Abolishing the Electoral College

[pgwenthold]

There was a great discussion today on Al Franken's show about the potential for abolishing the Electoral College.

OK, abolishing it wouldn't be easy. It would require amending the constitution, and that requires 3/4 of the states on board. Most people are pretty realistic that it would be very hard to change the practice, and I think it's not a stretch to say that's how it should be.

OTOH, there is a new plan that makes it so you don't abolish the electoral college, but you can make it basically obsolete. Recall that the current electoral procedures of having all the state's electoral votes decided by the winner of the popular vote in the state is not actually specified in the constitution, and it is in fact up to the state legislatures to determine how the electoral votes are distributed (for example, some states distribute them by congressional districts). So the idea is for the legislature to declare the that the state's electoral votes will be given to the candidate that gets the most popular votes NATIONALLY. With this approach, it only takes enough states to account for the majority of the electoral votes to make it so that the winner of the popular vote will always win the election (note that given the extra weight given to smaller states, this means that if it were the largest X states on board, the % of the population in the states that support the measures would be greater than the % of electoral votes - it could be something like 55% of the population but only 51% of the electoral votes)

This type of process would make the electoral college complete moot. Whoever would win the popular vote wins the election.

Now, there are always the questions of do we want to do this? There are good things about the EC, and there are not so good things (no presidential candidate wastes a lot of time (or money) in my state, because it is solidly red; but if the popular vote matters, then my vote matters). However, this is a plan around it, and the surprising thing is, it is completely within the guidelines of the constitution.

I'm not advocating it (or disparaging it, for that matter), just noting that it is an interesting thing to think about.

[Number Six]

I'm not sure I get this. Right now all a states electoral votes go to whoever won that state. It seems counterintuitive for it to be in the interest of State X to change the rules such that all its electoral votes will go to whoever won the national popular vote, regardless of whether that same candidate won the popular vote in State X. OTOH I can understand how, if the rules were that whoever won the national popular vote also won the election, it would benefit the states with more people because they'd become more important to campgain in.

How about this...could you even get the change done in a state? For example, California usually goes Democrat but is usually ignored because it goes Democrat regardless, so it would be in the Democrats interest to pass this rule in California, which means the Republicans in the California legislature would fight against it. Could the Democrats get it passed?

It seems it would only work if each state involve could be assured other states would go along and do it too. Otherwise, it seems like a state that did it alone would in effect be handing over some of its power to the other states.

[rwguinn]

It is always funny (peculiar, not ha-ha) to me that the system that allows all states a say is disparaged by folks living in the few states which have the population to determine a simply popular vote...
Heck, let's stick it to the folk in Montana, New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoing, and all those places where people shouldn't be living anyway.Then we can giv them back to the Buffalo...

[pgwenthold]

I'm not sure I get this. Right now all a states electoral votes go to whoever won that state. It seems counterintuitive for it to be in the interest of State X to change the rules such that all its electoral votes will go to whoever won the national popular vote, regardless of whether that same candidate won the popular vote in State X. OTOH I can understand how, if the rules were that whoever won the national popular vote also won the election, it would benefit the states with more people because they'd become more important to campgain in.

How about this...could you even get the change done in a state? For example, California usually goes Democrat but is usually ignored because it goes Democrat regardless, so it would be in the Democrats interest to pass this rule in California, which means the Republicans in the California legislature would fight against it. Could the Democrats get it passed?

It seems it would only work if each state involve could be assured other states would go along and do it too. Otherwise, it seems like a state that did it alone would in effect be handing over some of its power to the other states.

I left that part of the nitty gritty out of it. The idea is that it would be written so that it only goes into effect if the majority of the states (at least, the majority of the electoral votes) adopt the same type of measure.

[pgwenthold]

It is always funny (peculiar, not ha-ha) to me that the system that allows all states a say is disparaged by folks living in the few states which have the population to determine a simply popular vote...
Heck, let's stick it to the folk in Montana, New Mexico, Idaho, Wyoing, and all those places where people shouldn't be living anyway.Then we can giv them back to the Buffalo...

So the election should be determined by land mass?

Why should the states have the say, as opposed to the people?

If you go by popular vote, it doesn't matter if you live in Montana or California, your vote counts the same.

[Aoidoi]

I just love the idea of a nationwide recount. Imagine the fun that'd cause!

[Beerina]

...because it's important, oh so vitally important, that the concrete canyon dwellers in New York and California determine how the Grand Canyon and Alaska be operated. :rolleyes:

And I'm a bit confused about the plan. You're suggesting a state legislature declare all their electoral votes go to the candidate who gets the most (popular) votes nationally? Even if that particular state votes for the other guy?

It'll fail miserably. Here's why: A state votes for the other guy. Population is completely outraged their electoral votes go to the national winner. State level politicians reverse the law right quick, since they'll be out on their cans themselves the next election.

Yeah, there has to be something more to it than this. As described, it's in the interest of no state legislatures anywhere, big or small state.

[pgwenthold]

...because it's important, oh so vitally important, that the concrete canyon dwellers in New York and California determine how the Grand Canyon and Alaska be operated. :rolleyes:


No more than in the current system that the Montana ranchers and Hawaiin beach bums have more say in how the Army and Coast Guard are run.

Why the implication that the views of concrete canyon dwellers are less important than those of the Montana ranchers?



And I'm a bit confused about the plan. You're suggesting a state legislature declare all their electoral votes go to the candidate who gets the most (popular) votes nationally? Even if that particular state votes for the other guy?


That's the plan.

It's already an issue. It's no different than Congressional district 1 voting for Candidate B, but the state prefers candidate A. Boulder County, CO probably voted 80% for Kerry in the last election, but all of CO's votes went to Bush. What's the difference?



It'll fail miserably. Here's why: A state votes for the other guy. Population is completely outraged their electoral votes go to the national winner. State level politicians reverse the law right quick, since they'll be out on their cans themselves the next election.

Yeah, there has to be something more to it than this. As described, it's in the interest of no state legislatures anywhere, big or small state.

Sure it is. It is in fact relevent to all the states that are not the "swing states." It makes the popular note matter, and if that is the case, then every single vote matters, regardless of the state.

This plan would give big states more voting power, and voting power more proportional to their population.

[gtc]

Aboloshing the electoral college makes sense to me, but I can't see how you can get there from here.

It might be popular in non-swing states. Because the votes of both the minority party and the majority party count. Politicians will need to spend on ads and promises to ensure they get they vote out in the states they would have otherwise ignored. So politicians in general might be against it. Swing states will also not like it as their importance declines in favour of the bigger states.

Change will be resisted anyway but if enough politicians are against it and it looks like favouring bigger states at the expense of both smaller states and the currently powerful swing states then it will be a tough sell.

[pgwenthold]

Aboloshing the electoral college makes sense to me, but I can't see how you can get there from here.

It might be popular in non-swing states. Because the votes of both the minority party and the majority party count. Politicians will need to spend on ads and promises to ensure they get they vote out in the states they would have otherwise ignored. So politicians in general might be against it. Swing states will also not like it as their importance declines in favour of the bigger states.

Change will be resisted anyway but if enough politicians are against it and it looks like favouring bigger states at the expense of both smaller states and the currently powerful swing states then it will be a tough sell.

But the important point is that you don't need a 3/4 majority of states to change the process, as you would with a constitutional amendment. You only need enough states with enough electoral votes.

I'm not saying it will happen, but that it is a lot easier to do it than one would initially think.

[epepke]

There was a great discussion today on Al Franken's show about the potential for abolishing the Electoral College.

Just when I thought Al Franken's show couldn't possibly get any more tedious.

[Regnad Kcin]

I believe I started a thread on this issue in the wake of Election 2004. No matter, as it's a worthy subject for renewal.

So the election should be determined by land mass?

Why should the states have the say, as opposed to the people?

If you go by popular vote, it doesn't matter if you live in Montana or California, your vote counts the same.Precisely.

...because it's important, oh so vitally important, that the concrete canyon dwellers in New York and California determine how the Grand Canyon and Alaska be operated. :rolleyes:Your silly rolleyes notwithstanding, a person should neither be punished or rewarded by where they live insofar as this issue is concerned. Anyway, that's what we have the House of Representatives for.

Also, a popular vote will encourage actual nationwide campaigning, as opposed to what things have come to, where swing (or "battleground") states get all the attention.

[Regnad Kcin]

Just when I thought Al Franken's show couldn't possibly get any more tedious.Quite. How dare anyone devote even a moment to issues of such unimportance.

So, who do you think Brad should be married to, Jennifer or Angelina?

[Luke T.]

Don't Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes? I think Colorado had a similar measure on the ballot last election, but don't know how it came out.

[Luke T.]

Ah.

A measure on the ballot in Colorado could conceivably determine who will be the next president. That's because voters there will decide whether Colorado will become the first state in the nation to allocate its electoral votes based proportionately on the popular vote.



The change would be unprecedented. Maine and Nebraska are the only other states where the winner doesn't necessarily take all. But those states use a formula based on who wins congressional districts, and, so far, neither state has had to split its vote because one candidate has always won a majority across the state.

Link (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/colorado_10-26.html/pages/results/scorecard/)

[Luke T.]

The Colorado amendment (Amendment 36) was defeated 65% - 35% by the voters.

[toddjh]

Why should the states have the say, as opposed to the people?

The people have their say. They're called U.S. Representatives and Senators.

Here's the way I would phrase the question: Why shouldn't the state governments have their say? Federal policy affects them as much, if not more, than the average citizen.

[Mycroft]

There was a great discussion today on Al Franken's show about the potential for abolishing the Electoral College.


I stopped watching Rush Limbaugh years ago because his sour grapes over Clintons victory got too sickening. Al Franken started out that way.

The only problem Franken wants fixed here is that his guy lost.

[UserGoogol]

I see no reason why geography matters at all. There are no political opinions associated with "Texas" in of itself, there are political opinions associated with the many conservatives who live there. There are some issues which might end up being influenced by a person's geographical location (like pork barrel stuff) but that's more legislative stuff, and the president really can't do much about that. Geography is completely irrelevant, it's all about what sort of philosophy you have about the overarcing purpose of government

[rwguinn]

I see no reason why geography matters at all. There are no political opinions associated with "Texas" in of itself, there are political opinions associated with the many conservatives who live there. There are some issues which might end up being influenced by a person's geographical location (like pork barrel stuff) but that's more legislative stuff, and the president really can't do much about that. Geography is completely irrelevant, it's all about what sort of philosophy you have about the overarcing purpose of government
Right..One size fits all.

[epepke]

Quite. How dare anyone devote even a moment to issues of such unimportance.

So, who do you think Brad should be married to, Jennifer or Angelina?

Nice sarcasm. Abolishing the Electoral College was my high school debate topic.

Almost 30 years ago.

Ain't gonna happen.

Funny how leftists in the US manage to be so superciliously concerned with such important issues but can't possibly be bothered actually to find a viable candidate for, well, anything.

[Regnad Kcin]

Nice sarcasm.Thanks! Did you expect your original comment to this post would provoke anything else?

Abolishing the Electoral College was my high school debate topic.Bully.

Almost 30 years ago.

Ain't gonna happen.And those pesky women ain't ever gonna be franchised, either.

Funny how leftists in the US manage to be so superciliously concerned with such important issues but can't possibly be bothered actually to find a viable candidate for, well, anything.Is it in some way critical for you to be an ass?

[epepke]

Thanks! Did you expect your original comment to this post would provoke anything else?

Certainly not from you. I would be flabbergasted if you were to show signs of thought.

Is it in some way critical for you to be an ass?

Oh, dear. You can't even use English effectively.

[gtc]

Funny how leftists in the US manage to be so superciliously concerned with such important issues but can't possibly be bothered actually to find a viable candidate for, well, anything.

I wouldn't think it was necessarily a left wing thing.

It might appeal to Republicans in solid Democrat states (otherwise why even bother voting). Democrat voters in small swing states might be against it.

One thing I am interested in, is why people bothered to vote for Bush in solid Democrat states (and vice versa)? Is it to send a message?

[RandFan]

The Electoral college ensures that less populous states have an opportunity to effect the election. More populated states tend to be more liberal. If you did away with the electoral college then they could kiss their vote good buy. The liberals would be have an advantage. Yes there is a congress but the President carries a huge advantage.

There is no simple answer. No method will solve all conflicts but this one solves the most IMO.

But I understand the desire liberals have to eliminate it. It would certainly lock up the presidency for them.

[Regnad Kcin]

Certainly not from you. I would be flabbergasted if you were to show signs of thought.So...rather than address the topic at hand, you dive bomb in with what can only be deemed an inane comment vis-a-vis the tedium of a discussion about the Electoral College. And then, when called on it, feel the need to get into personal issues rather than...

Oh wait, you debated the topic in high school.

Are you well? Seriously.

Oh, dear. You can't even use English effectively.Do tell.

[Regnad Kcin]

The Electoral college ensures that less populous states have an opportunity to effect the election. More populated states tend to be more liberal. If you did away with the electoral college then they could kiss their vote good buy. The liberals would be have an advantage. Yes there is a congress but the President carries a huge advantage.Forgive me, but you're making a number of leaps.

There is no simple answer. No method will solve all conflicts but this one solves the most IMO.Well, I'd say there is a simple answer. One man=one vote.

But I understand the desire liberals have to eliminate it. It would certainly lock up the presidency for them.You mean like in Election 2004, when George W. Bush won the popular vote count?

[RandFan]

Forgive me, but you're making a number of leaps. Wouldn't be the first time. Could you identify the leaps?

Well, I'd say there is a simple answer. One man=one vote. You can say that there is a simple answer but it isn't. You might not think so but there was actually some logic and thought behind the electoral college. You could argue that one person=one vote is best but it isn't reasonable to suppose that it solves all problems.

Here is a very good link (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf) (pdf) for the history and pros and cons of the college.

You mean like in Election 2004, when George W. Bush won the popular vote count? I thought Seybold swung the election for him. Damn.

Will the Dems win every election? No. So perhaps not a virtual lock but they would have the advantage.

[DSE]

One thing I am interested in, is why people bothered to vote for Bush in solid Democrat states (and vice versa)? Is it to send a message?
States change over time. What was once a Democratic state is sometimes now a Republican one. And even the solidly Red or Blue states are a lot more mixed with closer to 60/40 breakdowns.

[DSE]

Wouldn't be the first time. Could you identify the leaps?

You can say that there is a simple answer but it isn't. You might not think so but there was actually some logic and thought behind the electoral college. You could argue that one person=one vote is best but it isn't reasonable to suppose that it solves all problems.

Here is a very good link (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf) (pdf) for the history and pros and cons of the college.
Doesn't the original logic behind the electoral system depended on the facts that:

There weren't national parties like there are now
There weren't declared candidates at first
States were seen as largely independent entities that would not vote for someone outside their own state


Seems like these issues no longer apply today.

[Tmy]

They should dump the whole winner takes all system. Why should my vote be stolen from me?

[Moon-Spinner]

Voter Apathy – I live in New York State, and I’ve known a lot of Republicans that don’t bother to vote, because we live in a state that always goes Democrat, so why bother when their vote “Isn’t going to count anyway”. I suspect this may also happen in those solid Red States, where democrats don’t feel any urgency to vote either. If the Presidency depended on the popular vote, then every vote would matter and more people might be more interested in having their voice heard by voting (discounting, of course, those who are just too lazy to vote anyway, and I know a few of those too).



On a related issue: I know a few people who, knowing the democrat candidate will win this state, will cast their vote for a third party member (such as Nader) as a political statement. I would venture to guess that without the Electoral College, they would be less inclined to toss their vote at a third party candidate (if they really REALLY didn't want Bush to win a second term, as in the last election).

[Beerina]

No more than in the current system that the Montana ranchers and Hawaiin beach bums have more say in how the Army and Coast Guard are run.

Why the implication that the views of concrete canyon dwellers are less important than those of the Montana ranchers?



Because the concrete canyon dwellers are merely a tool used, a vector to power by charismatic politicians to lord over things with an ever-extending hand of intrusiveness?

Oh, wait. When people fancy they are behind the politician extending the hand sliding into other people's pants, unasked, it doesn't feel wrong. Sorry, I forgot. :boggled:

It's no different than Congressional district 1 voting for Candidate B, but the state prefers candidate A. Boulder County, CO probably voted 80% for Kerry in the last election, but all of CO's votes went to Bush. What's the difference?

Again, what politician wants to try to get elected touting a system where his state loses power? It should be effortless to get this swatted down by another, opposing politician (who, remember, also wants power) by simply portraying it, accurately, as such.

As described, it's in the interest of no state legislatures anywhere, big or small state.
Sure it is. It is in fact relevent to all the states that are not the "swing states." It makes the popular note matter, and if that is the case, then every single vote matters, regardless of the state.

This plan would give big states more voting power, and voting power more proportional to their population.

The popular vote does not matter to politicians. Only getting elected does. Some politicians will portray this as an awesome plan because they believe it will help them, or their party, at the next election or two. End of story. Don't pretend they're doin' somethin' fer good old democracy here.

And, given how governmental power grows in intrusiveness, how anyone can be pleased about giving massive states more power, I don't know. Unless, of course, you are a politician in said state, or a "useful idiot" who supports them, believing their positions are about the people rather than the power.

Be careful what you wish for. One thing that will disappear will be the appearances of massive landslides, giving presidents mandates, i.e. the ability to strike fear into the heards of Congress to try to get things accomplished. And remember presidential elections are frequently about the course the nation should take.

Just like the Republicans thinking about the "nuclear option" in the senate to get votes on judges to happen, the Democrats should think seriously about this before getting on board just because they lost one such election six years ago. In both cases, it may very well come back to bite them in the ass, hard and unforgivingly. Think about it, had Bush won with a sliver of the popular vote, and Kerry won the electoral, the shoe would be on the other foot, with both sides screaming the exact oppositie positions today.

(Gets out a bag of popcorn to watch politicos beat each other in their wars...)

[Random]

The popular vote does not matter to politicians. Only getting elected does. Some politicians will portray this as an awesome plan because they believe it will help them, or their party, at the next election or two. End of story. Don't pretend they're doin' somethin' fer good old democracy here.
Yeah. Republicans will complain about anything that doesn’t let them win. During the 2000 election, the Bush team had a media blitz plan ready to go if Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. The goal would have been to put political pressure on the electors to change electoral votes that should have gone to Gore, and have them switch to Bush in order to “reflect the will of the people”. Funny how they never used that…

[The Don]

What would be the rule ? Candidate with the largest number of votes wins or do you have to have a majority of the votes cast.

Either way you'll still have disputes because you'd either have a President with a minority of the votes or a requirement to have a transferrable vote (in which case the bickering would be about how the transfer takes place)

How often has this been a problem anyway with the President not receiving the largest popular vote ?

edited to add....

Never mind 4 other times (The other times were the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and possibly 1960.)

from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election%2C_2000)

[Bikewer]

I believe that Diane Rehm will have a discussion on this issue tomorrow.

[Ladewig]

I didn't follow what you were trying to say because of all the pronouns.


The Electoral college ensures that less populous states have an opportunity to effect the election. More populated states tend to be more liberal. If you did away with the electoral college then they could kiss their vote good bye. The liberals would be have an advantage. Yes there is a congress but the President carries a huge advantage.


Who are you referring to with "they" and "their vote"?

[Ladewig]

Funny how leftists in the US manage to be so superciliously concerned with such important issues but can't possibly be bothered actually to find a viable candidate for, well, anything.


Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy? Being concerning with reforming the the electoral college has nothing to do with producing a viable candidate.

Also, why do you consider their concern over this issue to be supercilious? I would save that adjective for people claiming to be True Patriots while trying to pass anti-flag-burning legislation or people claiming that they are doing God's work by trying to pass legislation to save Teri Schavo's life.

[mumblethrax]

This isn't likely to succeed, since it presents a prisoner's dilemma similar to the one in the Colorado referendum.

Presenting electoral reform as giving an advantage to those in the more populous states would only make sense if our current electoral system were designed to provide reasonable solutions to the problem of distribution of power. Since it wasn't (but instead emerged after the original electoral system crashed and burned) and it doesn't (you can't introduce proportional representation to a representational body of one), there's not much point in treating it as some kind of baseline for fairness.

[luchog]

Well, I'd say there is a simple answer. One man=one vote.
The problem with "one man=one vote" is that you effectively disenfrancise half the country. What that would do is give roughly one third of the states near-total control over Presidential elections. After compensating for Texas, Florida, and Georgia, who traditionally vote Republican/conservative, the rest of the top 15 largest states still make up more than half the voting population of the US, and are traditionally Democrat/liberal, or swing states with strong liberal leanings. There would be no reason to consider any other states at all; and all but the top third could effectively be ignored on any matters of policy and funds allocation. Those in the bottom third, the poorest in the nation, might as well not exist at all.

[pgwenthold]

There would be no reason to consider any other states at all;

As opposed to the current situation, where Ohio, Michigan, and Florida are all that get any attention?

In one person/one vote, EVERYONE's vote matters.

If you can gain 10000 votes by going to Texas, you go to Texas, regardless of whether it is solidly red or not. Similarly, it is worthwhile for a democrat to campaign in Nebraska, and for a Republican to go to California.

They don't need to turn the entire state, just gain some ground.

[Jocko]

They should dump the whole winner takes all system. Why should my vote be stolen from me?

It's not like you were using it responsibly anyway.

[Random]

The problem with "one man=one vote" is that you effectively disenfrancise half the country. What that would do is give roughly one third of the states near-total control over Presidential elections. After compensating for Texas, Florida, and Georgia, who traditionally vote Republican/conservative, the rest of the top 15 largest states still make up more than half the voting population of the US, and are traditionally Democrat/liberal, or swing states with strong liberal leanings. There would be no reason to consider any other states at all; and all but the top third could effectively be ignored on any matters of policy and funds allocation. Those in the bottom third, the poorest in the nation, might as well not exist at all.
You make it sound like every person in the blue states votes democrat every time. That's just not true. Even here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Dumbya got over a third of the vote. But since Kerry was a shoo-in to get a majority in Massachusetts, both candidates pretty much ignored the state (except for that stupid convention which I can gripe about for hours).

Bush got a million votes in Mass, and in the elctoral system those voters might as well have stayed home. If there was a one-man/one-vote system...

Yes, the top fifteen states have more than half the voters, but they don't all vote the same way any more than the voters in the smaller states.

[rwguinn]

You make it sound like every person in the blue states votes democrat every time. That's just not true. Even here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Dumbya got over a third of the vote. But since Kerry was a shoo-in to get a majority in Massachusetts, both candidates pretty much ignored the state (except for that stupid convention which I can gripe about for hours).

Bush got a million votes in Mass, and in the elctoral system those voters might as well have stayed home. If there was a one-man/one-vote system...

Yes, the top fifteen states have more than half the voters, but they don't all vote the same way any more than the voters in the smaller states.

So? 1 million is very nearly the entire population of Montana and wyoming combined- not just voters. There are several other states with populations of voters in the 1000000 range. So they might as well stay home.
Easterners think that nothing exists beteen the Hudson River and Los Angeles , except maybe Dallas and Chicago. One or two will admit to hearing about Denver
As a Westerner, I have lived in DC and Philly--they have absolutely no concept of what the world is like outside the Eastern Seaboard. And they think they are more important than anyone else and ought to run the place.

[RandFan]

I didn't follow what you were trying to say because of all the pronouns.

Who are you referring to with "they" and "their vote"?My apologies. My prose goes south on me from time to time. Forgive my rhetoric and ignore the post all together.

I should have said that people in less populous states would become marginalized with the abolishment of the electoral college. The president could ignore less populous states since they would likely have no bearing on the outome of the election.

[RandFan]

Doesn't the original logic behind the electoral system depended on the facts that:

There weren't national parties like there are now
There weren't declared candidates at first
States were seen as largely independent entities that would not vote for someone outside their own stateSeems like these issues no longer apply today.Did you read the link?

1.) Your points were not the only issues.
2.) The college evolved because of national parties.

Could you read the link and give me your impression then?

[wastepanel]

California-55 electoral votes (12 million voters)
Alaska-3 Electoral Votes (220,000 voters)

Alaska voters were worth about 5% of California's voters in 2004. However, if total votes are counted, Alaska is only worth less than 2%.

The electoral college allows for smaller states that may not represent the same interests as larger states more of a say. What this does is make the country effectively represented, without giving the middle finger to smaller states.

[Regnad Kcin]

The charge (being repeated here) that a popular vote election for the presidency would result in shortchanging less populous states along with a corresponding bonus for the more populous, seems to me to be faulty reasoning. The chief executive is not the president of the states, he/she is the president of the people.

As I've suggested before, whether someone lives amongst the prairie dogs or above the crowded subway tunnels, their choice of address should have no bearing on the issue, either positive or negative. Congress is designed to compensate for population variances. Too, each state exists in large part to serve its residents and their "interests" (never mind that state boundaries are artificial constructs in the first place).

And once again, the situation as it presently stands results in massive campaign efforts directed toward the handful of swing states and next to no activity in the locks.

One man=one vote is logical, sensible, and perhaps most of all...American.

[Random]

California-55 electoral votes (12 million voters)
Alaska-3 Electoral Votes (220,000 voters)

Alaska voters were worth about 5% of California's voters in 2004. However, if total votes are counted, Alaska is only worth less than 2%.

The electoral college allows for smaller states that may not represent the same interests as larger states more of a say. What this does is make the country effectively represented, without giving the middle finger to smaller states.
Well, I will ask the obvious questions and then head for bed. Why should the vote of a man in Alaska be worth more than the vote of a man from California? Should we care more about a certain state because it has fewer people? And isn't disproportionate representation what the Senate is for? That's how we ended up with a Republican majority in the Senate even though more Americans voted for thier Democratic counterparts.

[RandFan]

The charge (being repeated here) that a popular vote election for the presidency would result in shortchanging less populous states along with a corresponding bonus for the more populous, seems to me to be faulty reasoning. The chief executive is not the president of the states, he/she is the president of the people.

As I've suggested before, whether someone lives amongst the prairie dogs or above the crowded subway tunnels, their choice of address should have no bearing on the issue, either positive or negative. Congress is designed to compensate for population variances. Too, each state exists in large part to serve its residents, never mind that state boundaries are artificial constructs in the first place.

And once again, the situation as it presently exists results in massive campaign efforts directed toward the handful of swing states and next to no activity in the locks.

One man=one vote is logical, sensible, and perhaps most of all...American. Presidents direct legislation, appoint judges and lead the nation. One person=one vote means that the President represents everyone but only has to answer to populous states. Not sensible, and certainly not American.

[rwguinn]

The charge (being repeated here) that a popular vote election for the presidency would result in shortchanging less populous states along with a corresponding bonus for the more populous, seems to me to be faulty reasoning. The chief executive is not the president of the states, he/she is the president of the people.

As I've suggested before, whether someone lives amongst the prairie dogs or above the crowded subway tunnels, their choice of address should have no bearing on the issue, either positive or negative. Congress is designed to compensate for population variances. Too, each state exists in large part to serve its residents and their "interests" (never mind that state boundaries are artificial constructs in the first place).

And once again, the situation as it presently stands results in massive campaign efforts directed toward the handful of swing states and next to no activity in the locks.

One man=one vote is logical, sensible, and perhaps most of all...American.

sorry- wrong. Verry Wrong.
The title is "President of the United States of America".
It is the United States of America--not The United People of America.

[Regnad Kcin]

sorry- wrong. Verry Wrong.
The title is "President of the United States of America".
It is the United States of America--not The United People of America.Semantics.

[Regnad Kcin]

Presidents direct legislation, appoint judges and lead the nation. One person=one vote means that the President represents everyone but only has to answer to populous states. Not sensible, logical and certainly not American.RandFan, I like you.

First: "Presidents direct legislation." Agreed. And there are checks and balances in place to temper this activity.

Second: "Appoint judges." Yes. See, again: Checks and balances.

Third: "Lead the nation." Non sequitor. Insofar as "the nation" is a term to indicate its collective citizens, it gets "led" wherever its inhabitants happen to plant their mailbox.

[RandFan]

RandFan, I like you.

First: "Presidents direct legislation." Agreed. And there are checks and balances in place to temper this activity.

Second: "Appoint judges." Yes. See, again: Checks and balances.

Third: "Lead the nation." Non sequitor. Insofar as "the nation" is a term to indicate its collective citizens, it gets "led" wherever its inhabitants happen to plant their mailbox.Hey, I like you too Regnad.

Checks and balances won't ensure that the interests of all are considered. And where the nation gets "led" to is important to everyone and not just the citizens of the most populous states. I'm not sure how that becomes a non-sequitor.

This issue isn't new and you and I are not likely to resolve it. I understand your zeal for your position but I respectfully disagree for the reasons stated.

[UserGoogol]

I don't see what makes geography so special. If a politician tried to "just campaign in New York," he would end up appealing to people outside of New York as well. A politician who took a liberal position to appeal to New Yorkers would appeal more to some hippy living in Montana more than a libertarian who lives in Queens. And anyway, in the world of mass-communication, all campaigns are national no matter where the politician actually goes. Even in the current system, a presidential candidate could spend the whole campaign season in an underground bunker and still get his message out the people, it's just that it would make for bad PR.

Admittingly, some issues are more intimately linked with geography. People who live in Texas have more of an interest in border control than people who live in Kansas. But there are many demographic issues like that. Men and women have different interests, young people have different interests from old people, Christians have different interests from atheists. Computer programmers have different interests from factory workers. We do not skew the voting system so that any of these demographics are more evenly represented, so what makes geography so special? (Besides the historical reasons.)

Of course, I suppose there might be a certain benefit in trying to give geography a more even representation so as to encourage that states maintain their fair share of the whole federalism game, but that really seems like what the Senate is supposed to be for.

[DSE]

On a related issue: I know a few people who, knowing the democrat candidate will win this state, will cast their vote for a third party member (such as Nader) as a political statement. I would venture to guess that without the Electoral College, they would be less inclined to toss their vote at a third party candidate (if they really REALLY didn't want Bush to win a second term, as in the last election).
Well, if we're changing the system, we could also put in instant runoff voting. That way you get viable 3rd party candidates without them being spoilers.

[DSE]

Presidents direct legislation, appoint judges and lead the nation. One person=one vote means that the President represents everyone but only has to answer to populous states. Not sensible, and certainly not American.
Right now things are pretty evenly split Republican / Democrat. Bush won by one of the narrowest margins in history. Doesn't the one person = one vote idea mean that it's no longer about states, but about individuals? If it's exactly 50/50, and 1000 people in Alaska have an issue they care about, that could turn the vote.

[RandFan]

I don't see what makes geography so special. If a politician tried to "just campaign in New York," he would end up appealing to people outside of New York as well. A politician who took a liberal position to appeal to New Yorkers would appeal more to some hippy living in Montana more than a libertarian who lives in Queens. And anyway, in the world of mass-communication, all campaigns are national no matter where the politician actually goes. Even in the current system, a presidential candidate could spend the whole campaign season in an underground bunker and still get his message out the people, it's just that it would make for bad PR.

Admittingly, some issues are more intimately linked with geography. People who live in Texas have more of an interest in border control than people who live in Kansas. But there are many demographic issues like that. Men and women have different interests, young people have different interests from old people, Christians have different interests from atheists. Computer programmers have different interests from factory workers. We do not skew the voting system so that any of these demographics are more evenly represented, so what makes geography so special? (Besides the historical reasons.)

Of course, I suppose there might be a certain benefit in trying to give geography a more even representation so as to encourage that states maintain their fair share of the whole federalism game, but that really seems like what the Senate is supposed to be for.

Right now things are pretty evenly split Republican / Democrat. Bush won by one of the narrowest margins in history. Doesn't the one person = one vote idea mean that it's no longer about states, but about individuals? If it's exactly 50/50, and 1000 people in Alaska have an issue they care about, that could turn the vote.Valid points.

There is no perfect sytem. With that in mind the question becomes can we improve the system and should we?

I think the reasons for the college are as valid today as they were in times past. I can't imagine a system that caters to many different demographics. This one does that in a way. People who live in a particular state can influence local reginonal and state elections. States are more likely than not to reflect the people of that state. The college can respond to a degree.

At the moment I can see the argument that it is more about people than votes but that is for the moment.

I don't think the college will or should change. Hey, I'm a republican living in a state that is not likely to go Republican in a long, long time.

[Kerberos]

There is a third possibility, you could abolish the electoral colledge but keep the weighted vote system. Basically you multibly the votes each candidate get from a given state with a certain factor, so that an Alaskan vote still counts for 3-4 times what a Californian do, and then ad it all together, and say the guy who gets the greatest weighted vote total wins.

It doesn't addres all concerns, but it makes sure that small states get disproportional representation and that your vote counts, even if you don't live in a swing state.

[Random]

There is a third possibility, you could abolish the electoral colledge but keep the weighted vote system. Basically you multibly the votes each candidate get from a given state with a certain factor, so that an Alaskan vote still counts for 3-4 times what a Californian do, and then ad it all together, and say the guy who gets the greatest weighted vote total wins.

It doesn't addres all concerns, but it makes sure that small states get disproportional representation and that your vote counts, even if you don't live in a swing state.
I don't think that a system which explicitly states that a vote in California or Texas is worth less than one from the Dakotas is gonna fly politically...

[Ladewig]

Presidents direct legislation,

Legislation that must be passed by the Senate which gives tremendous power to the states with 6-figure populations.

appoint judges

Again, the Senate must vote on these appointees.


and lead the nation. One person=one vote means that the President represents everyone but only has to answer to populous states. Not sensible, and certainly not American.

There are issues that will produce splits between heavily-populated states and sparsely-populated states (e.g. oil drilling in Alaska, water rights on western rivers) but the Senate already has influence on, if not power over, those issues. Can you give an example of how people in less populated states will be harmed by some president who is about to run for re-election? I don't mean harm such as the president will not campaign in the smaller states; I mean an issue and a particular stance on that issue.

As for what is or is not American, the Senate makes the states equal, the House of Representaives makes the people equal. Both are American - switching the model from one of those to the other is not unamerican.

I'd settle for proportional distribution of electoral votes within each state.

[DSE]

Valid points.

There is no perfect sytem. With that in mind the question becomes can we improve the system and should we?

I think the reasons for the college are as valid today as they were in times past. I can't imagine a system that caters to many different demographics. This one does that in a way. People who live in a particular state can influence local reginonal and state elections. States are more likely than not to reflect the people of that state. The college can respond to a degree.

At the moment I can see the argument that it is more about people than votes but that is for the moment.

I don't think the college will or should change. Hey, I'm a republican living in a state that is not likely to go Republican in a long, long time.
I see your point. And I do understand why the college was created. And I think it made sense then. But, I feel like most of the reasons that made it a compelling idea 200 years ago are no longer valid. The main sticking point for me are:
Should the president be elected by the states or the people?

The college does 2 things. It 1) consolidates all of the people in a state into a single voice, and 2) increases the influence of smaller states.

For me, the first issue just seems like a negative. In a day when everyone knows the individual candidates' views extremely well, why is it advantageous for a state who's people vote 51%/49% for a candidate to quiet half it's peoples' votes? And if a state is 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, the Democratic voters don't have any way to get the attention of the democratic candidate. That candidate doesn't have to speak to any region-specific Democratic concerns. Is there any benefit for making everyone from the state speak with a single voice?

On the second issue, why should less populous states have more pull in presidential elections than larger ones? I think our issues are a lot more country-wide these days. We have congress to address state-specific needs (and they do it well). But the president makes decisions for the entire country.

I understand why the college was useful 200 years ago. But I can't defend it today.

[wastepanel]

Well, I will ask the obvious questions and then head for bed. Why should the vote of a man in Alaska be worth more than the vote of a man from California? Should we care more about a certain state because it has fewer people? And isn't disproportionate representation what the Senate is for? That's how we ended up with a Republican majority in the Senate even though more Americans voted for thier Democratic counterparts.

Why should a Senator in Alaska technically be worth more than a senator in California? We can pretty much agree that the lifestyle in California is different than the lifestyle in Alaska. The Electoral College was established because its founders did not want more populated states to control the legislation of smaller states. Think about it...15 states dictating who the President is and the other 35. Could lead to something ugly.

[Kerberos]

I don't think that a system which explicitly states that a vote in California or Texas is worth less than one from the Dakotas is gonna fly politically...
If flying politicallt is a demand your gonna make for sugestions on this thread they might as well close it. I'd say my idea is as flyable as any other that has been raised.

[Kerberos]

Why should a Senator in Alaska technically be worth more than a senator in California? We can pretty much agree that the lifestyle in California is different than the lifestyle in Alaska. The Electoral College was established because its founders did not want more populated states to control the legislation of smaller states. Think about it...15 states dictating who the President is and the other 35. Could lead to something ugly.
I've thought about it, wouldn't it require every single person in the 15 most populous states to vote for the same guy? Perhaps you should think about it. Currently however the president is de facto appointed solely by the swing states, the other [insert number of non-swing states] have no actual say.

[Random]

Why should a Senator in Alaska technically be worth more than a senator in California? We can pretty much agree that the lifestyle in California is different than the lifestyle in Alaska. The Electoral College was established because its founders did not want more populated states to control the legislation of smaller states. Think about it...15 states dictating who the President is and the other 35. Could lead to something ugly.
Again, those fifteen largest states may have more than half the population, but they don’t all vote the same way, and the votes in many large states are closer than people assume. A 55/45 split will give 100% of a states electoral votes to one candidate, while a direct vote system will really only give an edge of 10% of that states votes to the winner.

Also, the current system is not getting presidential candidates to focus on small states or large states for that matter. It is getting them to focus on “battleground” states, where presidential attention is lavished on states whose populations are wishy-washy.

Thirdly, the current system doesn’t really guarantee that the smaller states will get more attention than the larger states does it? Appealing to a slim majority in enough big states to get the majority of electoral votes and then ignore the rest of the country still works.

[Random]

If flying politicallt is a demand your gonna make for sugestions on this thread they might as well close it. I'd say my idea is as flyable as any other that has been raised.
If you want an idea that could fly politically in today’s America, might I suggest combining the presidential election with American Idol? I would pay good money to see Simon berating Bill Frist on his free-trade policies.

[pgwenthold]

Why should a Senator in Alaska technically be worth more than a senator in California? We can pretty much agree that the lifestyle in California is different than the lifestyle in Alaska. The Electoral College was established because its founders did not want more populated states to control the legislation of smaller states.

Yeah, maybe, BUT one of the most important things I noted originally is that this move to make the EC obsolete requires only a majority of the EC votes to occur and is 100% within the guidelines of the constitution, without question. It doesn't even stretch the constitution.

It certainly goes against _tradition_, but that is a different question.

Regardless of what the framers wanted to happen, they still wrote the constitution to allow for the country to go to effectively a popular vote winner if it so chose to do so, and it only takes a majority to make it happen.

[RandFan]

Legislation that must be passed by the Senate which gives tremendous power to the states with 6-figure populations. But clearly the direction of the country changes depending on the President.

Again, the Senate must vote on these appointees. I concede that there are checks and balances however that doesn't change the fact that the president can deeply affect the country. Certainly we see this now with the current appointment of judges. The president is a very important part of our government. A state whose people have little or no chance of influencing the selection of the president are disenfranchised.

There are issues that will produce splits between heavily-populated states and sparsely-populated states (e.g. oil drilling in Alaska, water rights on western rivers) but the Senate already has influence on, if not power over, those issues. Can you give an example of how people in less populated states will be harmed by some president who is about to run for re-election? I don't mean harm such as the president will not campaign in the smaller states; I mean an issue and a particular stance on that issue. "Will not campaign in" is to say not influenced by. Certainly judges are very important. Also, the president's veto can be a powerful restraint to judicial activism. In the past the states have voted in a Republican president to counter balance a Democrat controlled congress. I had honestly thought that Bush would have lost his office in the last election but I think the so-called War on Terror changed the dynamics.

[RandFan]

I see your point. And I do understand why the college was created. And I think it made sense then. But, I feel like most of the reasons that made it a compelling idea 200 years ago are no longer valid. The main sticking point for me are:
Should the president be elected by the states or the people?

The college does 2 things. It 1) consolidates all of the people in a state into a single voice, and 2) increases the influence of smaller states.

For me, the first issue just seems like a negative. In a day when everyone knows the individual candidates' views extremely well, why is it advantageous for a state who's people vote 51%/49% for a candidate to quiet half it's peoples' votes? And if a state is 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, the Democratic voters don't have any way to get the attention of the democratic candidate. That candidate doesn't have to speak to any region-specific Democratic concerns. Is there any benefit for making everyone from the state speak with a single voice?

On the second issue, why should less populous states have more pull in presidential elections than larger ones? I think our issues are a lot more country-wide these days. We have congress to address state-specific needs (and they do it well). But the president makes decisions for the entire country.

I understand why the college was useful 200 years ago. But I can't defend it today.I don't agree with all of your post but I'm willing to let it stand without argument. There is only so much time in the day and this is not a position that I'm passionate about. I want the college but the world wouldn't end if it were abolished.

[Random]

"Will not campaign in" is to say not influenced by. Certainly judges are very important. Also, the president's veto can be a powerful restraint to judicial activism. In the past the states have voted in a Republican president to counter balance a Democrat controlled congress. I had honestly thought that Bush would have lost his office in the last election but I think the so-called War on Terror changed the dynamics.
How is the president’s veto a restraint to “judicial activism”? The only real power the president has over the court is the ability to appoint new members.

And what is “judicial activism” anyway? The courts can’t exactly go out and rule against things they disagree with unless somebody brings a case to them. Theoretically they are supposed to interpret the law and constitution. The results of those interpretations may be widespread, but they are supposed to be ruling on law, not consequences.

[RandFan]

How is the president’s veto a restraint to “judicial activism”? The only real power the president has over the court is the ability to appoint new members.

And what is “judicial activism” anyway? The courts can’t exactly go out and rule against things they disagree with unless somebody brings a case to them. Theoretically they are supposed to interpret the law and constitution. The results of those interpretations may be widespread, but they are supposed to be ruling on law, not consequences.Oops. Damn, damn, damn. Congressional activism.

Thank you, my apologies.

[Random]

No problem, it happens.

[pgwenthold]

I don't agree with all of your post but I'm willing to let it stand without argument. There is only so much time in the day and this is not a position that I'm passionate about. I want the college but the world wouldn't end if it were abolished.

And I really didn't start this thread in order to get into should we or should we not have the EC, but more to show that getting rid of the EC (at least, making it obsolete) is a lot easier than it appears at first glance. We don't need to amend the constitution to create a system that is defacto popular vote based. Amending the constitution is monumental. Making the EC obsolete is revisionary, but basically only requires a majority.

[RandFan]

And I really didn't start this thread in order to get into should we or should we not have the EC, but more to show that getting rid of the EC (at least, making it obsolete) is a lot easier than it appears at first glance. We don't need to amend the constitution to create a system that is defacto popular vote based. Amending the constitution is monumental. Making the EC obsolete is revisionary, but basically only requires a majority.No argument. But remember the law of unintended consequences. :D

[wastepanel]

Again, those fifteen largest states may have more than half the population, but they don’t all vote the same way, and the votes in many large states are closer than people assume. A 55/45 split will give 100% of a states electoral votes to one candidate, while a direct vote system will really only give an edge of 10% of that states votes to the winner.

Also, the current system is not getting presidential candidates to focus on small states or large states for that matter. It is getting them to focus on “battleground” states, where presidential attention is lavished on states whose populations are wishy-washy.

Thirdly, the current system doesn’t really guarantee that the smaller states will get more attention than the larger states does it? Appealing to a slim majority in enough big states to get the majority of electoral votes and then ignore the rest of the country still works.

Alright, a few numbers are in order here:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

This link states the 2004 population of the US by state. Only 7 states have above 10 million in population. These states account for 141,700,000 people out of 293,700,000 (48%). 43 States account for the other 52%. The EC accounts these states as 226 out of a possible 538 (42%), while the other states account for 58% (or 312 Electoral votes). That means the minimum amount of states to carry to win the EC is 11 (7 most populated and 4 others to get 44 (Yes, I checked the math)). If a popular vote is installed, a candidate could carry a 60% of the big 7 states , and 41% of of the rest of the country. 60% is not inconceivable in an election either. If I was being conservative and that candidate carried 55% of the big 7, then he/she would have to carry 45% of any other state. Theoretically, 7 states could elect the President if the EC was abolished.

Ahhh...math skills...the answer to all of life's problems.

[pgwenthold]

Alright, a few numbers are in order here:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

This link states the 2004 population of the US by state. Only 7 states have above 10 million in population. These states account for 141,700,000 people out of 293,700,000 (48%). 43 States account for the other 52%. The EC accounts these states as 226 out of a possible 538 (42%), while the other states account for 58% (or 312 Electoral votes). That means the minimum amount of states to carry to win the EC is 11 (7 most populated and 4 others to get 44 (Yes, I checked the math)). If a popular vote is installed, a candidate could carry a 60% of the big 7 states , and 41% of of the rest of the country. 60% is not inconceivable in an election either. If I was being conservative and that candidate carried 55% of the big 7, then he/she would have to carry 45% of any other state. Theoretically, 7 states could elect the President if the EC was abolished.


And 11 with the EC is all that much better?

And I gotta ask, if you are getting 60% of 48% of the population, then why does it matter if they are from big states or small states?

In the world of popular vote, the state breakdown is an artificial construct. Why not use the X most populated counties? Or cities? Or religious groups? River valleys?

Given the extent of christians in the country, you could say that if you get 55% of the christian vote, you only need 35% of the non-christian vote to win. The response to that is, well, ok. And?

Making the argument based on state designation is arguing from an EC perspective.

Is NYC the same as upstate? Is Boulder, CO, the same as Co Spgs (hint: no)?

[Random]

Alright, a few numbers are in order here:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

This link states the 2004 population of the US by state. Only 7 states have above 10 million in population. These states account for 141,700,000 people out of 293,700,000 (48%). 43 States account for the other 52%. The EC accounts these states as 226 out of a possible 538 (42%), while the other states account for 58% (or 312 Electoral votes). That means the minimum amount of states to carry to win the EC is 11 (7 most populated and 4 others to get 44 (Yes, I checked the math)). If a popular vote is installed, a candidate could carry a 60% of the big 7 states , and 41% of of the rest of the country. 60% is not inconceivable in an election either. If I was being conservative and that candidate carried 55% of the big 7, then he/she would have to carry 45% of any other state. Theoretically, 7 states could elect the President if the EC was abolished.

Ahhh...math skills...the answer to all of life's problems.
Maybe it’s just me, but a sixty percent vote in the seven most populous states as well as a forty-one percent vote in the rest of the country seems to be a reasonable mandate for the presidency in a highly polarized nation. Certainly better than 51% in the top 11 and who cares what everywhere else.

[wastepanel]

And 11 with the EC is all that much better?

And I gotta ask, if you are getting 60% of 48% of the population, then why does it matter if they are from big states or small states?

In the world of popular vote, the state breakdown is an artificial construct. Why not use the X most populated counties? Or cities? Or religious groups? River valleys?

Given the extent of christians in the country, you could say that if you get 55% of the christian vote, you only need 35% of the non-christian vote to win. The response to that is, well, ok. And?

Making the argument based on state designation is arguing from an EC perspective.

Is NYC the same as upstate? Is Boulder, CO, the same as Co Spgs (hint: no)?

And what happens when 70-75% of California votes for a candidate from their own state? It legitamately could happen. If a candidate carries 75% of California voters, than he only needs to carry 47% of the rest of other 49 states. What it would mean is that the candidate coming from a big state has a much bigger chance of winning then a candidate from a smaller state. If that happened, could you imagine the uproar? Yes, the candidate won the election with a majority. But a candidate could theoretically lose 49 states and still be the President.

The EC provides insurance that a scenerio such as this could not occur. In the scenerio where a candidate could carry 51% of the big 11, that candidate would have to carry less than 34% of the rest of the country to not the popular vote.

[pgwenthold]

And what happens when 70-75% of California votes for a candidate from their own state? It legitamately could happen. If a candidate carries 75% of California voters, than he only needs to carry 47% of the rest of other 49 states. What it would mean is that the candidate coming from a big state has a much bigger chance of winning then a candidate from a smaller state. If that happened, could you imagine the uproar? Yes, the candidate won the election with a majority. But a candidate could theoretically lose 49 states and still be the President.

But they aren't trying to win states.

That is an argument from the assumption that the EC is a better approach.

Yeah, a candidate could theoretically lose 49 states and still be the President in a popular vote approach. OTOH, in the EC format, a candidate could theoretically win 11 states by 1 vote each and get shut out in the rest, losing the popular vote 75% - 25%, and still be president!

You need to be careful in arguing from a worst case scenerio outcome. I don't see it obviously favoring the EC.

[Kerberos]

And what happens when 70-75% of California votes for a candidate from their own state? It legitamately could happen. If a candidate carries 75% of California voters, than he only needs to carry 47% of the rest of other 49 states. What it would mean is that the candidate coming from a big state has a much bigger chance of winning then a candidate from a smaller state. If that happened, could you imagine the uproar? Yes, the candidate won the election with a majority. But a candidate could theoretically lose 49 states and still be the President.

The EC provides insurance that a scenerio such as this could not occur.
On the other hand it makes it possible for a candidate to win by getting less than 25% of the vote. Could you imgagine the uproar if that happened? I think it might be a tad bigger than if a president got elected despite loosing marginally in most states. You seem determined to see only the good things about the electoral colledge.

RTS: Damn PG beat me to it.

[wastepanel]

Well, you guys got me on the worst case scenerio argument. But my scenerio is not a "worse case scenerio". Any candidate that aspires to be President would then start his/her political career in populated state, and California. Like I said, carrying 75% of California means 35% has to be carried elsewhere. Very unlikely that a candidate could carry 50.0000000000000000000000000001% of the Big 11 and garnish no votes elsewhere. However, carrying one big state by a huge percentage (75%) means minimal votes necessary elsewhere.

[aerosolben]

What it would mean is that the candidate coming from a big state has a much bigger chance of winning then a candidate from a smaller state.
This is true with the electoral college as well, if the state currently votes for the other party (or if the state is a swing state). If Arnold had been running for president, he probably would have been able to flip California to red, at which point no one else's votes in the entire country would really have mattered.

[pgwenthold]

Well, you guys got me on the worst case scenerio argument. But my scenerio is not a "worse case scenerio". Any candidate that aspires to be President would then start his/her political career in populated state, and California. Like I said, carrying 75% of California means 35% has to be carried elsewhere. Very unlikely that a candidate could carry 50.0000000000000000000000000001% of the Big 11 and garnish no votes elsewhere. However, carrying one big state by a huge percentage (75%) means minimal votes necessary elsewhere.

How so? Yeah, you get 75% of California, but only 30% of Texas, which means that you have to get 49% from everywhere else.

And since when is 47% a _minimal_ amount of votes? You still have to get it, and 46% is not enough.

In the electoral system, you don't need ANYTHING outside of winning the right number of states, much less "minimal."

And if you don't want a worst case scenerio, how about someone who loses the popular vote 52 - 48%, meaning a difference of millions of votes, but wins the electoral college? We were 30K votes in Ohio from having that happen in the last election.

In an election where 55 - 45 is considered a landslide (see Bush I/Dukakis), the fact that one could win in a landslide and still lose the election is not even a worst case scenerio!

[Random]

Wastepanel, your basic assumption seems to be that consensus on the President should be reached based on geography rather than population. I just don’t like the idea that my vote should count for less because I reside in a condo complex rather than a hundred acres of desolate scrubland. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Kerberos]

Well, you guys got me on the worst case scenerio argument. But my scenerio is not a "worse case scenerio". Any candidate that aspires to be President would then start his/her political career in populated state, and California. Like I said, carrying 75% of California means 35% has to be carried elsewhere. Very unlikely that a candidate could carry 50.0000000000000000000000000001% of the Big 11 and garnish no votes elsewhere. However, carrying one big state by a huge percentage (75%) means minimal votes necessary elsewhere.
And you think that getting 75% in one state and perfectly or virtually perfectly even distribution of votes at 47% elsewhere is likely? Perhaps our scenario has only a 10^-30% chance of occurring, while yours had 10^-25% but for all practical purposes it's stil zero. What is realistic and in fact the current reality of US elections is that only swing states matter, the rest of you might as well stay home on election night.

[Ladewig]

And what happens when 70-75% of California votes for a candidate from their own state? It legitamately could happen. If a candidate carries 75% of California voters, than he only needs to carry 47% of the rest of other 49 states. What it would mean is that the candidate coming from a big state has a much bigger chance of winning then a candidate from a smaller state. If that happened, could you imagine the uproar? Yes, the candidate won the election with a majority. But a candidate could theoretically lose 49 states and still be the President.

The EC provides insurance that a scenerio such as this could not occur. In the scenerio where a candidate could carry 51% of the big 11, that candidate would have to carry less than 34% of the rest of the country to not the popular vote.

With popular voting instead of the EC, in a three way race a candidate could lose all 50 states and still receive the most votes for any single candidate and thus be elected. The results could be 48%, 26.1%, 25.9%. Why shouldn't the number of people voting for a candidate be more important than the number of states that consider that candidate to be the best, especially when (as in the above example) the number of people voting in favor of a candidate is almost twice as great as the number of people voting for any other single candidate?

[C S Costa]

I think that's why things won't change.
It might give 3rd party candidates a chance.
(Could you guess I'm sick of two party politics?)

[wastepanel]

With popular voting instead of the EC, in a three way race a candidate could lose all 50 states and still receive the most votes for any single candidate and thus be elected. The results could be 48%, 26.1%, 25.9%. Why shouldn't the number of people voting for a candidate be more important than the number of states that consider that candidate to be the best, especially when (as in the above example) the number of people voting in favor of a candidate is almost twice as great as the number of people voting for any other single candidate?

I'm not quite sure I get this argument. If a candidate recieves a majority of a state's voters in the current system (even if it is less than 50%), that candidate still wins the electorate votes. Clinton didn't win a majority against Bush 1 and Perot, but still took a majority of the electorate (forgive that I don't have documentation, but I believe it was 46-36-18(?)).

In regards to the rest of this discussion, the least amount of votes necessary to win the electorate is 70,850,011 (24%). That would mean the candidate would have to win each of the big 11 states by one vote and not garnish one vote from the rest of the country. Those arguing for popular vote elections have pointed this out. However, the probability of this happening is zilch. All I have been trying to say is that (if a popular vote is installed), look forward to every candidate and vice president candidateto be from California and Texas. After all, they account for 58 million potential voters. If you account for 60% of these voters, you could lose 52-48% in every other state. That is not unreasonable, and quite probable that this scenerio could happen.

[pgwenthold]

In regards to the rest of this discussion, the least amount of votes necessary to win the electorate is 70,850,011 (24%). That would mean the candidate would have to win each of the big 11 states by one vote and not garnish one vote from the rest of the country. Those arguing for popular vote elections have pointed this out. However, the probability of this happening is zilch.

As opposed to that oh so realistic scenerio of a candidate who gets 75% of California but loses 49 states, your original case (note: the chance of doing that is extremely small because even though you only need to average 48%, it will generally be distributed over a range from 43 - 53, at the very least)

Meanwhile, the chance of winning the EC while losing the popular vote is not unrealistic.

[Almo]

The problem with "one man=one vote" is that you effectively disenfrancise half the country. What that would do is give roughly one third of the states near-total control over Presidential elections.

Each vote counts equally toward the president. State boundaries would be less important.

The issue of populous states vs non-populous states is already handled by the House/Senate asymmetry. We don't need this patch on the presidential election.

[Tmy]

under the current system the only states that get any attention are swing states. Everyone else is ignored.

Lets get rid of winner take all.

[wastepanel]

As opposed to that oh so realistic scenerio of a candidate who gets 75% of California but loses 49 states, your original case (note: the chance of doing that is extremely small because even though you only need to average 48%, it will generally be distributed over a range from 43 - 53, at the very least)

Meanwhile, the chance of winning the EC while losing the popular vote is not unrealistic.

I am not saying that each state must get the same percentage. Collectively, each state must average that. I believe that both of the scenerios I have listed could occur. (Un)Fortunately, we could never know what would actually happen unless the system is changed. If it does, then those situations could be quite probable.

[pgwenthold]

I am not saying that each state must get the same percentage. Collectively, each state must average that.

Well, to get to the point of where a candidate can win California and lose the 49 other states, as you initially objected, you pretty much do have to have all the other states have the same percentage. There isn't a lot of room for variation.

But if the issue is just that the states must average that, then so what?

You are concerned that a candidate could average only 48% in 49 of 50 states and win. But in the current system, the candidate can get 48% of ALL 50 states and still win.

Why is "get 48% of all the vote but won the EC" any better than "got 48% of the vote in 49 states but won California in a landslide"?

I don't see either one of those situations as inherently better or worse than the other.

I should note I'm note necessarily arguing that using popular vote is a better approach, just that your attempted arguments against the popular vote just don't hold water from a rational perspective. As has been noted, you are selectively chosing aspects of the popular vote approach to criticize while not recognizing the same sorts of weaknesses in the EC approach.

[Ladewig]

I'm not quite sure I get this argument. If a candidate recieves a majority of a state's voters in the current system (even if it is less than 50%), that candidate still wins the electorate votes. Clinton didn't win a majority against Bush 1 and Perot, but still took a majority of the electorate (forgive that I don't have documentation, but I believe it was 46-36-18(?)).


Candidates A, B, and C run for president.

Results:
Calif. 51% B; 49% A
Texas 51% C; 49% A
New York 51% B; 49% A
Florida 51% C; 49% A
Illinois 51% B; 49% A
and so forth

I'm not certain of the exact percentages for B and C other than they add to 51% of the votes cast, but in this case, A has clearly outscored B and outscored C. By virtually all definitions, A had a landslide victory over the other candidates but does not win any single state.

[RandFan]

Each vote counts equally toward the president. State boundaries would be less important.

The issue of populous states vs non-populous states is already handled by the House/Senate asymmetry. We don't need this patch on the presidential election. Yes, this has been stated on a number of occassion. Those of us who favor the college understand your contention but we simply disagree. We don't think that it is already handled by Congress. I'm not sure why you think that the answer axiomatically solves the problem. It doesn't. But I respect your opinion that it does. Again, I'm not passionate about the issue and I don't want to get into a long running debate but I just wanted to make it known that the argument doesn't resolve the issue for many of us.

[gnome]

My best reason to change (or get rid of) the EC... is the winner-take-all flaw that leads the candidates to focus on swing states only. What's worse, having the least populous states be arguably slighted for campaign attention, or having all but a few states receive little campaign attention?

Which plan will lead to campaigning in more states?

Put another way: We in Florida have to deal with candidiates grubbing around for votes every four years. I believe dropping Winner-Take-All will change that for the better :)

[aerosolben]

My best reason to change (or get rid of) the EC... is the winner-take-all flaw that leads the candidates to focus on swing states only.
Exactly. EC proponents complain that candidates would otherwise focus on the big states, but this is more reasonable than focusing on the swing states - at least big states have more people, and are somewhat deserving of more attention. Mybe not proportionally more attention, but more attention nevertheless.

As far as I'm concerned the only legitimate reason to support the Electoral College is if you think the states, and NOT the people, should elect the president (albiet on behalf of the people). Pretending the EC better represents the people's interests than direct voting is just silly.

[DSE]

I don't agree with all of your post but I'm willing to let it stand without argument. There is only so much time in the day and this is not a position that I'm passionate about. I want the college but the world wouldn't end if it were abolished.
Ha. Fair enough. I don't even live in the US any more.

[wastepanel]

Candidates A, B, and C run for president.

Results:
Calif. 51% B; 49% A
Texas 51% C; 49% A
New York 51% B; 49% A
Florida 51% C; 49% A
Illinois 51% B; 49% A
and so forth

I'm not certain of the exact percentages for B and C other than they add to 51% of the votes cast, but in this case, A has clearly outscored B and outscored C. By virtually all definitions, A had a landslide victory over the other candidates but does not win any single state.

So you're telling me candidates B and C can garnish enough votes in one state to win a majority, yet not garnish 1% of another state?

I understand all of the points for the popular vote. However, I have not seen one REALISTIC scenerio that could occur. I am not a huge fan of the "winner take all" system, and I admit the process has its issues. However, throwing it all away now could easily cause more problems then what it's worth. I admit, somebody winning California easily and losing the rest of the states is far fetched (it made sense when I crunched the numbers). But a scenerio where a candidate may garnish 45-46% in most states, 51-52% in a few, and 60% in one large state is a very real possibility.

It seems that all of the arguments I have encountered here are all based off the first google site listed...oh wait, they are there.

[pgwenthold]

But a scenerio where a candidate may garnish 45-46% in most states, 51-52% in a few, and 60% in one large state is a very real possibility.


Aside from the fact that you just asserting it as a "real possibility" doesn't make it so (how many is "most"? "few"?), even if it did happen, then so what?

The thing that makes it "a large state" is that it has a lot more people! Doesn't the president serve the people?

This argument is still based on the assumption that the majority of states is the best way to elect the president. If you don't accept that premise, then the argument is meaningless.

Now, how about a situation where one candididate gets 51 - 52% of the popular vote and loses the election? You are complaining about 46% in most of the states, but here is 48% in all of the states. Is that realistic? We were 30K Ohio votes away from it happening in 2004.

[RandFan]

Ha. Fair enough. I don't even live in the US any more.Lost in translation (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/)?

[DSE]

I also don't think state-specific concerns are the major factors in determining who people vote for president. I think a Republican in Massachusetts is going to less politically in common with a Democrat from Massachusetts than a fellow Republican from Texas. Not to mention people who move from one state to another, but hold the same beliefs. The issues the president are national ones. And people have national concerns. The states have the congress to focus on the their individual needs.

Both the electoral college and popular vote are influenced by states with more people. But I don't see that as a problem. If 55% of the country crammed into Rhode Island and became avid Democrats, why shouldn't the Democrats win every election? It's a democratic election, it should be by majority.

I also like the idea of instant runoff voting. This seems to curb the issue of a popular candidate from a large state winning without a majority of the vote.

[DSE]

Lost in translation (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0335266/)?
Pretty much. Except, you know, minus the being rich thing.

[RandFan]

Pretty much. Except, you know, minus the being rich thing.I suffered culture shock moving from a small town in Utah to Los Angeles. I can only imagine moving to Japan. I think it would be a great opportunity if not extremly hectic and frustrating.

[aerosolben]

I also like the idea of instant runoff voting. This seems to curb the issue of a popular candidate from a large state winning without a majority of the vote.
Interestingly, instant runoff voting suffers from a problem parallel to one being discussed in this thread - namely, disenfranchising compromise candidates.

With the EC, you can have a situation where a candidate achieves large minorities in many or all states and ends up with a large majority of the popular vote, but still loses because they didn't 'win' enough states.

With runoff voting, you can have a situation where a candidate gathers large numbers of second place votes and is preferred by a substantial majority when compared pair-wise to every other candidate, but is nevertheless eliminated because he didn't 'win' enough ballots.

Instant runoff voting is really just plurality voting in rounds. In fact, we could turn the EC into an IRV system just by pretending the voting tallies for a given state are a ranked ballot (and assigning that ballot to all electors). Of course, given the two party system, this is unlikely to make a difference.

[DSE]

Interestingly, instant runoff voting suffers from a problem parallel to one being discussed in this thread - namely, disenfranchising compromise candidates.

With the EC, you can have a situation where a candidate achieves large minorities in many or all states and ends up with a large majority of the popular vote, but still loses because they didn't 'win' enough states.

With runoff voting, you can have a situation where a candidate gathers large numbers of second place votes and is preferred by a substantial majority when compared pair-wise to every other candidate, but is nevertheless eliminated because he didn't 'win' enough ballots.

Instant runoff voting is really just plurality voting in rounds. In fact, we could turn the EC into an IRV system just by pretending the voting tallies for a given state are a ranked ballot (and assigning that ballot to all electors). Of course, given the two party system, this is unlikely to make a difference.
I see your point, but all voting is flawed in some sense. The electoral college and straight up popular vote can both theoretically allow candidates with a only a very small minority of the votes to win if the rest of the vote is split among several other candidates. But this doesn't realistically happen.

Given the fact that the president addresses national issues and people identify strongly with national parties (generally more-so than statehood), I think a straight up popular vote is a better representation of the true political atmosphere, and allows for a more even debate. That said, I also think the current system makes it very difficult for 3rd parties to get involved except as spoilers. Instant runoff voting seems like a good solution to that problem.

But sure, even with instant runoff voting it's possible that the lowest ranking candidate in the first round could actually be everyone else's second choice, but this isn't very likely. It's much more likely that a real 3-way or 4-way race would happen. And this may allow those minority views to gain popularity and influence.

[DSE]

I suffered culture shock moving from a small town in Utah to Los Angeles. I can only imagine moving to Japan. I think it would be a great opportunity if not extremly hectic and frustrating.
It's quite a town.

[Bob Klase]

sorry- wrong. Verry Wrong.
The title is "President of the United States of America".
It is the United States of America--not The United People of America.

Ah- now I understand why the constitution starts out with "We the states...".

[aerosolben]

But sure, even with instant runoff voting it's possible that the lowest ranking candidate in the first round could actually be everyone else's second choice, but this isn't very likely. It's much more likely that a real 3-way or 4-way race would happen.
Sheesh, everyone seems to be criticising hypothetical situations in this thread. The hypothetical situation illustrates a flaw with the voting system with an extreme examples that clearly demonstrates it in action. Obviously, there are less extreme and much more plausible examples (i.e., not everyone has to put him in second place) that still suffer from the flaw, but do not demonstrate it as clearly.

My point is that there are a number of voting methods using the same ranked ballots that do account for these weaknesses, and if you're going to institute the ballot, you might as well institute a better voting method than IRV.

[Renfield]

OTOH, there is a new plan that makes it so you don't abolish the electoral college, but you can make it basically obsolete.

I don't see how this plan is much of an improvement. It'd be simpler and easier to just abolish the college (not going to happen either, i admit). I mean, in order for it to work, you'd pretty much need every state in the union to agree to follow this plan at once. It won't work any other way.

and what are the chances of that happening?

[pgwenthold]

I don't see how this plan is much of an improvement. It'd be simpler and easier to just abolish the college (not going to happen either, i admit).

No, it is not easier to abolish the electoral college. To do so requires amending the constitution, which is a process with exceedingly high standards, including passage in more than 3/4 of the state legislatures. OTOH, in this plan it only takes a majority of the states (heck, of the electoral votes, which means as few as 11 states) in order to make the EC obsolete.

I'm not saying it is a simple thing to do, because you need to get cooperation of all the parties, but it is a heck of a lot easier than amending the constitution.

[pgmatg]

Unfortunately it's clear that electoral college is here to stay for a while. The alternative solution to actually have more people vote and have more parties to really participate in USA election is PREFERENTIAL POPULAR VOTE. This is a system that was invented specifically to deal with split votes and lack of a true majority. It is one form of what are called "instant runoff" balloting systems. It could be done very simply on state & even local level, just count 1st & 2nd choice for whatever political posion on the ballot, and if the first choice get less then 50% of votes, secondary choice is counted instead.

[DSE]

My point is that there are a number of voting methods using the same ranked ballots that do account for these weaknesses, and if you're going to institute the ballot, you might as well institute a better voting method than IRV.
I'm just saying IRV seems like a simple way to improve the current system. If you have something better, I'm all ears. What methods are better?

[Rob Lister]

After reading and rereading this thread, it seems unlikely a solution is forthcoming.

I rather like it the way it is, so that suits me. I'm also open to decent, workable, arguments however.

The current system is the constitutional system; changing it requires a major political grass-roots movement. I can't see any arguments presented here as bringing that movement about.

[pgwenthold]

The current system is the constitutional system; changing it requires a major political grass-roots movement. I can't see any arguments presented here as bringing that movement about.

As I noted initially, it is completely possible to make the EC obsolete within the constraints of the constitution, and would be just as constitutional as the current system.

[Kerberos]

As I noted initially, it is completely possible to make the EC obsolete within the constraints of the constitution, and would be just as constitutional as the current system.
Your solution would be even harder to implement than any other that has been sugested, because any state which implemented it would reduce it's own power. Rob is correct in that the system isn't going to change. The reason for this is that the current system favours swing states and small states, and these states will therefore support the status quo, with the disproportionate power the system gives them.

[pgwenthold]

Your solution would be even harder to implement than any other that has been sugested, because any state which implemented it would reduce it's own power.


1) It's not _my_ solution
2) I'm not the one calling it a "solution" to anything, just saying that it's possible
3) If you read the third post or so, you will see that one of the things the states do to protect themselves is to have it only kick in when a sufficient number of states have gone to the same system, so no state voting for it reduces any power at all.


Rob is correct in that the system isn't going to change. The reason for this is that the current system favours swing states and small states, and these states will therefore support the status quo, with the disproportionate power the system gives them.

But this only needs a majority of the electoral votes to be successful. How many votes are there for small and swing states? 11 states hold enough electoral votes to make it possible.

And I reiterate, I'm not saying that it will happen or that it should. Just that going to a popular vote system is a heck of lot easier than most people think, and it is completely constitutional.

[luchog]

My best reason to change (or get rid of) the EC... is the winner-take-all flaw that leads the candidates to focus on swing states only. What's worse, having the least populous states be arguably slighted for campaign attention, or having all but a few states receive little campaign attention?
Exactly. Going back to the proportional EC, as was orgininally intended, in all states would greatly increase the influence of third parties, and result in more even representation for all 50 states.