A revolt against the Electoral College?

[rtalman]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...lectoral_N.htm

Maryland has passed, and New Jersey is close to passing, a law that would award their electoral college votes for president to the candidate that wins the nationwide popular vote. Neither state's law would be enacted unless enough other states to effectively kill the electoral college join them in passing the same laws.

Several other states are considering jumping on the bandwagon.

The Constitution is vague about the mechanism a state legislature must use to choose electors, so it is possible...

[New Ager]

Originally Posted by rtalman

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...lectoral_N.htm

Maryland has passed, and New Jersey is close to passing, a law that would award their electoral college votes for president to the candidate that wins the nationwide popular vote. Neither state's law would be enacted unless enough other states to effectively kill the electoral college join them in passing the same laws.

Several other states are considering jumping on the bandwagon.

The Constitution is vague about the mechanism a state legislature must use to choose electors, so it is possible...

It's a bad idea. It would make all small states inconsequential forever.

[Gnu World Order]

Originally Posted by New Ager

It's a bad idea. It would make all small states inconsequential forever.

Wouldn't that make it a good idea?

[TriskettheKid]

Not really.

Imagine an election where the candidates campaign on the coasts, and parts of the Gulf Coast.

What need would a candidate ever have to go to a place like Montana? or Idaho?

[rtalman]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

Not really.

Imagine an election where the candidates campaign on the coasts, and parts of the Gulf Coast.

What need would a candidate ever have to go to a place like Montana? or Idaho?

And how many visits do you expect to those places during the general election campaign? The candidates will concentrate on the battleground states and states where they can fill their campaign coffers.

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by rtalman

And how many visits do you expect to those places during the general election campaign? The candidates will concentrate on the battleground states and states where they can fill their campaign coffers.

At least they'll visit.

[rtalman]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

At least they'll visit.

That's just something I can't get my mind around... Shouldn't a voter choose a candidate by the policies and philosophies in evidence?

What difference should it make if a candidate pops into Helena, MT or Rapid City, SD and says "Hi"?

In Iowa, Rudy got very few votes (supposedly) because he didn't spend enough time there. Are Iowans so shallow that they reject a candidate because he didn't sit down in a coffee shop in Des Moines and chat up the locals? Did Huckabee visiting the Iowa State Fair make his Fair Tax scheme that much more palatable?

[fuelair]

Originally Posted by New Ager

It's a bad idea. It would make all small states inconsequential forever.

No offense, but in what I like to call a democracy (one person, one vote) that makes sense.

[Skibum]

Originally Posted by rtalman

The Constitution is vague about the mechanism a state legislature must use to choose electors, so it is possible...

Technically they could decide however they want be it a coin flip or drawing straws and it would be legal.

While there is no constitutional right to vote for president, if I were a resident of those states I would be upset that the electoral votes could be assigned opposite of what the majority of the state voted for.

I personally would prefer to see states move away from the "winner takes all" stance that most states use, perhaps something like the system Maine and Nebraska use.

[TriskettheKid]

It's a perception thing.

If voters in the state think you care about them enough to visit, they'll vote for you.

Is it shallow? In some ways, yes. In others, no.

But there are reasons why we do not decide via a direct vote.

[rtalman]

Originally Posted by Skibum

I personally would prefer to see states move away from the "winner takes all" stance that most states use, perhaps something like the system Maine and Nebraska use.

I would be interested to see an analysis to see if any past electoral outcomes would have changed by moving to that model nationwide.

[TriskettheKid]

Originally Posted by rtalman

I would be interested to see an analysis to see if any past electoral outcomes would have changed by moving to that model nationwide.

Easy enough to check.

I know for a fact that Andrew Jackson would have defeated John Quincy Adams in the 1824 election.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by TriskettheKid

It's a perception thing.

If voters in the state think you care about them enough to visit, they'll vote for you.

Is it shallow? In some ways, yes. In others, no.

It's more than that. They don't just visit. They also address local issues and answer questions from locals. It's much easier to decide who to vote for when you can ask them their position on issues that are important to you and your neighbors. What do we know of Guilani's position on agricultural policies? Why would an Iowa farmer vote for him without knowing, when other candidates have told them where they stand?

[toddjh]

Ah, the quadrennial (?) electoral college thread!

I'll recap my previous positions for easy access:

1. Most arguments against the electoral college are also arguments against the Senate. Whether that's a pro or con depends on the individual.

2. The people already have directly elected representatives in the form of their U.S. Representatives and, in latter days, Senators. That check is well in place; it deserves a balance in the form of State (as opposed to individual) representation. The Republic is founded on the notion that those elected by the people to govern are more fit to make high-level decisions; I see no reason why this idea should not, to a certain extent, be applied to national politics as well. This doesn't really happen of course, since all states base their electoral votes on the popular vote in one way or another, but I still support preserving the framework in case things change in the future.

3. I would love to see electoral votes handled via instant-runoff voting or some other less-strategic voting system. Okay, that's not specifically related to the electoral college, but hey, I'll talk about it any chance I get.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by rtalman

I would be interested to see an analysis to see if any past electoral outcomes would have changed by moving to that model nationwide.

If every state adopted this system then every electoral college vote would go to the one candidate who scored the most votes nationwide.

Didn't Bush lose the nationwide vote in 2000? If so, he would have had 0 electoral college votes under this system.

Trying to determine what the outcome of previous elections would have been, had this system been in place, is difficult as the popular vote would have been different. I think people in non-swing states would have been more likely to vote (as their vote is more likely to count) and the campaign in swing states would have been different (as they would be less important).

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the popular vote tally is disputed.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by rtalman

The Constitution is vague about the mechanism a state legislature must use to choose electors, so it is possible...

It says "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct". I don't think that's vague.

It is an interesting idea. Sure, there are reasons why we don't directly elect Presidents, but we also didn't originally elect Senators for much the same reasons. We abandoned that practice a long time ago, and perhaps it is time to abandon the electoral college, as well.

However, if so, I think we should cut the institution from the Constitution, not simply paralyze it.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Dude, the founder's had no idea what to do for electing the president. So just a few days before they finished the Constitution, they tacked on an idea that they had already rejected, the electoral college. And then they left up how it would actually work to the States.

I think it is bullcrap.

It means that depending on where you live, the power of your vote changes. This is because the number of electors is based on the number of representatives, and the number of Senators is the same for each State regardless of population.

But then again, I also am against the existence of the Senate .

My PoliSci teacher told me that it is actually harmful to most small states. This is because there is a lopsided amount of Dems vs. Reps in each State, so many are left so uncompetitive that the parties just fly over them as safe States.

[/rant]

[corplinx]

The president represents the 50 states of the union. Maryland and NJ have failed basic civics.

[UserGoogol]

Originally Posted by New Ager

It's a bad idea. It would make all small states inconsequential forever.

A person is a person. For the most part, if you can appeal to liberal voters in California, you appeal to liberal voters in Wyoming; if you appeal to conservative voters in Texas, you appeal to conservative voters in Vermont. Additionally, the way states have been formed is largely a matter of convenience and an accident of history. What if North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana had formed one big Superdakota and California had decided to break up into four different states? Federalism is valuable, but both the federal government and state governments are Republics, and therefore exist solely to serve the people who live in them. Why should one servant treat people differently based on which other servant they have?

Furthermore, brute majority rule can definitely be a bad thing and it is entirely reasonable for the electoral system to be built in such a way to require consensus, but to simply give more votes to some people based on what state they state does not remedy it: it just turns majority rule into sometimes-a-majority-and-sometimes-a-minority-rule, with no reason to believe that sometimes-a-minority is more representative of the overall "common good" than a simple majority would be.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by fuelair

No offense, but in what I like to call a democracy (one person, one vote) that makes sense.

It only makes sense if you assume the small states concerns are directly at odds with the large states'. They aren't.

[ZenFountain]

The need for the electoral college was diminished with the advent of national newspapers, radio and TV. The need has evaporated entirely with the addition of the internet as a means to disseminate information instantly for very low cost to a wide audience. My understanding is that the electoral college was seen as a guard against regional populist in the early republic, far back before politicians ran national campaigns or could hope to reach everyone with their message. It's interesting to contrast pre-Jackson elections with modern elections, you would be hard pressed to connect them as functioning under the same constitution.

Bush's win in 2000 with a 500,000 vote deficit and Kerry's near win in 2004 with a 3,000,000 vote deficit should have been the last bit of proof needed that the electoral system has failed. I suspect that in a purely popular system, candidates would distribute their campaign time and resources far more evenly across the union rather than concentrating so heavily in battleground states. Take at look at 2004 campaign resources:



We won't see change with the electoral college until there are a string of electoral catastrophes. The parties may not like the current system but they know the intricacies and winning strategies. A change on the magnitude of going to a purely popular vote would upset the system and leave campaign managers sailing in uncharted territory.

[tsg]

Here is an article that explains pretty well why the electoral college is better for everyone.

[Skibum]

Originally Posted by gtc

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the popular vote tally is disputed.

I was thinking the same thing.

Imagine Palm Beach in 2000 only on a nationwide scale. Lawsuits in dozens (perhaps even hundreds or more than a thousand) of localities fighting for every single hanging chad and mismarked ballot following an election where the national popular vote is decided by a razor thin margin.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by tsg

Here is an article that explains pretty well why the electoral college is better for everyone.

But it didn't address the problem of voting power due to number of electors.

It seems to be assuming that one redistricts America for every election, with no regard for State borders.

And lol at the bias, "Not long before Natapoff’s epiphany, Congress had teetered on the verge of wrecking the electoral college, an institution that has no equal anywhere in the world."

Or I could say that no one was stupid enough to do it our way.

[UserGoogol]

Originally Posted by tsg

Here is an article that explains pretty well why the electoral college is better for everyone.

Quote:

A presidential candidate worthy of office, by the same logic, should have broad appeal across the whole nation, and not just play strongly on a single issue to isolated blocs of voters.

This is a retarded claim. Suppose that 60% of all people supported some candidate and they live spread out throughout the country. By this principle, it would be entirely reasonable. But suppose that you then managed to somehow round up all these people and gather them into one state. Then that candidate would suddenly not become worthy of office, simply by moving people around.

Geography is a meaningless variable. People can and do move from one side of the country to another at their whim. Perhaps when the country was founded and moving 100 miles was something only for special occasions for a majority of people, geography mattered, but now it is something as arbitary as hair color.

His math also sounds stupid, although for different reasons and I might be misunderstanding it. Increasing the degree to which an individual effects the outcome of an election is meaningless. What matters is that everyone effects the election equally and that no factors besides people's votes are able to factor in. Also, he seems to be saying that it's good because in lopsided elections (where one candidate is more likely to win than the other) the more likely candidate is more likely to win in a direct popular vote, but I'm not entirely sure how that's a bad thing. That's kind of the point of elections? Breaking things up seems simply to add some randomness to the game (analogous to the sports analogy) which doesn't seem to be very useful. In baseball, there's value in having the winner be somewhat random rather than just being a statistical calculation of who the best player is since it's more exciting that way, but in politics I don't see the point.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

But it didn't address the problem of voting power due to number of electors.

Which is what, exactly?

Quote:

It seems to be assuming that one redistricts America for every election, with no regard for State borders.

I highly doubt any one state's population is changing fast enough to make this an issue.

Quote:

And lol at the bias, "Not long before Natapoff’s epiphany, Congress had teetered on the verge of wrecking the electoral college, an institution that has no equal anywhere in the world."

It is an article making the mathematics accessible to lay people. It doesn't make the math wrong.

Quote:

Or I could say that no one was stupid enough to do it our way.

You could say that. Do you have any evidence to back it up?

[rtalman]

Originally Posted by gtc

If every state adopted this system then every electoral college vote would go to the one candidate who scored the most votes nationwide.

Didn't Bush lose the nationwide vote in 2000? If so, he would have had 0 electoral college votes under this system.

Trying to determine what the outcome of previous elections would have been, had this system been in place, is difficult as the popular vote would have been different. I think people in non-swing states would have been more likely to vote (as their vote is more likely to count) and the campaign in swing states would have been different (as they would be less important).

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the popular vote tally is disputed.

You misunderstand. I spoke responding to the Maine and Nebraska model. They award their EC votes by congressional district, and the statewide popular vote winner gets the 2 EC votes reperesented by the Senate as a bonus. I would be interested to see what candidate would have won under that model, especially Nixon v. Kennedy.

[Michael Redman]

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

Geography is a meaningless variable. People can and do move from one side of the country to another at their whim. Perhaps when the country was founded and moving 100 miles was something only for special occasions for a majority of people, geography mattered, but now it is something as arbitary as hair color.

Have you traveled around this country much? Outside of cities? Geography is not meaningless.

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by tsg

Here is an article that explains pretty well why the electoral college is better for everyone.

"Experts, scholars, deep thinkers could make errors on electoral reform," Natapoff decided, "but nine-year-olds could explain to a Martian why the Yankees lost in 1960, and why it was right. And both have the same underlying abstract principle."

Nice. Good find.

[Schneibster]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

But it didn't address the problem of voting power due to number of electors.

YOU can address that, if you're worried about it; move to Montana.

[gtc]

Originally Posted by Skibum

I was thinking the same thing.

Imagine Palm Beach in 2000 only on a nationwide scale. Lawsuits in dozens (perhaps even hundreds or more than a thousand) of localities fighting for every single hanging chad and mismarked ballot following an election where the national popular vote is decided by a razor thin margin.

The law suits might not be confined to the locality where the vote was cast. Imagine a court in Idaho trying to determine whether to count a hanging chad vote from Florida in the national tally in order to determine who gets the Idaho electoral college votes.

Originally Posted by rtalman

You misunderstand. I spoke responding to the Maine and Nebraska model. ... I would be interested to see what candidate would have won under that model, especially Nixon v. Kennedy.

Sorry. Yes, I would be interested to see what would have happened as well (bearing in mind my comment about how a different system would have affected the actual votes cast).

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by tsg

Which is what, exactly?



I highly doubt any one state's population is changing fast enough to make this an issue.



It is an article making the mathematics accessible to lay people. It doesn't make the math wrong.



You could say that. Do you have any evidence to back it up?

I'll respond after the primary.

[ZenFountain]

I would imagine in a popular vote system state governments would still be responsible for counting the votes. It would not be that hard create a solution to the problem of counting ballots for federal elections across the nation either. One electronic system could be created that would be used everywhere. The voting machine would present the choices on an electronic screen but the input used to select your candidate would be a keypad. The machine would then produce two paper ballots which could be reviewed by the voter for accuracy. One ballot would go untouched and stored for preservation and the other would be counted on site, either by hand or by machine depending on the size of the precinct.

Michael Shamos, a professor at Carnegie Mellon perhaps put it best: Creating a more perfect system is only a matter of will and money. Here is an interview he gave with Dan Rather on HDNet for Rather's report The Trouble with Touch Screens.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

I'll respond after the primary.

I'm glad to see you've at least thought this out.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

"Experts, scholars, deep thinkers could make errors on electoral reform," Natapoff decided, "but nine-year-olds could explain to a Martian why the Yankees lost in 1960, and why it was right. And both have the same underlying abstract principle."

Nice. Good find.

Thanks. It's actually the paper that convinced me I was wrong in 1996. Since then, I've had to find it again about every four years or so.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by tsg

I'm glad to see you've at least thought this out.

Don't be rude.

Quote:

Which is what, exactly?

That because each State has unproportional numbers of electors, your vote has a different power (due to the number of voters that each electoral vote represents) depending on where you live.

Quote:

I highly doubt any one state's population is changing fast enough to make this an issue.

The argument was that you district each region to make each "group" competitive. This does nothing to change the issue regarding States, and it is also silly and nigh impossible to try to balance every group.

Quote:

It is an article making the mathematics accessible to lay people. It doesn't make the math wrong.

I am saying that they haven't made all the right assumptions in their math.

The pointing out of bias was just for fun.

Quote:

You could say that. Do you have any evidence to back it up?

No, that's why making either statement is biased.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Originally Posted by Schneibster

YOU can address that, if you're worried about it; move to Montana.

Um, I wasn't the one claiming to have a mathematical proof that the electoral college is good.

My way of addressing it is to get rid of it.

[Tony]

Originally Posted by New Ager

It's a bad idea. It would make all small states inconsequential forever.

Good. We're tired of you freeloaders stealing our tax money.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

That because each State has unproportional numbers of electors, your vote has a different power (due to the number of voters that each electoral vote represents) depending on where you live.

Except for a handful of states with the minimum one Representative in the House, I think you'll find the number of electors is pretty evenly distributed based on population.

Quote:

The argument was that you district each region to make each "group" competitive. This does nothing to change the issue regarding States, and it is also silly and nigh impossible to try to balance every group.

That isn't his argument at all. It's a model to make the math clear. Ideally, to make each vote count the most, the districts would be as balanced as possible. He isn't suggesting it actually be done.

Quote:

I am saying that they haven't made all the right assumptions in their math.

Such as?

Quote:

No, that's why making either statement is biased.

No. He has provided evidence for his.

[tsg]

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

My way of addressing it is to get rid of it.

First you have to show the problem actually exists.