received close to 200,000 more votes from Ohioans (?) HE would be the next president!!!

3.5 mil? close enough for government work. It's hard to point just at Ohio as the deciding factor, though. Keep in mind, Bush lost Wisconsin (11,813) and Pennsylvania (127,472) by a combined 139,285 votes. That's just 2,801 votes more than John Kerry needed to win Ohio outright. It's easy to point at Ohio and say that another 136,484 votes and Kerry would be President, but if Bush gets another 127,473 votes in Pennsylvania, not only does Ohio become irrelevant, but he actually wins by one *more* electoral vote. And that's before you ignore the potential impact of Bush also winning Wisconsin.

In other words, saying that the closeness of Ohio is grounds for a total overhaul of the Electoral College is deceptive at best.

Isn't it about time to change this stuff?

This was definately sparked by Bill Maher tonight but don't hold that against me. This is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed. Right after the voter fraud and all that stuff

Perhaps, but the question remains, how would you change it? The way it stands now, it's possible to carry the thirteen largest states and win the election even if you lose the other thirty-seven.

Let's break it down. Of 538 electoral votes, 3 belong to DC, despite its lack of Congressional representation (does DC have a House member? I know they lack Senators). That leaves 535, of which it's further important to note that 100 electoral votes are based upon Senatorial representation, which is equal among all 50 states. That leaves another 435 electoral votes, which are split based upon population, with each EV representing a more-or-less equal chunk of the population (although no state may have fewer than one EV after you remove the Senate-based EVs).

The idea is that large urban areas such as New York City, Chicago, and Los Angeles aren't supposed to be able to dictate election results for the rest of the country - you still have to carry some of the rural areas unless you make a clean sweep of the thirteen largest states. If you switch to a popular vote methodology, you're going to give disproportionate power to those large urban centers. John Kerry won just shy of 56 million votes in this past election. Roughly 4 million of those came from New York, another ~3 million from Pennsylvania, and another 5.5 million from California. That's 12.5 million votes, or just about 22%, of Kerry's vote total in just *three* states. 2.5 million in Michigan, 3.5 million in Florida. That's 18.5 million votes in just five states, 33% of Kerry's vote total from 10% of the nation's states.

That ignores New Jersey, Massachusetts (and remarkably, Texas) where Kerry racked up another 7 million or so.

Now, I've heard it argued that votes in "flyover" states would actually be more valuable in a straight popular vote, and that candidates would be forced not to take those voters for granted, but when I see numbers like the ones quoted above, where five states could put a candidate 35% of the way to a possible victory, I do have to wonder how true that is. And then you have the realization that an extra, say, 100k votes in each of the 50 states would put Kerry over the top in a popular vote. Wouldn't that be a temptation towards greater voter fraud, since he (or any candidate in that position) wouldn't actually have to *carry* 'red' states in order to benefit politically from such activity?

If you've got a better idea than the electoral college, I'd love to hear it, but I don't think a popular vote is the answer.

[Tigercat]

No one would get special attention in a popular vote election, or rather everyone would. It wouldn't be the case where just urban areas would get appearences, appearences would be for nation-wide appeal only. So you would see some rural appearences for all the rural areas, urban attention for urban areas, and so on and so forth.

Why do we need the electorial college to give attention to individual states/areas of the country when we already have Congress to give state/regional power?

The Presidency is not meant to be represented by regional/state interests. Thats not why we have the electorial college system, so it shouldn't be why we should keep it.

We have the electorial college system because our founding fathers did not trust the people at large, plain and simple. So why was it good enough to recognize that that fear is unfounded and change the Senate election procedures, and yet 220 years later, we still have the electorial college system?

If we want the federal branch to represent in the manner in which it was meant to represent in, there is no reason not to use the popular vote. But yet we still have the EC system because it makes individual voters and individual states feel more important. Good government be damned.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

No one would get special attention in a popular vote election, or rather everyone would. It wouldn't be the case where just urban areas would get appearences, appearences would be for nation-wide appeal only. So you would see some rural appearences for all the rural areas, urban attention for urban areas, and so on and so forth.

I don't buy that, though. You might see some rural appearances - just as you do now - but the campaign would still be calculated largely to get your voters out in large, urban areas where most of the population is concentrated. You still see that today anyway, but it would be even more critical to get your base mobilized in those large states if you needed every vote, regardless of whether you'd carry the state or not. An extra million votes in California would be of greater benefit than an extra 100,000 voters in Iowa, you know?

Why do we need the electorial college to give attention to individual states/areas of the country when we already have Congress to give state/regional power?

Because the voice of a voter in a smaller state is still valuable, and it wouldn't be a good thing if the voice of urban voters could completely drown that out.

The Presidency is not meant to be represented by regional/state interests. Thats not why we have the electorial college system, so it shouldn't be why we should keep it.

It isn't, though. It takes more than the South to win an election, and it takes more than California to win an election. Both are valuable prizes, but you still have to build a coalition of sorts across the country unless your appeal is strong enough to win New York and California and Texas and Florida and...well, let's just say if you're carrying four states that're that diverse, there's a real good shot that you're going to be carrying a fairly hefty percentage of the nation anyway.

We have the electorial college system because our founding fathers did not trust the people at large, plain and simple. So why was it good enough to recognize that that fear is unfounded and change the Senate election procedures, and yet 220 years later, we still have the electorial college system?

The election of Senators and the election of Presidents weren't the same thing then, and they aren't now. Senators were chosen by state legislators, so there was likely a fair amount of vote trading going on. "Look, you support my boy for Senate, and when this vote for your pet project comes up, I'll lend it all the support I can."

Electors for the Presidency don't exactly have that luxury. To be honest, I still don't trust the people at large, and I went over the reasons why in a thread over at Ben's place.

If we want the federal branch to represent in the manner in which it was meant to represent in, there is no reason not to use the popular vote. But yet we still have the EC system because it makes individual voters and individual states feel more important. Good government be damned.

As I said, if you've got a better idea than the Electoral College, let's hear it, but I don't think a popular vote qualifies.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

As I said, if you've got a better idea than the Electoral College, let's hear it, but I don't think a popular vote qualifies.

How about the following method (and if you don't like the fact that it essentially uses a popular vote, it could be modified to fit within the current Electoral College)? I have a feeling this would've been especially useful in this past campaign considering most people's feelings that neither Kerry nor Bush were particularly good candidates. You just have to get past the fact that it's a bit long and written as if you are far their intellectual inferiors.

Condorcet: A Better Election Method
In every U.S. election, voters who are dissatisfied with both major parties face the classic dilemma of deciding whether to base their vote on principle or pragmatism. Rather than "wasting" their vote on a candidate with no chance of winning, most end up voting defensively for the "Republicrat" they disagree with least just to oppose the one they disagree with even more. Most voters assume that this dilemma is an inherent fact of democracy, but it is not. It is completely attributable to the inadequacy of our current plurality election method, and a simple expansion of voting rights could end it.

The reason we have a two-party system in the United States is widely misunderstood. It is not because the Democrats and Republicans consistently have the best ideas, nor is it because the media or the debate commission shut out the other parties. We have a two-party system because our plurality voting system does not allow voters to fully specify their preferences. This fact is known as "Duverger's Law." To vote for minor parties, voters must effectively withdraw from the races between the two major parties, even though they may have a strong opinion on those races too. Voters who vote for minor parties essentially "waste" their votes and fail to oppose political movements they strongly disagree with. Protest votes may send a "signal," but the unfortunate reality is that they have virtually no direct effect on the actual outcome of elections -- and the indirect effect is usually contrary to the voter's intention.

The right to vote is the foundation of democracy, and a simple expansion of voting rights could improve the democratic process dramatically. Instead of allowing voters to select only a single candidate for each office, they should be allowed to rank the candidates according to preference. Such an expansion of voting rights would allow voters to fully specify their preferences. Although ranked voting may not at first seem important, it could end the two-party system as we know it. It will not make the voters wiser, nor will it guarantee that they will elect better candidates, but it can give them the kind of leaders they really want -- and that is the essence of democracy.

When voters cast their votes in our current plurality system, they are allowed to select only a single candidate for each office. That is far better than no choice at all, of course, but it is nowhere near as good as also being allowed to specify a second and third choice, or beyond. Current voting rights are therefore incomplete. Complete voting rights would allow voters to vote according to their convictions and principles without wasting their vote on a candidate with little or no chance of winning. The rules for determining the winner would be slightly more complicated than they are now, but they would be based on elementary mathematics and should be understandable by virtually anyone old enough to vote.

The proper method of counting ranked votes is called the Condorcet election method, named after the French mathematician who conceived it a couple of centuries ago. The main idea is that each race is conceptually broken down into separate pairwise races between each possible pairing of the candidates. Each ranked ballot is then interpreted as a vote in each of those one-on-one races. If candidate A is ranked above candidate B by a particular voter, that is interpreted as a vote for A over B. If one candidates beats each of the other candidates in their one-on-one races, that candidate wins. Otherwise, the result is ambiguous and a simple procedure is used to resolve the ambiguity. Condorcet voting is explained in more detail elsewhere at this web site.

The Condorcet system allows voters to vote their true preferences without worrying about wasting their vote on a candidate with little or no chance of winning. It frees voters from the possibility that, by voting their true preference, they will neglect to oppose a candidate they strongly disagree with and who could actually win. That is, the Condorcet system eliminates the "horse-race" effect, which forces voters to consider not only which candidate they prefer, but also what each candidate's chances are of winning. It allows voters to vote for the candidate they agree with most rather than against the major-party candidate they disagree with most. In other words, it eliminates the need for defensive or strategic voting.

Distortions such as occurred in the 1992 presidential election could not happen under the Condorcet system. In that election, Ross Perot was a strong third-party candidate and may have taken enough votes from George Bush to allow Bill Clinton to win, despite the fact that most Perot voters may have preferred Bush over Clinton. Clinton received substantially less than a majority of the popular vote, and Bush might have defeated him in a one-on-one race (neglect the electoral college for now, which should be abolished). In a Condorcet voting system, the outcome might have been quite different. With no worry about splitting the vote, more Republicans might have voted for Perot, and Perot might have won, for example. On the other hand, most voters who voted for Perot might have selected Bush as their second choice, and Bush might have won re-election.

The Democratic and Republican parties will probably not like the Condorcet voting system, at least not in general elections, because they could eventually lose their effective duopoly. Competition would be spurred dramatically, and some of the parties now considered minor would become stronger. Voters who believe in laissez faire government could vote Libertarian, for example, and still register their preference for Republicans over Democrats. Similarly, those who believe that the government should provide economic security could vote for their preferred parties and still register their preference for Democrats over Republicans. Although Condorcet voting removes the artificial advantage of the two major parties in general elections, however, it would help them tremendously in their own primary elections.

Our current plurality voting system is particularly inadequate in primary elections with many candidates. Suppose, for purposes of illustration, that the Republican party is predominantly conservative, and their field of candidates consists of six conservatives and one moderate. The conservative candidates are likely to split the conservative vote, but the moderate would presumably get the entire moderate vote and could possibly win with a small plurality much less than a majority of the votes. That outcome would be unfair to the conservative majority. The issue here is completely non-ideological, however, and labels are used as examples only. The same phenomenon could happen to the Democratic party, for example, if the field of candidates consisted of six liberals and one moderate -- or, for that matter, six moderates and one liberal.

Although the examples given for purposes of illustration are simplistic, the basic principle applies in every election. Popular political trends tend to attract more candidates, and candidates with similar platforms tend to split the vote with each other, which is unfair to the voters who wish to support those platforms. This fundamental flaw in our current incomplete plurality voting system makes it very difficult for the majority to consistently get the kind of leaders they really prefer. The Condorcet system is much more likely to give them what they want and is therefore more democratic.

The current system has other deficiencies too. Consider the 1996 Republican presidential primary election as an example. Suppose that a particular voter preferred Alan Keyes and strongly disagreed with Pat Buchanan. He could have voted for Keyes, but if he were rational he would have realized that Keyes had virtually no chance of getting nominated, and that if he voted for Keyes he would be taking the chance of letting Buchanan (who started out strong) win the nomination. Rather than voting for Keyes, his rational vote in the current system would be to vote defensively against Buchanan by voting for Bob Dole, the "highest ranking" Republican. In a Condorcet system, on the other hand, he could have voted exactly as he wished: for Keyes first and Dole second (or at least ahead of Buchanan).

The preceding example shows how the current system strongly favors prominent "insider" candidates and magnifies the inherent disadvantage of less prominent candidates. It is no wonder that the last three Republican presidential nominees were George Bush (then vice-president), Bob Dole (Senate majority leader), and George W. Bush (son of a former president). Nor is it any wonder that sitting presidents rarely, if ever, lose a bid for renomination by their own party. Many voters are willing to settle for familiar but mediocre candidates rather than wasting their votes on "long shots" and taking the chance of letting the nomination go to someone they strongly disagree with. In the Condorcet system, such compromises are unnecessary.

The Condorcet election method is fundamentally different than our current plurality system and obviously cannot be implemented overnight. The public needs to be educated on the inadequacy of our current system and the major advantages of the Condorcet system. Although the rules of the Condorcet system are simple enough, their profound implications are not immediately apparent, and many will mistakenly dismiss the whole idea as unnecessarily complicated. Also, the Condorcet system can easily be tested in a non-binding mode before actually being phased in for real public elections. Such testing can be started immediately by private polling organizations.

Aside from irrational fear of change, the only reason to oppose complete voting rights is to protect the current political duopoly from outside competition. Such protection obviously cannot be good for democracy. Unfortunately, it is those very "Republicrats" who currently have the power to change the voting system, so democracy will undoubtedly have some difficulty evolving. Rest assured that they will ridicule Condorcet voting as too complicated, but they will only be insulting the intelligence of the American public. They will also characterize it as radical, but so was the concept of voting itself when first introduced. With a proper understanding of what is at stake, however, rationality can ultimately prevail.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Because the voice of a voter in a smaller state is still valuable, and it wouldn't be a good thing if the voice of urban voters could completely drown that out.

So who are you trying to protect from your viewpoint? People of regional differences will be represented well enough in Congress in the Senate, I am sorry, but who gives a crap about regional interests in electing a President? If we are gonna have a system that regionally elects everything, are we really THAT different from Britain at this point in time? And if we aren't electing THAT differently, perhaps we should ask ourselves that shouldn't we be? Perhaps that question won't be fully clear until something really out of whack happens, such as if Kerry would have found a way to win all the states he needed Tues(including Ohio), but yet found a way to lose the popular vote by 5+%, improbable but not impossible.

In our system the President is meant to be popular elected. The EC system, as devised when devised, was one of the closest things to popular votes those who created it could reasonably come up with.

Its a popular vote meant to challenge the regional interests of the Senate and House. Now that we as a society have less hangups(ha, well some of us in this thread not included) on going with the will of the people, if we truly want to have the type of balanced government that was intetended for this system we would go to the popular vote. I'm not naive enough to think that a perfect political world would even contain something that looks like a democracy, but I can't help but to think that the Constitution as it is is just begging the end of the EC. But thats just my interpretation.

[Tigercat]

As far as elections and two party systems go, plurality voting is a good idea and works fairly well in Europe and Great Britain. Some cities even use in here in the US for council seats and such.

I always like the so called "open primaries" of Louisiana. Not really primaries, what happens is everyone just runs at once, all people and all parties. To ensure that the winning party has the majority of the popular vote, if the leading party doesn't have 50%+, you take the leading vote getter and add how every many other candidates you need(starting with the second most vote getter and work your way down) until you have that 50%(usually its just two candidates). Then you have another election to see if a candidate can get 50, if there still isn't a 50, rinse and then repeat.

Primary systems, especially closed primary states, are just aweful. The system is just reenforcing the hold the two parties have on our politics, it isn't right.

[tanglewood]

JAG, that system is called AV (Alternate Vote), no idea where the name Condorcet came from.

To summarise it clearer:

You have four candidates in an election: Republican, Democrat, Libertarean and Green in a state where only 100 people vote.

Every voter puts down their preference list of candidates. For example a small government right winger might list as so:

1. Liberterian
2. Republican
3. Democrat }
4. Green } They might not list Democrat or Green at all, but here the voter simply indicates his preference for Dems over Greens, not really his approval of their policy.

A left wing moderate may list:

1. Democrat
2. Green
3. Republican
4. Liberterian

So after all 100 votes have been counted, the following totals are reached:

REPUBLICAN -- 37 votes
DEMOCRAT -- 34 votes
GREEN -- 17 votes
LIBERTERIAN -- 12 votes

In this election, no candidate has reached a majority in the first ballot, so the bottom party is struck off and all the votes for that party redistributed to other parties based on their second preferences.

REPUBLICAN -- 46 votes
DEMOCRAT -- 36 votes
GREEN -- 18 votes

LIBERTERIAN 2nd prefs.: 9 Republican, 2 Democrat, 1 Green

Once again, there is no overall majority so the Green party votes are split between the Republicans and the Democrats based on their second preferences. Also, the Liberterian vote whose second preference was the Greens gets his vote redistributed to his third preference.

DEMOCRAT -- 50 votes
REPUBLICAN -- 49 votes

GREEN VOTE 2nd prefs. -- 14 Democrat, 3 Republican, 1 Liberterian (this vote did not have a 3rd prefernce, so is discounted)

The Democrat party wins despite originally lagging behind in the first ballot. Alos everyone who voted for a third part had their vote counted in the end (except one who declined to list more than two preferences).

[tanglewood]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

As far as elections and two party systems go, plurality voting is a good idea and works fairly well in Europe and Great Britain.

Britain is a three party system though and also a parliamentary system so it is difficult to compare the electoral process.

Also, France, Germany, Spain and Italy use PR, not plurality and thus have many parties.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

JAG, that system is called AV (Alternate Vote), no idea where the name Condorcet came from.

To summarise it clearer:

You have four candidates in an election: Republican, Democrat, Libertarean and Green in a state where only 100 people vote.

Every voter puts down their preference list of candidates. For example a small government right winger might list as so:

1. Liberterian
2. Republican
3. Democrat }
4. Green } They might not list Democrat or Green at all, but here the voter simply indicates his preference for Dems over Greens, not really his approval of their policy.

A left wing moderate may list:

1. Democrat
2. Green
3. Republican
4. Liberterian

So after all 100 votes have been counted, the following totals are reached:

REPUBLICAN -- 37 votes
DEMOCRAT -- 34 votes
GREEN -- 17 votes
LIBERTERIAN -- 12 votes

In this election, no candidate has reached a majority in the first ballot, so the bottom party is struck off and all the votes for that party redistributed to other parties based on their second preferences.

REPUBLICAN -- 46 votes
DEMOCRAT -- 36 votes
GREEN -- 18 votes

LIBERTERIAN 2nd prefs.: 9 Republican, 2 Democrat, 1 Green

Once again, there is no overall majority so the Green party votes are split between the Republicans and the Democrats based on their second preferences. Also, the Liberterian vote whose second preference was the Greens gets his vote redistributed to his third preference.

DEMOCRAT -- 50 votes
REPUBLICAN -- 49 votes

GREEN VOTE 2nd prefs. -- 14 Democrat, 3 Republican, 1 Liberterian (this vote did not have a 3rd prefernce, so is discounted)

The Democrat party wins despite originally lagging behind in the first ballot. Alos everyone who voted for a third part had their vote counted in the end (except one who declined to list more than two preferences).

Thank you, that was stated much more clearly. Hopefully everyone reads your post before mine.

[Tekneek]

The Electoral College exists because we were not intended to be a pure Democracy. The President was to be elected by the states, and not necessarily by the direct vote of the people (although a state could choose to do it that way). It was all part of trying to limit the forces of democracy (mob rule) from seizing control of the government. A government designed to protect liberty loses its ability when the mob is able to seize it. It was to keep the tyranny of the majority in check...which has failed, because the people have cut the plan off at the knees.

"Each State shall appoint, in such a Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed as an Elector."

The original plan was far superior to direct election. Each state would appoint its own electors, who would cast votes in their home state, and all would then submit their tallies. Both the President and Vice President could not reside in the same state. They were elected separately (not as a package deal, unlike today). If no one candidate got the required majority of electoral votes (which had to be considered likely since these electors were picked by each state and met by themselves), then the top 5 candidates would be submitted directly to the House of Representatives for the final selection. That would have been how the "people" chose their President. It might have gone a long way towards preventing these Presidents who create un-funded initiatives that are forced onto the states...which only happens because those programs are used to buy votes.

I could go on, but I am at work and need to get busy with that. Democracy is mob rule, which is why we had the system we had. The Founders intentionally tried to avoid it, but we twisted the system into it anyway. Once the mob learned they could seize the sword of government, they've hardly hesitated to use it against their neighbor.

EDIT: I should add that I would favor returning the original ideal before simply tearing it all down into a purely direct vote. Any liberty-minded individual has reason to fear direct vote by the masses.

[Dutch]

Los Angeles and Chicago and New York could always leave the Union and elect John Kerry there president. But allowing those three cities to always choose the president goes against the vision and foresight of the founding fathers of this great nation.

If you want to have a presidency that is ruled by those who want a strong minimum wage, high taxes, and elitists to run the whole show, I would suggest they leave the union.

Geography and Resources are just as valuable to our nation as sheer numbers of people. If people were the only valuable resource worthy of importance why isn't India or China the greatest nation on earth?

It takes all 50 states to make us great, not 3 over-populated city states. The electoral must stay. And so far, the electoral college and the popular vote have been different 3 times, I think. That makes the popular vote the primary/dominant factor already. This just gives some of the smaller states a 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 chance to make a difference. A "great compromise" if you ask me.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Los Angeles and Chicago and New York could always leave the Union and elect John Kerry there president. But allowing those three cities to always choose the president goes against the vision and foresight of the founding fathers of this great nation.

If you want to have a presidency that is ruled by those who want a strong minimum wage, high taxes, and elitists to run the whole show, I would suggest they leave the union.

Geography and Resources are just as valuable to our nation as sheer numbers of people. If people were the only valuable resource worthy of importance why isn't India or China the greatest nation on earth?

It takes all 50 states to make us great, not 3 over-populated city states. The electoral must stay. And so far, the electoral college and the popular vote have been different 3 times, I think. That makes the popular vote the primary/dominant factor already. This just gives some of the smaller states a 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 chance to make a difference. A "great compromise" if you ask me.

No it doesn't, it takes 13. Carry those and you don't need the rest to win the presidency. But eveidently that doesn't seem to both people.

I love the "candidates will just campaign in big cities to win" as if a candaidate is going to get 100% of the vote in the big cities.

Go look at the county by county breakdowns of say NY (since I know the counties). Kerry crushed in the NYC counties yet only won the state by 1.2 million. Why? Because he lost a whole lot of smaller counties. This would happen on a national scale as well (NY may vote for one guy but the smaller states can and will balance it out).

But it's ok for 3/4 of a state to have their vote not count (upstate NY) vs a system where each vote counts the same regardless of whether your in a "swing state" or not. The only votes that counted in NY were the 1st 2,793,930 for Kerry and Bush. After that, your vote was irrelevant.

[Tekneek]

States with 3 electoral votes carry more weight than they would in a direct vote.

Don't forget that it is about electing the President of the United STATES of America. I happen to think that the name of the country means something, and it is important to note that we do not live in the UPA (United People of America).

[Chubby]

So if John Q. Crooked Politician came in and won each of the 13 biggest states by 1 vote then got a grand total of zero votes in the other 37 states, you'd be fine with him winning the election?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chubby

But it's ok for 3/4 of a state to have their vote not count (upstate NY) vs a system where each vote counts the same regardless of whether your in a "swing state" or not.

Yes, it not only is fine...it's appropriate. There never was an intention for the President to be selected by popular vote of the people. He is elected by the states. Your vote in each state is an attempt to influence the candidate that your state will choose and nothing more.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So if John Q. Crooked Politician came in and won each of the 13 biggest states by 1 vote then got a grand total of zero votes in the other 37 states, you'd be fine with him winning the election?

If he ends up with 270 votes in the Electoral College after they meet? Certainly. Why not?

[Mac Howard]

The system described by Jag is used here in Australia but it has its problems also. What's more the results are no different - the decision in the end still comes down to a choice between the party of capital and that of labour with the candidates THEY choose to put forward. In the end everyone finishes up voting for one of these.

Another problem arises because the tendancy to introduce minority parties into the election results in as many as 20 candidates. Most people find it difficult to list these in anything of a meaningful order. The consequence is that the parties themselves advise their supporters on the ranking that they prefer.

This in turn results in parties trading "preferences" - you advise our party as second preference and we'll advise yours etc. Some extremely dubious stuff happens behind closed doors which we don't learn about until the winner suddenly introduces legislation which does not have the approval of its own supporters but comes out of some secret deal with the Greens or the Family First or whatever party for their preferences.

John Howard won the election a few weeks ago and many claim this a vote for the war in Iraq but in fact these preference deals were a signitficant influence in the win (essentially the Greens directing preferences to his party and causing the Labor party to lose seats in Tasmania and WA).

What you can't get away from is that, no matter what system you use, politicians will find some way to work the system to their own advantage

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Yes, it not only is fine...it's appropriate. There never was an intention of the President to be selected by popular vote of the people. He is elected by the states. Your vote in each state is an attempt to influence the candidate that your state will choose and nothing more.

So we should abide by all intentions our government made when the constitution was written? So we're going to bring back slavery and take away a woman's right to vote now because it was "never an intention" that those things happen?

So you're all for moving to an electoral college-like system for all state and local elections too? Let's see, we can make the run for governor based on who gets the most "County Electoral Votes". You carry a county then you get all of the CEV's that county has based on population. This way Joe Farmer isn't ignored in the race for governor in favor of just campaigning in the big cities right?

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If he ends up with 270 votes in the Electoral College after they meet? Certainly. Why not?

So by your rationale, it's ok if we ignore 64% of the country statewise and probably 80% of the country individual votewise?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Let's break it down. Of 538 electoral votes, 3 belong to DC, despite its lack of Congressional representation (does DC have a House member? I know they lack Senators).

I believe D.C. has a non-voting member in the House, much like Guam and other non-states that are part of the USA. However, none of those other places get electoral votes. That is a perversion of the system. They should not have any.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I believe D.C. has a non-voting member in the House, much like Guam and other non-states that are part of the USA. However, none of those other places get electoral votes. That is a perversion of the system. They should not have any.

Why not? So anyone living in DC can't have a say in who our President will be?

[Dutch]

Okay, screw these liberal losers. Enough compromising. Let's make the United States of America count. 100 votes. Each state gets to allow each of their senators a vote. We'll scrap the House of Representatives completely. That way we will never disenfranchise Alaska or North Dakota, or Mississippi or Hawaii or Washingon DC (I'll give DC 1 vote).

Now take your popular vote and go to hell. (If you wish to compromise with me, let me know, otherwise, stop blowing steam up my ass.)

Do you get how compromising works now?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So we should abide by all intentions our government made when the constitution was written? So we're going to bring back slavery and take away a woman's right to vote now because it was "never an intention" that those things happen?

No. Those are issues of life and liberty, which unfortunately were not addressed then. I don't believe that having the President selected by the states is even near the level of allowing slavery or denying women's suffrage. Give me a compelling argument that it is, and I may change my mind.

So you're all for moving to an electoral college-like system for all state and local elections too? Let's see, we can make the run for governor based on who gets the most "County Electoral Votes". You carry a county then you get all of the CEV's that county has based on population. This way Joe Farmer isn't ignored in the race for governor in favor of just campaigning in the big cities right?

I am not sure if I would be for that system or not. Can you show me the proposal for such system? I can read about the Electoral College, where can I read about this similar system for state and local elections? What is so hard to comprehend that Presidents are elected by the STATES? Read it slowly. Put each word into dictionary.com if you do not know what they mean.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Why not? So anyone living in DC can't have a say in who our President will be?

Read the U.S. Constitution. Electoral votes are determined by members of the House of Representatives (precedent says "voting members" since the concept of non-voting members is not even allowed by the Constitution by my recollection) plus members of Senate. D.C. has no full members in the House or the Senate...therefore they should have NO electoral votes. It really is not as difficult as you are trying to make it.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chubby

So by your rationale, it's ok if we ignore 64% of the country statewise and probably 80% of the country individual votewise?

I am saying someone is duly elected as President when they have 270 electoral votes.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

No. Those are issues of life and liberty, which unfortunately were not addressed then. I don't believe that having the President selected by the states is even near the level of allowing slavery or denying women's suffrage. Give me a compelling argument that it is, and I may change my mind.



I am not sure if I would be for that system or not. Can you show me the proposal for such system? I can read about the Electoral College, where can I read about this similar system for state and local elections? What is so hard to comprehend that Presidents are elected by the STATES? Read it slowly. Put each word into dictionary.com if you do not know what they mean.

What part of "it was set up this way because they didn't trust the people" don't YOU get? Trying to say "well that's how they set it up so that's how it should be" is completely warped expecially when you only want to use that argument in certain situations that suit you (yes for EC, no for bringing back slavery even tho they BOTH were intended in the original consitution). You're not going to change your mind so why bother to pretend that something might sway you? (anymore than you having a snowballs chance in hell of convincing me the EC is a good thing).

I just showed you one. Why is it so hard to grasp? Take the same principles from the Presidential Electoral College and apply them on a state level.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I am saying someone is duly elected as President when they have 270 electoral votes.

again, you don't want to answer the point because it's contrary to your argument.

If someone carries the 13 largest states by 1 vote each and gets a combined zero votes in the other 37 states then do you think that's ok since we'd be ignoring 74% of the country statewise and probably 80% of the individual votes?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chubby

What part of "it was set up this way because they didn't trust the people" don't YOU get? Trying to say "well that's how they set it up so that's how it should be" is completely warped expecially when you only want to use that argument in certain situations that suit you (yes for EC, no for bringing back slavery even tho they BOTH were intended in the original consitution). You're not going to change your mind so why bother to pretend that something might sway you? (anymore than you having a snowballs chance in hell of convincing me the EC is a good thing).

I just showed you one. Why is it so hard to grasp? Take the same principles from the Presidential Electoral College and apply them on a state level.

Give me a compelling argument that the Electoral College is on the same level as allowing slavery or denying women's suffrage or do not use them as an argument to change the Electoral College.

If I tell you I may change my mind if someone puts forward a convincing argument, I mean just that. You may be accustomed to dealing with liars in your life, but I mean those words when I say or type them. Spend your time coming up with that convincing argument instead of accusing me of having no personal ethics, alright?

As for a state deciding to use the Electoral College idea for themselves, I suppose I am alright for it, as long as their state constitution indicates that Governors (or whomever are to be elected to these state offices, which is something you failed to define) are to be elected by counties rather than the people.

[Ryan S]

Originally Posted by tanglewood

Britain is a three party system though and also a parliamentary system so it is difficult to compare the electoral process.

Not really. The third party in Britain is a fraction of the size of the big two and is never likely to get much bigger. They can make their big promises because they know that they don't have a hope in hell of winning. If the Conservatives get their act together the Liberal Democrats will be crushed.

Scotland has a 4 party system, but the Scottish parliament is an irrelevance and a waste of time and money.

I hate the idea of Multiparty politics because you end up with coalition governments which are always a mess. The multiple voting system which was mentioned earlier in the thread is a terrible idea.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Chubby

again, you don't want to answer the point because it's contrary to your argument.

If someone carries the 13 largest states by 1 vote each and gets a combined zero votes in the other 37 states then do you think that's ok since we'd be ignoring 74% of the country statewise and probably 80% of the individual votes?

Ok. Read this slowly... If it means they have 270 votes when the Electoral College meets, then yes.

[Francis_Cole]

If someone carries the 13 largest states by 1 vote each and gets a combined zero votes in the other 37 states then do you think that's ok since we'd be ignoring 74% of the country statewise and probably 80% of the individual votes?


While england does not have a Electoral College system, it too has not had a government who has won the majority of the popular vote since 1935 (mainly due to the great number parties). And secondly, and probably most importantly; In theory the queen can chose any MP to be prime minster, though in theory she will chose the leader of the party with the majority of seats (though once it was actually offered to another party in a year which escapes me now - they declined though)

Fran

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ryan S

I hate the idea of Multiparty politics because you end up with coalition governments which are always a mess. The multiple voting system which was mentioned earlier in the thread is a terrible idea.

I agree 100%! When I was in Turkey, this was at the extreme (like 6 or 7 major political parties) and they would form coaltions to get into power.

And sometimes they wouldn't form based on similar ideologies, but over simple math and percentages. So you would have the strongest Attaturk/Pro-Western government joinging with a weaker pro-Islamic/Eastern Government to fight off the strong Pro-Islamic/Eastern government who pulled in coalitions with pro-Attaturk/Western governments.....thus the gridlock they enjoy today.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Yes, it not only is fine...it's appropriate. There never was an intention for the President to be selected by popular vote of the people. He is elected by the states.

It may or may not surprise (because I've commented on this before) but ...
you and I are in complete agreement on your statement above. Heck, I could have written your quote word-for-word, so apparently close are our positions.

Although I'm sure you know this already, I believe it bears noting for the record: the 2004 election results produced the opposite of what some observers expected -- there were quite a few predictions that Bush would win the popular vote & Gore would take the electoral vote. And in spite of that dismal prospect, I supported the electoral college then just as much as now.

There are parts of the Constitution that I wouldn't mind seeing amended, but the EC isn't one of them.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Now take your popular vote and go to hell. (If you wish to compromise with me, let me know, otherwise, stop blowing steam up my ass.)
Do you get how compromising works now?

That's just ... beautiful. I had to look twice, through the tears in my eyes, to make sure I didn't pen that myself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

As for a state deciding to use the Electoral College idea for themselves, I suppose I am alright for it, as long as their state constitution indicates that Governors (or whomever are to be elected to these state offices, which is something you failed to define) are to be elected by counties rather than the people.

I wonder ... how many people other than me & SD ('cause I know he caught it / will catch it when he reads this) and maybe GrantDawg realize that this was pretty much the case in a number of states until the mid-60's? I also suspect that John Galt will pick up on it as well.

(FTR, that's not a shot at anybody else's intelligence, there's just a history of correlation between things I notice & things Ben notices. And the other two as well fairly often. Maybe it's an age thing? )

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Maybe it's an age thing? )

I hope it's an age thing, but I don't know how much older you guys are.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Ok. Read this slowly... If it means they have 270 votes when the Electoral College meets, then yes.

We all know how it works. Some of us think that it is stupid that someone who lives in Ohio or Florida has a vote that is more important then someone who lives in Connecticut or Vermont.

If you don't think that is the case then you can't think much of the people who run the campaigns because that is how them run them. I live in Connecticut and did not see more then a handful of television ads from either party for the Presidential election. I was ignored because my state was 'won' and if it wasn't, the 7 electoral votes aren't worth spending money to win.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's just ... beautiful. I had to look twice, through the tears in my eyes, to make sure I didn't pen that myself.

I suspected you might enjoy that bit of passion there, Jon.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

If you don't think that is the case then you can't think much of the people who run the campaigns because that is how them run them. I live in Connecticut and did not see more then a handful of television ads from either party for the Presidential election. I was ignored because my state was 'won' and if it wasn't, the 7 electoral votes aren't worth spending money to win.

I was glad that I was not hit with spam phone and mail campaigns this time around. I suppose Georgia had been predicted to be a lock for the GOP, but regardless the reasons I am fine with it. I prefer to be ignored by the main parties because they are unlikely to do what it takes to win my vote. Both parties are locked into platforms that make them an unreasonable option for me at this time...

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I was glad that I was not hit with spam phone and mail campaigns this time around. I suppose Georgia had been predicted to be a lock for the GOP, but regardless the reasons I am fine with it. I prefer to be ignored by the main parties because they are unlikely to do what it takes to win my vote. Both parties are locked into platforms that make them an unreasonable option for me at this time...

Well that has nothing to do with the Electoral College being a flawed system.

There is no argument that someone's vote in a close populous state is worth more then a vote in a decided or small state. I would never take the overall popular vote very seriously because of the effect that this has on voters.

[mtaystl03]

I couldn't read everything but this is great discussion esp. for me who isn't exactly "up to speed" with the politics.

Here is another question I have (and if it was stated earlier I apologize): Everybody is all over the GOTV movement this year, correct? We want everybody to get out there and cast your ballot. What happens to those people that live in a state that their favorite candidate for the job has absolutely no chance of winning? Illinois for example. Wouldn't voting for a republican in Illinois basically render a vote their worthless? The popular vote doesn't matter so what would possess a person to waste their time to vote for a guy that has no chance of winning in his or her state?

How many states are like this? Kerry had no chance in Colorado. Any others?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

Well that has nothing to do with the Electoral College being a flawed system.

There is no argument that someone's vote in a close populous state is worth more then a vote in a decided or small state. I would never take the overall popular vote very seriously because of the effect that this has on voters.

I know. Your state being ignored because it has been 'sewn up' by one major party or the other is a problem stemming from the "two-party system" and not the electoral college system. The only way to change that would be for people to stop voting for the big parties simply because they spend the most money, which is the only method seemingly used to define who is a 'legitimate candidate.'

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by mtaystl03

The popular vote doesn't matter so what would possess a person to waste their time to vote for a guy that has no chance of winning in his or her state?

It works the other way as well, you can skip a 2 hour line to vote for Kerry in NY or for Bush in Texas.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The system described by Jag is used here in Australia but it has its problems also. What's more the results are no different - the decision in the end still comes down to a choice between the party of capital and that of labour with the candidates THEY choose to put forward. In the end everyone finishes up voting for one of these.

Another problem arises because the tendancy to introduce minority parties into the election results in as many as 20 candidates. Most people find it difficult to list these in anything of a meaningful order. The consequence is that the parties themselves advise their supporters on the ranking that they prefer.

This in turn results in parties trading "preferences" - you advise our party as second preference and we'll advise yours etc. Some extremely dubious stuff happens behind closed doors which we don't learn about until the winner suddenly introduces legislation which does not have the approval of its own supporters but comes out of some secret deal with the Greens or the Family First or whatever party for their preferences.

John Howard won the election a few weeks ago and many claim this a vote for the war in Iraq but in fact these preference deals were a signitficant influence in the win (essentially the Greens directing preferences to his party and causing the Labor party to lose seats in Tasmania and WA).

What you can't get away from is that, no matter what system you use, politicians will find some way to work the system to their own advantage

That's very disheartening, but of course should have been obvious. Oh well, I still happen to like the idea theoretically.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by mtaystl03

The popular vote doesn't matter so what would possess a person to waste their time to vote for a guy that has no chance of winning in his or her state?

How many states are like this? Kerry had no chance in Colorado. Any others?

You might need to ask one of them. My candidate probably had no reasonable chance to win Georgia. I voted for them because I could not stomach a vote for anyone else, and our ballot access laws can be very restrictive but a relatively strong showing usually makes it easier to qualify for the ballot next time around. You wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican for the ballot access reason, though, because they already control that process and won't lock themselves out. Presumably someone might still vote for Kerry or Bush, in a state that is assuredly going the other way, because they hope to influence some of the future Electors to consider changing their vote. You know the U.S. Constitution does not require the Electors to vote for any particular candidate. Your Presidential vote is really just for a particular slate of Electors.

Georgia went decidedly for Bush. If you had no interest in trying to win some hearts and minds of the Electors, selected by the GOP for Georgia, by voting for Kerry, I have little idea what purpose the vote served (other than a personal one for each voter).

[Arles]

I think this is best shown with a sports anology - college football. Let's say I have a 10-game season. My team wins 10 games by margins of 3, 3, 7, 3, 10, 3, 3, 7, and 10 points. So, to summarize, I am 10-0 with a +49 overall margin. Now, let's say another team goes 5-5 with margins of +30, -3, -7, +15, +7, -3, -10, +25, -10, +15. So, that team would be 5-5 with a +59 overall point margin.

The question become which system do you think should decide a winning team? Total points? or overall record? The EC was setup to reward candidates for winning individual states (like a sports game) and then counting the total "Wins" at the end to see who did the best. And, like college, teams get an advantage for winning against the tougher opponents (ie, high population). So, from that standpoint, winning in New York may be akin to beating Duke in hoops, while North Dakota is more like beating Akron.

The point here is that the EC provides a system that rewards candidates that get their message across to the most demographic areas. Without it, a candidate could simply hit the top 10 cities and get about 70-80% of the votes he will need. You would never see a candidate in Hawaii, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Mexico, Minnesota or Nevada as often as you do now. This will cause more of America to feel out of touch with the winners. Also, for those of you comparing the US to Europe and other governments, they do not have the state-system that we do. So, it's comparing apples to oranges. The US was setup to allow different areas (ie states) to customize the role of government to the needs of their individual communities within a global set of parameters setup by the Feds. This, IMO, makes an EC system much more desireable since you will have completely different needs in Mississippi than Massachusetts. So, why just throw all their votes into a big pot, shake it up, and choose the winner? It makes much more sense to make candidates try to get a plurality of votes in both Miss and Mass.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

... I have little idea what purpose the vote served (other than a personal one for each voter).

I suspect, and that's about all it is, that there's a significant number of voters who cast a Kerry ballot in Georgia or a Bush ballot in New York for the simple reason that they were at the polls anyway & figured "why not?".

Although I know there's a number of people who vote for President & then skip everything else, I would at least suspect that those who do go to the polls, in spite of knowing their choice has no real chance, also have an interest in one or more other races. They might just be voting (mentally) "from the bottom up" instead of "from the top down" (there's usually a correlation between ballot placement and total votes cast) and casting that ballot since they're already in the voting booth.

Or not ... just a thought.

[Arles]

Also, for those of you worried about Kerry voters going to the polls in Colorado or Bush voters hitting the polls in California, don't forget there are ballot initiatives and senates/house candidates as well. In fact, while Kerry lost in Colorado, the democrats did pickup a senate seat there with the Salazar win. In California, republicans helped reject atleast three "big government" ballot proposals. So, I would think that individual votes were very important in both states, even though the presidential race wasn't all that close at those spots.

[Desnudo]

I agree with the basic sentiment of the original post. The elimination of the electoral college is long overdue. One vote for one voter with popular vote deciding the outcome is how nearly every other election is decided from elementary school to the US Senate. I think it's crazy that we have this arcane method still in place.