M-13 - How could we improve the American electoral system?

[Barbara Kennedy]

I figured since my other thread about why people did or did not vote was turning into a discussion on this, that I'd just start a new thread for it.

Mods may of course delete if it is too close to the same subject.

Same rules here
BE POLITE.

[HollywoodBob]

I have several suggestions. They're all conditional though.

If we're talking about campaigning, then I'd say make airtime for commercials on TV and Radio free, and require equal time for each candidate. Campaign materials like bumper stickers and posters should be sold not given away, let supporters pay to display their support. Campaign staffers should work as volunteers as well. Minimize the cost of campaigning and there's little worry of campaign contributors "purchasing" an elected official.

Reforming behavior of elected officials, once again remove money from the equation, take away the large sums of pay and retirements benefits, and outlaw the ellicit contributions from PACs, and we end up with politicians that can't be in it for the money since there is no money to be gained.

Gaining voter turn out, I doubt there's much of a way to do this, incentive programs would cost billions, though, we could consider a tax deduction bonus for confirmed voters, I know several people who something like that would encourage them to vote. Oregon became an all absentee state, and voting turn out had a massive upswing. In 2000 more then 65% of registered voters actually voted. Perhaps national absentee voting would help the problem.

As for the Electoral college I think this should be either modified or abolished. Either give every state the same number of electoral votes, or make it all about the popular vote.

Also I think there should be something done to convert the US into a true one person-one vote democracy, rather then the republic that it is. With technology and communication systems as proliferant as they have become there must be some way to allow the public to make the decisions that affect us.

-HollywoodBob

[hesdead-dealwithit]

Absolutely, abolish the electoral college. It's outdated and undemocratic.

Also I think there should be something done to convert the US into a true one person-one vote democracy, rather then the republic that it is. With technology and communication systems as proliferant as they have become there must be some way to allow the public to make the decisions that affect us.
Well, California has the beginning of that. Frankly, though, I don't trust the average person (nor myself) to know enough about the entire range of politics to make informed decisions; frankly, no person without a PhD in economics should be making economic decisions. Representative democracy makes the representative the one with the lobbyists, and I think that's how it should be.

[Alastor D]

As I understand it the biggest problem here is that the electors vote only once. Which means that if there are more than two candidates, one of them may be elected with less than half of the given votes. But I may be wrong, I've never studied US politics in detail.
In some other countries the election is repeated until someone gets a majority of the votes. Either the electors continue until this happens, or where there is no electoral college there is a second public election between the two who got the most votes the first time.

[Hagrid442]

I don't advocate abolishing the electoral college. Doing so will result in no attention at all given to rural, sparsely populated states, like those in the Rockies and Great Plains. I think it should be done proportionately. Small states get less electoral votes, but more than they do now. I'm too tired to think of good numbers, but the gist is, if a state has a 100 votes, and a candidate wins 54% of the vote, they get 54 electoral votes, and their opponent gets 46.

[FlyingPhoenix]

Out of curiousity why keep those voteguys? Sorry, I don't have the proper translation to "Wahlmänner" but my point is that in US they vote in a state for his or her voteguy who in the end vote the president.
Uhm right here in germany you vote for your party and its not seperated into the single State's. If we vote for a new parlament we all vote our party.
In my town its we use an electronic vote system something you don't have in all parts of Germany. Its pretty easy you just have to push two buttons and thats is.
I think it called direct-vote what we have here but I don't think in US its direct, its rather in-direct and there I think lies the problem. Because each state becomes a certain number of "Vote-guys" but if in New York for example life 10 million they have 10 vote-guys (I don't know how many its just an example) but Idaho who has let say 10 Million too has 20 vote-guys because its from the landscape larger.
I for once think its important who has the most citizen and not the largest State.

At leasts thats how it comes over here.

[OrbitingElle]

I think America desperately needs to get rid of the representatives. The last election here proves that: Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency. In what bizarro world does this make sense?

I am from Texas, which unfortunately means that the current system renders my (devoutly democrat) vote completely, 100% useless. George W. Bush is from Texas, and was governor here before being elected. There's no chance that he won't get a majority vote here, which means Texas as a whole will be voting for Bush no matter what I do.

If we took that away and made every vote count equally toward the same pool in the end, I would be able to make my (miniscule) voice count. As it stands, I could show up on election day voting for PeeWee Herman and it would be the same as voting for Kerry or Nader or *shudder* Al Sharpton.

[OrbitingElle]

Also I think there should be something done to convert the US into a true one person-one vote democracy, rather then the republic that it is. With technology and communication systems as proliferant as they have become there must be some way to allow the public to make the decisions that affect us.

-HollywoodBob

I agree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY, however it just occured to me that as long as America exists, this will never happen. The reason? These very representatives would never propose a governmental restructuring that would leave them out of a job. Any bill suggesting it would be voted into oblivion immediately.

[HollywoodBob]

I don't advocate abolishing the electoral college. Doing so will result in no attention at all given to rural, sparsely populated states, like those in the Rockies and Great Plains. I think it should be done proportionately. Small states get less electoral votes, but more than they do now. I'm too tired to think of good numbers, but the gist is, if a state has a 100 votes, and a candidate wins 54% of the vote, they get 54 electoral votes, and their opponent gets 46.Well see the electoral college doesn't work that way. They get 100% of the votes and they don't even need 51% of the vote. In a common election there are 3 or more candidates (it depends on how many independents) It's conceivable that if an indy had as much support as a dem or rep, then the states winner could get buy with 34% of the popular vote. It hasn't happened yet, but it is possible. Usually the margins at 49%/47%/4%. I still don't like that people who get less then 50% vote in a state winning the state.

I agree with you WHOLEHEARTEDLY, however it just occured to me that as long as America exists, this will never happen. The reason? These very representatives would never propose a governmental restructuring that would leave them out of a job. Any bill suggesting it would be voted into oblivion immediately.That's the biggest problem, not only do they get to decide on how much pay and retirement they get, as well as how long they remain in office, they also control any and all changes to the system. Wouldn't it be nice if we could all decide how much we got paid and how long we could work?

-HollywoodBob

[Bhodi]

HB, you have a lot of interesting ideas here...

If we're talking about campaigning, then I'd say make airtime for commercials on TV and Radio free, and require equal time for each candidate.

Though I love the idea of eliminating the need for enormous campaign coffers to purchase advertising time (the most expensive element of campaigning, I believe), this would prove problemmatic from a First Amendment standpoint... Protecting political speech lies at the heart of the First Amendment, thus I could see candidates quickly challenging the legality of such a restriction... Furthermore, in order to truly make your idea work, we would need to either eliminate or restrict the advertising conducted by "independent support groups" that are [theoretically] not associated with political campaigns (the 'soft money' advertising that [technically] doesn't advocate for one candidate over another [e.g. "Kerry is just another Massachusetts lib," "Bush is interested in helping the rich, not the average American" or the like])... These groups would [b]definitely[/b] challenge a restriction on advertising as an attack on protected [political] speech... Thus, while I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure a restriction could be structured in such a manner to survive First Amendment scrutiny...


[QUOTE=HollywoodBob]Campaign materials like bumper stickers and posters should be sold not given away, let supporters pay to display their support.[/Quote]

Not sure what this would accomplish, but it's certainly an intriguing concept... It would certainly limit those ridiculous "vote for _" signs posted on various lawns and along the side of the road (a rather pointless eyesore, IMHO)... From a savings standpoint, I would imagine that the printing costs for these items are among the lowest line items in a campaign budget...


[QUOTE=HollywoodBob]Campaign staffers should work as volunteers as well.[/Quote]

I think most of them already do, actually... It's only the high-level staffers that receive compensation for their efforts... Heck, I've seen adverts for "grassroots organizers" in the local papers here for weeks, seeking unpaid volunteers to help with the Democratic campaign throughout the region...


[QUOTE=HollywoodBob]Minimize the cost of campaigning and there's little worry of campaign contributors "purchasing" an elected official.[/Quote]

Well, you would likely reduce the concerns about contributors 'buying access,' but not eliminate these concerns altogether... Perhaps another idea might be to put a cap on how much a candidate for public office may spend on a campaign... e.g. Those running for President have access to $50 million, to be spent in whatever manner they deem most approriate (advertising, printing, web site design and hosting, travel costs, etc.), but cannot spend more than this amount...

Of course, then you run into a whole bunch of other problems... Who does the accounting to ensure that candidates are abiding by the cap? What about a candidate like Forbes, who wants to spend his own money on his campaign -- do you restrict that as well? If so, would that type of restriction withstand First Amendment scrutiny? What about the problem of challengers versus incumbents? Does a cap give the incumbent an unfair advantage? How do you deal with the primary season? Do you give money to each candidate in a primary, then another pot of money to the primary winner for the general election? If so, couldn't this present an unfair advantage in the unlikely event that a party decides to unite around one candidate and each primary contender uses his/her funds to purchase ads attacking the party's eventual challenger? Also, you would [once again] need to figure out how to restrict or eliminate spending by independent support groups, which raises the First Amendment issue again...


[QUOTE=HollywoodBob]Reforming behavior of elected officials, once again remove money from the equation, take away the large sums of pay and retirements benefits, and outlaw the ellicit contributions from PACs, and we end up with politicians that can't be in it for the money since there is no money to be gained.[/Quote]

I think a better idea is to simply enact term limits for all elected officials... I think this would go a long way toward shaking up the system inside the beltway... Salaries need to remain somewhat attractive to entice 'average Americans' to serve their country in office, but we need the term limits in place to push the 'career politicians' out...


[QUOTE=HollywoodBob]Gaining voter turn out, I doubt there's much of a way to do this, incentive programs would cost billions, though, we could consider a tax deduction bonus for confirmed voters, I know several people who something like that would encourage them to vote. Oregon became an all absentee state, and voting turn out had a massive upswing. In 2000 more then 65% of registered voters actually voted. Perhaps national absentee voting would help the problem.[/Quote]

I've got an idea for this along the lines of an 'all-absentee' system... If we want maximum voter turnout, why not utilize an existing time that everyone in America is already mobilized to act? Tax time! Include the ballot for federal office with one's federal tax info, and ballots for state and local offices with one's state tax info... Move the elections back from November to sometime in late April or early May (thus allowing time for ballots to be processed following the April 15th filing deadline)...


[QUOTE=HollywoodBob]As for the Electoral college I think this should be either modified or abolished. Either give every state the same number of electoral votes, or make it all about the popular vote.[/Quote]

I'm confused here... If you give every state the same number of electoral votes, you're giving unequal weight/influence to smaller, less populated states... This is moving away from making it "all about the popular vote."

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with the electoral college...


[QUOTE=HollywoodBob]Also I think there should be something done to convert the US into a true one person-one vote democracy, rather then the republic that it is. With technology and communication systems as proliferant as they have become there must be some way to allow the public to make the decisions that affect us.[/QUOTE]

But I find it hard to disagree with you here... Somehow, the democratic purity of a system based upon the popular vote just seems more palatable than the current electoral college system...

Ultimately, we need to figure out some way of stopping the runaway train that election spending has become, as it's the taxpayers that always get burned in the end... I'm not sure how you do it without bumping up against the First Amendment, though...

[HollywoodBob]

HB, you have a lot of interesting ideas here...

Though I love the idea of eliminating the need for enormous campaign coffers to purchase advertising time....<SNIP>...which raises the First Amendment issue again...I'm confused as to how giving away airtime and not allowing MASSIVE campaign contributions can be a First Amendment issue? I don't see telling corporations they can't spend millions of dollars to put a puppet in office is a infringement of free speech.


I think a better idea is to simply enact term limits for all elected officials... I think this would go a long way toward shaking up the system inside the beltway... Salaries need to remain somewhat attractive to entice 'average Americans' to serve their country in office, but we need the term limits in place to push the 'career politicians' out...Term limits are good, but you still end up with people that are in office only to exploit their positions for money. The "average American" would likely be content with having their family expenses paid for 6 years in exchange for serving their country. And I think we'd see more average Americans running for office because there would be fewer people seeking to exploit their positions.


I've got an idea for this along the lines of an 'all-absentee' system... If we want maximum voter turnout, why not utilize an existing time that everyone in America is already mobilized to act? Tax time! Include the ballot for federal office with one's federal tax info, and ballots for state and local offices with one's state tax info... Move the elections back from November to sometime in late April or early May (thus allowing time for ballots to be processed following the April 15th filing deadline)...Well that might make more people vote, and I'm sure people would be thinking much more about the promises to cut taxes too. :D Though there is the chance that peoples accountants would be voting for them. :)


I'm confused here... If you give every state the same number of electoral votes, you're giving unequal weight/influence to smaller, less populated states... This is moving away from making it "all about the popular vote."

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with the electoral college...You're right it would unbalance population : vote ratios. I have a big problem with a system that awards all the votes from a state to a candidate who the majority of the state did not vote for. As was the case with Florida and other states in the 2000 election. :(


But I find it hard to disagree with you here... Somehow, the democratic purity of a system based upon the popular vote just seems more palatable than the current electoral college system...It may not happen often that the popular vote and the electoral votes don't coincide, but in my opinion any time they don't, then it proves the electoral college system is flawed. :(

Ultimately, we need to figure out some way of stopping the runaway train that election spending has become, as it's the taxpayers that always get burned in the end... I'm not sure how you do it without bumping up against the First Amendment, though...But as we've covered in similar threads, these changes have to be made by those who are the ones who loose out if the changes are made. I strongly doubt any career politician who has been living off the fat of the land, and acquiring large sums of money from PACs will ever be willing to do away with these practices. :( I'm not sure how the First Amendment is involved, freedom of speech has little to do with the blatent exploitation of political office.

-HollywoodBob

[Wab]

As I understand it the biggest problem here is that the electors vote only once. Which means that if there are more than two candidates, one of them may be elected with less than half of the given votes. But I may be wrong, I've never studied US politics in detail.
In some other countries the election is repeated until someone gets a majority of the votes. Either the electors continue until this happens, or where there is no electoral college there is a second public election between the two who got the most votes the first time.

Or in preferential systems like Australia's (the best thing about Aust politics) the repeat voting is dealth with by preferential voting.

[daniel4hp]

Reviving this thread...

My two biggest problems with American's presidential election system are, 1) the first past the post voting system, and 2) the electoral college. These combine to create one of the most unfair democratic systems possible.

First Past The Post voting system

In the first-past-the-post system we use here, if three candidates are running, you must have over 33% of the vote to win. If there are four candidates, you only need over 25%. Five candidates, it drops to over 20%. The liklihood of someone winning with 34% of the vote is unlikely, but the liklihood of someone winning with 40% or 45% is not so unlikely. It is quite common for someone to win with 49% of the vote -- still less than half.

This means that the president does not need to be supported by a majority of voters. Third party candidates can take votes away from the major candidates, resulting in a less popular candidate winning. To me, this is not fair. Some countries use a preferential system, where you number your choices on the ballet. If no candidate recieves a majority (or other specified quota), the votes for the candidates who recieved the least are redistributed based on their #2 vote. This is continued until one candidate has met the quota.

In France, in the case of no candidate winning over 50%, they hold a second election between the top two. Both guarentee that the person winning the seat were actually voted for by over half the country. You don't have 34% telling the other 66% what to do.


The Electoral College

Now, combine this with the electoral college. In the electoral college, a candidate only must recieve a plurality of a state to get 100% of that state's votes. Then, within the electoral college, a candidate only needs to recieve a plurality. So, if you're a Republican in a heavilly Democratic state, or a Democrat in a heavilly Republican state, your vote is essentially thrown out, because every electoral vote for that state goes to the most popular candidate in that state.

So, with the electoral college, you have two first-past-the-post systems. The first is within each state, the second within the electoral college. A candidate must win a plurality of the votes in enough states to give him a plurality of the electoral college votes. If there are 3 candidates, that means he must recieve 34% of the votes in enough states to give him 34% of the electoral college votes. According to my calculator, that means that a candidate in a 3-person race could win with as little as 12% of the popular vote.

Yes, 12% of the popular vote in a race between three candidates. It is theoretically possible in the United States for someone to be elected president if he is only voted for by 12% of the population. If there are four candidates, that number drops to 7%. Five candidates? 3%. Even if you eliminate all third party candidates and have a race between only two persons, one can still become president with 26% of the vote.

Actually, these numbers are not quite accurate, because the number of electoral college votes is not quite proportional to the number of people in the state. However, this disproportion is not huge, and the numbers above should give you a pretty good idea of just how little a candidate needs.


Example

Let's make a mini-US to demonstrate. There are four states: A has 12% of the population, B 18%, C 30%, and D 40%. The electoral college consists of 62 votes: A has 9, B 12, C 18, and D 23. To win, a candidate must have 32 votes in the electoral college. If a candidate wins states A and D, they can win the election.

In State A, Candidate 1 gets 51% and candidate 2 gets 49%. In State B, #1 gets 1% and #2 gets 99%. State C is the same as State B, and State D is the same as State A. Candidate 1 has won A and D -- he has the needed 32 electoral votes. How much of the popular vote did he recieve? 27%. And this was using whole numbers. In reality, a candidate only needs 50.01% of the vote to win a state. And, in theory, there's no guarentee that a candidate will even get 1%.

Unlikely? Of course. Would this ever happen? Probably not. But, let's say we change the percentages of states B and C to 25% for Candidate 1 and 75% for Candidate 2. #1 still wins with under 39% of the popular vote. And remember, this is between two candidates only. Add in one or two more reasonably popular candidates, and it seems quite likely that you could see a candidate winning with around 25% of the vote. And, obviously, it has the potential to go much lower than that. Not a pleasant thought.

[Serenity Wynd]

I agree with ALOT of what ya'll said. I'm from Fort Worth, Texas. So I understand where you are coming from on the whole "bush home factor thing". They should just simplify things and make every vote count the same. Just have the states add it up and give it to whoever adds up all the states votes and go from there.
On a similar note...
I would've liked to have had COLIN POWELL for president, he has a flawless history and record for serving our country, he has genuine values, he has the intelliegence and bravery to plan out and implement what needs to be done to better our country. Shame he had all those racial threats to his family and own life....:(
Also, Bill Clinton was a decent president, we actually had some surplus of funds! Anyone remember the additional $300 or more dollars that came around the time that Bush was elected, sure wasn't a gift from him. Not to mention the economy was better during his presidency, I'll give him the fact that 911 occurred.
Just my own personal opinion.

[claudius]

Listen up here people: though many may hate it, the electoral college is absolutely necessary for the elections of our presidents. If you simply use the popular vote, the candidates will campaign only in large cities, as I believe someone has already mentioned. In a situation like this, all rural parts of America are taken out of the equation. And for all of you non-Californians out there, how would you like the state of California (historically the most liberal part of the country) to elect the president every year? That is what would happen because of its massive population--and it is also the reason that Gore won the popular vote but not the election back in 2000.

However, the fact that a candidate could win, say 40-some percent of a state's votes, yet win over all of its electors, is disturbing--and unfair. To deal with this, to give people across the country more of a vote without abandoning a very necessary electorate system, electors need to be decided by congressional districts. After all, the number of a state's electoral votes is represented by its number of congressional districts, plus their two senators--so why not let each elector represent a district, just like those in the House? Someone also mentioned that each state get an equal number of votes. While this alone is absurd, it does even the field when added to a narrowly defined electoral college system.

Someone from Texas mentioned that their liberal vote will carry almost no weight in an election involving George W. Bush. They are absolutely right about this. However, the reformed system that I have just described would make it more possible for the opposition (John Kerry, for example) to rake in at least some electoral votes, even though he would not carry the entire state (and, therefore, not the two electoral votes provided by the state's senators). Granted, Kerry could lose every congressional district 51 percent to 49 percent and take in no votes at all--but, hey, that's still more fair than the current system, isn't it? In such a case, Bush would be rewarded for winning not only each congressional district, but also the state as a whole--rather than simply taking all in one lump-sum.

The problems with this system? Gerrymandering. For those of you who don't know what this is, it's when politicians redraw congressional districts to fit their partisan ambitions of getting one of their own elected to a House seat, or in this hypothetical case, the presidency. But with well-informed voters, this can be avoided.

One last thing: for those of you who mentioned getting rid of our representatives and doing away with our republic, what's that about? Why would we abandon something that has kept us rolling for so long?

[Dagmar]

I have several suggestions. They're all conditional though.

If we're talking about campaigning, then I'd say make airtime for commercials on TV and Radio free, and require equal time for each candidate. Campaign materials like bumper stickers and posters should be sold not given away, let supporters pay to display their support. Campaign staffers should work as volunteers as well. Minimize the cost of campaigning and there's little worry of campaign contributors "purchasing" an elected official.
I totally agree with this. We shouldn't have only the wealthiest, egotistical maniacs running for president. (It should be open to all egotistical maniacs :D).


Reforming behavior of elected officials, once again remove money from the equation, take away the large sums of pay and retirements benefits, and outlaw the ellicit contributions from PACs, and we end up with politicians that can't be in it for the money since there is no money to be gained.
Again I totally agree, PAC's and lobbyist are the hand of the devil.



Gaining voter turn out, I doubt there's much of a way to do this, incentive programs would cost billions, though, we could consider a tax deduction bonus for confirmed voters, I know several people who something like that would encourage them to vote. Oregon became an all absentee state, and voting turn out had a massive upswing. In 2000 more then 65% of registered voters actually voted. Perhaps national absentee voting would help the problem.
As long as dead people in Chicago can still vote I'm not sure about this.



As for the Electoral college I think this should be either modified or abolished. Either give every state the same number of electoral votes, or make it all about the popular vote.
Sorry I totally disagree with this. I think the Electoral college is greatly misunderstood, (everyone snoozes during poli sci). The problem with the popular vote, and this is why our country is not a pure democracy but rather a republican democracy, is that the little guy doesn't get a voice. For example if out of 100 people over half feel that blacks shouldn't attend schools with whites then we would still have segregation in schools. Yes I know that this was resolved through the courts and not in general elections (at first) but it does demonstrate the problems with going with a total popular system.



Also I think there should be something done to convert the US into a true one person-one vote democracy, rather then the republic that it is. With technology and communication systems as proliferant as they have become there must be some way to allow the public to make the decisions that affect us.

-HollywoodBob
agin see above. There are reasons that we are a republic and not a true democracy, I don't think that because of technology we can now just chunk the system. See the above post.

[red_fairy]

We do not need the electoral college anymore. When the country was first created travel was hard and people were hard to keep track of. Now that we have so much improved our communication and transportation systems, the electoral college is unnessacary.

[Amadeus]

Electoral college itself is just ridiculous. I have always been against the system and when I finally figured out how the voting system in US worked (as opposed to other nations) I was appalled. Electoral college, is certainly less democratic than voting system based solely on the number of votes. I am 100% for abolishment of electoral college. Election should solely based on the number of votes in my opinion. (I live in CA BTW)


Listen up here people: though many may hate it, the electoral college is absolutely necessary for the elections of our presidents. If you simply use the popular vote, the candidates will campaign only in large cities, as I believe someone has already mentioned. In a situation like this, all rural parts of America are taken out of the equation. And for all of you non-Californians out there, how would you like the state of California (historically the most liberal part of the country) to elect the president every year? That is what would happen because of its massive population--and it is also the reason that Gore won the popular vote but not the election back in 2000. With the current system, the candidates have to win in only big 5~6 states in order to win the entire election. Electoral college actually encourages campaigning only in the larger cities.


Someone also mentioned that each state get an equal number of votes. While this alone is absurd, it does even the field when added to a narrowly defined electoral college system.
I agree. That was already under discussion over 200 years ago, and agreed that it was not the optimal solution.


Either give every state the same number of electoral votes, or make it all about the popular vote.

I highly disagree with the idea of every state having equal representation (VA plan vs. NJ plan arguments). Gives unfair advantage/power to certain people over others... In this case, states with fewer population such as RI, over CA or NY.

[Dagmar]

We do not need the electoral college anymore. When the country was first created travel was hard and people were hard to keep track of. Now that we have so much improved our communication and transportation systems, the electoral college is unnessacary.
Ah but we have so many who choose not to participate. Untill we can have 100% voter turn out I don't think abolishing the electoral college will change much. In fact I think it will hurt. Why because as stated earlier, only the most populated areas will decide elections. The reason we have representatives in the House and 2 Senators per state is to help with the argument that is being made against the electoral college. The House gets the closest to a popular vote, the Senate speaks for a minority that would otherwise not be heard.

[Amadeus]

Ah but we have so many who choose not to participate. Untill we can have 100% voter turn out I don't think abolishing the electoral college will change much. In fact I think it will hurt. Why because as stated earlier, only the most populated areas will decide elections. The reason we have representatives in the House and 2 Senators per state is to help with the argument that is being made against the electoral college. The House gets the closest to a popular vote, the Senate speaks for a minority that would otherwise not be heard..

The reason I am against the electoral vote is mainly because of the fact that even if a candidate wins with 50%+1 majority in a state, it gets ALL the votes from that state. I do not think that is a fair representation of the nation's interests. As for the most populated area getting to decide elections, I think the electoral college actually is worse in that aspect. Candidates have to win in just few big states such as CA, VA, TX, NY and one or two more in order to win the election. That is not even 1/5 of the states of the nation.

[HollywoodBob]

The reason I am against the electoral vote is mainly because of the fact that even if a candidate wins with 50%+1 majority in a state, it gets ALL the votes from that state. I do not think that is a fair representation of the nation's interests. As for the most populated area getting to decide elections, I think the electoral college actually is worse in that aspect. Candidates have to win in just few big states such as CA, VA, TX, NY and one or two more in order to win the election. That is not even 1/5 of the states of the nation.Sometimes they don't even have to have that much of a majority to win a state. Some times it's 45% of the vote or lower depending on the number of candidates who get votes in that state. In 2000, all of the big states got regular stops from each candidate. Most of the small states saw them blow through the biggest city once, and then were never seen again. If a candidate wants my vote I want them to atleast know the conditions my state are in so they can make some empty promise to garner my vote. :D

You wouldn't need 100% voter turn out in order to abolish the electoral college, as it is a scant few people actually decide the president, so why not atleast be honest and open about it. Stop saying they won this state, and won that state, just say that this many people voted for them and leave it at that. And who ever has the higher number wins. I think that's why politicians like the electoral college, it makes people who don't pay attention to the numbers think that more people picked the winner than actually did. If people really knew that voter turn was abyssmal and only a handful of people were deciding who the president was, I think it might spur some voters to go out and vote. Doing away with the electoral college may not change much, but it's a start.

-HollywoodBob

[Knut4UrThghts]

[QUOTE=OrbitingElle]I think America desperately needs to get rid of the representatives. The last election here proves that: Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the presidency. In what bizarro world does this make sense?

QUOTE]


You know, I keep seeing this, but I was certain that Gore did not win the popular vote. I am going to have to look into this. Thanks for the tidbit.

[claudius]

<quote>
As for the most populated area getting to decide elections, I think the electoral college actually is worse in that aspect. Candidates have to win in just few big states such as CA, VA, TX, NY and one or two more in order to win the election. That is not even 1/5 of the states of the nation.</quote>

This is not true. These large states that you speak of, which are mostly controlled by the Democrats, are off-set by the majority of the other states that typically vote Republican. If you take away the electoral college, Gore would have won simply with New York, California, and a few other states; however, with the electoral college, Gore got punished with a narrow loss for his lack of support nationwide. Remember: each state gets at least one electoral vote represented by its population and an additional two for its number of Senators. This, in a minor way, spreads votes out so that a candidate can benefit by spreading his message across the country--a great way to keep campaigning away from a few regional areas, don't you think?

In the electoral system, the key then is not populated areas, but "battleground states." For example, Bush has conceded the heavily populated state of California this election year to the Democrats (for they would have won it anyway); instead, he is focusing more on states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan--all of which only have 10-15 electoral votes a piece (compared to California's 50+) and are balanced about 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans. To prove my point even further, if the electoral college encouraged campaigning in highly populated areas, somebody please answer me this: Why is it that 2000's winner was not the man who sat down on California and New York, then banked the election on Florida, but instead the man who piled up as many states as he could? Also, if the country had been using the popular vote in 2000, Gore would have won--with less than half the regional support as his opponent! Which is more unfair? Think about it: ideological hotspots around the country could elect the president every year with the popular vote system.

Just a reminder: though I'm entirely against the system of popular vote, the electoral college does indeed need to be reformed--but it must not be abolished.

[PrtVeela]

<quote>
As for the most populated area getting to decide elections, I think the electoral college actually is worse in that aspect. Candidates have to win in just few big states such as CA, VA, TX, NY and one or two more in order to win the election. That is not even 1/5 of the states of the nation.</quote>

This is not true. These large states that you speak of, which are mostly controlled by the Democrats, are off-set by the majority of the other states that typically vote Republican. If you take away the electoral college, Gore would have won simply with New York, California, and a few other states; however, with the electoral college, Gore got punished with a narrow loss for his lack of support nationwide. Remember: each state gets at least one electoral vote represented by its population and an additional two for its number of Senators. This, in a minor way, spreads votes out so that a candidate can benefit by spreading his message across the country--a great way to keep campaigning away from a few regional areas, don't you think?

In the electoral system, the key then is not populated areas, but "battleground states." For example, Bush has conceded the heavily populated state of California this election year to the Democrats (for they would have won it anyway); instead, he is focusing more on states like Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Michigan--all of which only have 10-15 electoral votes a piece (compared to California's 50+) and are balanced about 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans. To prove my point even further, if the electoral college encouraged campaigning in highly populated areas, somebody please answer me this: Why is it that 2000's winner was not the man who sat down on California and New York, then banked the election on Florida, but instead the man who piled up as many states as he could? Also, if the country had been using the popular vote in 2000, Gore would have won--with less than half the regional support as his opponent! Which is more unfair? Think about it: ideological hotspots around the country could elect the president every year with the popular vote system.

Just a reminder: though I'm entirely against the system of popular vote, the electoral college does indeed need to be reformed--but it must not be abolished.

I disagree with you whole heartedly here, the electoral college if anything is the major problem and not the popular vote.

The country, did use the popular vote in 2000, Gore did win the popular vote. And if you are willing to concede that some 500,000 votes is too little to win by, then surley a couple electoral votes would be more unfair would it not?

The election was banked on Flordia because of the electoral college, not because of the popular vote. The popular vote wasn't the issue in the 2000 election, the electoral college was. And under your theory of 'ideaological hotspots' wouldn't these be the 'battleground states'? Because of the battle over conservative and democratic? Therefore wouldn't the electoral college promote exactly what you are trying to avoid?

And another thing, the electoral college encourages campaining in a few regional areas, because of the 'battleground states' that you talk of. If the red/blue states are already figured out, then all the candidates have to worry about are those few states that could go either way. If there was only the popular vote, the candidates really would have to make a concious effort to gain a 'regional' vote, because no candidate can win based on one state alone with the popular vote. We see that one candidate can win on one state alone with the electoral college? This seems more unfair then anything else.

How could one be entirley against the system of popular vote? With the electoral college in place, we really lose our voice in the election. With the popular vote at least American's can really feel like they have attributed to the election. If you ask me voter turnout would increase if American's felt like they had a more direct role.

[daniel4hp]

In the electoral system, the key then is not populated areas, but "battleground states."
The electoral college makes the entire system revolve around states, rather than revolve around voters. Without the electoral college, you wouldn't be trying to win states, big or small, you'd simply be trying to get a majority of people in this country to support you. Sure, this may mean that people in less populated areas would be ignored, but to me, that's actually better than how it is with the electoral college.

With the electoral college, as you say, it comes down to battleground states. These are often not particularly huge states, but they are states taht are considered major enough to swing the election depending which way they go. The majority of people do not live in battleground states. Whether you live in a huge state like California, assumed to go for Kerry, a big state like Texas, assumed to go for Bush, or a tiny state like Maine, assumed to go for Kerry, you are ignored in this system.

I find it very sad that so many people in this country are totally ignored in the electoral college system, simply because of the state they happen to live in. A Republican living in California or a Democrat living in Texas is totally ignored. Candidates do not care about their views. Huge parts of the country are totally ignored, because they are assumed to vote a particular way. And there's no guarentee that the number of people in battleground states will be higher than the number of people totally ignored. At least without the electoral college, you have to appeal to a majority of voters. In the electoral college, every voter counts, not just those in a few states.

[Amadeus]

Also, if the country had been using the popular vote in 2000, Gore would have won--with less than half the regional support as his opponent! Which is more unfair? Think about it: ideological hotspots around the country could elect the president every year with the popular vote system.

I think the results of election should be based mostly on what majority of the population thinks, not regions. I think it is not fair if RI has as much 'weight' as CA or VA in terms of regional support - the numbers just don't work that way. That gives too much power to RI residents while taking too much power away from residents of CA/VA.

Besides, election of 2000 was not the ONLY time that Florida had 'trouble' counting up votes.

And another thing, the electoral college encourages campaining in a few regional areas, because of the 'battleground states' that you talk of. If the red/blue states are already figured out, then all the candidates have to worry about are those few states that could go either way. If there was only the popular vote, the candidates really would have to make a concious effort to gain a 'regional' vote, because no candidate can win based on one state alone with the popular vote. We see that one candidate can win on one state alone with the electoral college? This seems more unfair then anything else. I agree with you 100% on this, PrtVeela.


I really think electoral college system discourages higher voter turnout, because people feel like their votes won't matter anyway. At least that is the way I feel. Why should I even bother to vote if it's going to be 'filtered' by the states on the way to the total count?

[Draugr]

I can't believe this Claudius fellow, I say we make his vote worth half, and mine worth double... how does that sound guys? Similar to Claudius's statement pretty much, no? lol

I think presidents should be chosen by the populace on a true democratic form, direct vote. Not this republic style voting system which is rather ridiculous most of the time. Our government needs a good hall over again. To much big business involvement and oligarchy style politics.

[Amadeus]

I can't believe this Claudius fellow, I say we make his vote worth half, and mine worth double... how does that sound guys? Similar to Claudius's statement pretty much, no? lol

I think presidents should be chosen by the populace on a true democratic form, direct vote. Not this republic style voting system which is rather ridiculous most of the time. Our government needs a good hall over again. To much big business involvement and oligarchy style politics.Draugr, although I do agree with the point you are making about direct/popular vote, everyone is to be respectful towards others, whether you agree with their argument or not

[Draugr]

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, just trying to make a point.

[Amadeus]

I wasn't trying to be disrespectful, just trying to make a point.I was referring to the point you were making about worth of votes of you and claudius.
Sorry if I misunderstood you.

[claudius]

Clearly you guys don't understand me...and clearly you all think you're smarter than our founding fathers.

I can't remember a lot of the stuff that was brought up by you guys and I'm not going to go through it all again...so I'll simply defend what I remember....

Someone said that battleground states were the real ideological hotspots. My question then is: How can they be so when they are called battleground states because they are split 50/50?! Also, about Gore's election campaign being banked on Florida, I never denied that it was because of the electoral college, nor did I deny that it wasn't what I wished to avoid in the popular vote system (focus on heavily populated areas). Because, the fact of the matter is that it was dirty how Florida essentially decided the election--and, yes, that is something I wish to be avoided. However, just because Florida happens to be a battleground state and just happens to have a large number of people does not mean that every battleground state is loaded with electoral votes.

About the population vs. regional voting, I believe I have went over this...if you would just read all of what I posted. I AM NOT ENTIRELY FOR EITHER! I believe I laid out an electoral colllege system plan that would compromise between the two; it would give more voice to conservatives in California, etc. etc., and, at the same time, ensure that candidates travel the entire country. And, under my proposed system, there would be no "red and blue" states, because each candidate would think they had a chance to go into an opposition state and perhaps pull out some support--which might actually count for something! Please read what I have already posted; it may actually end up making sense.

And my vote worth half? Nope, Mr. Draugr, even a guy like you can't take that away from me.

[daniel4hp]

I was referring to the point you were making about worth of votes of you and claudius.
I think all Drauger was trying to say is that under the electoral college system, some people's votes count more than other people's. I don't think he was trying to make any statement about the value of his his opinion or his ideas as opposed to Claudius'.

[Draugr]

I was directly comparing what he was saying to a more personal basis.

If you were to make one places votes worth more, but cut down the other places worth its like saying why not double my vote, and cut yours in half, because in reality, that is what the electoral voting system does now.

Meh, maybe I shouldn't try correlating such things, lol.

Do to the great advances in technology and the improvement of the education system we really do not need an electoral college to decide who becomes president.

The reality why they had it was so each state could have a say, but now its cutting out what the people of each state say. Our founding forefathers weren't always right and could not see the advancement of communications and such back in their day. They were only human.

[claudius]

Let me take this opportunity to try to make my argument more clear....

Draugr, you are upset that some votes are worth more than others--and you have good reason to be. I, on the other hand, am equally upset that certain regions are worth more than others. Because of an excess of one of these elements in our country's electoral system, the other will be greatly diminished. You see, as things are now, the electoral college reigns and many votes essentially go uncounted. However, if we were to switch to an all-out popular vote, California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. would be dominating every election. What is needed is some kind of a compromise. The answer? As I have already stated, electors need to be swayed among congressional districts! This gives more worth to EVERY vote and it would create incentive for John Kerry, for example, to go into Texas this summer to try to win an electoral vote or two, or George Bush to go into California to find some good conservative turnout.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

Clearly you guys don't understand me...and clearly you all think you're smarter than our founding fathers.

Our founding fathers never anticipated the two-party system we've developed over the centuries. They expected most elections wouldn't yield a majority, and would be thrown to the House of Representatives. If they were still around, I'm pretty sure they'd be advocating reform, too, though not necessarily along the lines of more democracy. After all, if you weren't a white, property-owning male, you didn't have any business worrying about this sort of thing as far as they were concerned.

The answer? As I have already stated, electors need to be swayed among congressional districts!

Speaking of things in desperate need of political reform...state legislatures are very good at tailoring congressional districts to ensure that their constituents fit a particular profile. Presidential candidates would only have an even better way of narrowing in on "hotspots" under such a system.

[claudius]

And I believe I pointed that out as a problem. (It's called gerrymandering.) Still, one small loophole that can easily be exposed should not tarnish the nobility of such reform.

[Wab]

Although I have grave problems with Australian politics the bi-cameral system with a lower house elected by preferential votes with seats based on poplulation and a senate with equal state representation based on a proportional vote is a pretty good blend.

[Draugr]

What is wrong with people directly electing their President? In all honesty I think it is better that way. At least then we could say we are a true democracy, at least when we elect our President.

If we directly vote for the president than EVERY vote counts EQUALLY, voter turn out will increase, etc.

[gred&forge4ever]

As for the Electoral college I think this should be either modified or abolished. Either give every state the same number of electoral votes, or make it all about the popular vote.

Also I think there should be something done to convert the US into a true one person-one vote democracy, rather then the republic that it is. With technology and communication systems as proliferant as they have become there must be some way to allow the public to make the decisions that affect us.

-HollywoodBob
I TOTALLY agree with both of these. I mean I live in Massachusetts that alwasy go Dem, plus we have Kerry running. If I were a Bush supporter, then what possible reason is there in going to the polls in Massachusetts? Only people who live in the battleground states have reason to go and vote. However, I am sure you get bombed with constant ads and that would make me barf.

IMHO both candidates are the pits. Ralph has my vote.

[Hagrid442]

One way to improve it is to get this guy as far away as possible from the voting system.

This is frightening. (www.mlive.com/newsflash/politics/index.ssf?/base/politics-0/1088193904312370.xml)




Voting official seeks terrorism guidelines

By ERICA WERNER
The Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government needs to establish guidelines for canceling or rescheduling elections if terrorists strike the United States again, says the chairman of a new federal voting commission.

Such guidelines do not currently exist, said DeForest B. Soaries, head of the voting panel.

Soaries was appointed to the federal Election Assistance Commission last year by President Bush. Soaries said he wrote to National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in April to raise the concerns.

"I am still awaiting their response," he said. "Thus far we have not begun any meaningful discussion." Spokesmen for Rice and Ridge did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Soaries noted that Sept. 11, 2001, fell on Election Day in New York City — and he said officials there had no rules to follow in making the decision to cancel the election and hold it later.

Events in Spain, where a terrorist attack shortly before the March election possibly influenced its outcome, show the need for a process to deal with terrorists threatening or interrupting the Nov. 2 presidential election in America, he said.

"Look at the possibilities. If the federal government were to cancel an election or suspend an election, it has tremendous political implications. If the federal government chose not to suspend an election it has political implications," said Soaries, a Republican and former secretary of state of New Jersey.

"Who makes the call, under what circumstances is the call made, what are the constitutional implications?" he said. "I think we have to err on the side of transparency to protect the voting rights of the country."

Soaries said his bipartisan, four-member commission might make a recommendation to Congress about setting up guidelies.

"I'm hopeful that there are some proposals already being floated. If there are, we're not aware of them. If there are not, we will probably try to put one on the table," he said.

Soaries also said he's met with a former New York state elections director to discuss how officials there handled the Sept. 11 attacks from the perspective of election administration. He said the commission is getting information from New York documenting the process used there.

"The states control elections, but on the national scale where every state has its own election laws and its own election chief, who's in charge?" he said.

Soaries also said he wants to know what federal officials are doing to increase security on Election Day. He said security officials must take care not to allow heightened security measures to intimidate minority voters, but that local and state election officials he's talked to have not been told what measures to expect.

"There's got to be communication," he said, "between law enforcement and election officials in preparation for November."
====================

This scares the bejeebus out of me. Alas we don't have a president like Lincoln that insisted that the 1864 elections went as planned.

[Rowena Ravenclaw]

Seems to me what he's saying is that the policy, whatever it's going to be, should be discussed now, rather than decided in the chaos of the moment, which seems reasonable. Lincoln did have his entire term to work out what the best course of action would be. (And who's to say his decision would have been the same if Sherman's campaign hadn't gone as well as it did?)

Changing gears for a minute, I get the sense that as much as people worry about their votes not counting under the electoral system, they worry even more about high courts ultimately deciding which results stand. I think making the judicial system a last resort rather than standard procedure every time a vote is close would go a long way toward restoring voter confidence.

[rettop yrrah]

I am not an American so take this as it comes (an outsiders view). I think America would do well with a preferential voting system, which as I understand it you don’t have. I just think it would open up the system more, this way people can vote third party but still have their vote count in two party result. This would not be a cure all or anything, but I know in my country I would feel limited in my choice if I could not vote for a minor party I believe in but direct preference to the major party that bothers me least. I can’t bring myself to vote for major parties, between whom I can no longer see any difference (as many/some might say in America) while I vote for a minor party though, I give a preference to the less flawed of the major parties so after my party is knocked out may vote passes to that party over the other.

[daniel4hp]

Changing gears for a minute, I get the sense that as much as people worry about their votes not counting under the electoral system, they worry even more about high courts ultimately deciding which results stand. I think making the judicial system a last resort rather than standard procedure every time a vote is close would go a long way toward restoring voter confidence.
My understanding is that as the system is designed to work now, the Supreme Court is indeed only a last resort. Keep in mind that it was only after a long procedure of recounts that the 2000 election was decided by the Supreme Court, and as I understand it, this was done because it seemed that the recounts were not making much progress. I don't think the Supreme Court is called in whenever its a close election; the court is just there for extreme cases where normal procedures don't seem to be working.

I am not an American so take this as it comes (an outsiders view). I think America would do well with a preferential voting system, which as I understand it you don’t have.
I totally agree. The first-past-the-post system if definitely flawed because a candidate does not need to have a majority (only a plurality) to win, and, as you said, it strongly reinforces the two-party system. I would definitely like to see preferential voting put in place for Presidential elections.

On a related note, I would like to see Single Transferable Vote introduced for Congressional elections. In this system, members number their choices, like in Preferential voting. Then, depending how many seats there are to fill, a quota is determined, and each candidate who gets enough first place votes to meet the quota is elected. Votes are transfered to different candidates based on people's second, and if neccessary, subsequent choices until the number of candidates who meet the quota matches the number of seats there are to fill.

The nice thing about this system is that it works no matter how many or few seats need to be filled. It can be used to fill just one seat (aka, Preferential), or it can be used to fill many seats. As a result, all states, no matter how many or few congressmen they had, could use this system. States would be divided into multi-member districts rather than single-member districts, with each district electing, for example, 4-7 representatives. States who had fewer than 4 would have a single district consisting of 1-3 representatives. All districts would elect their representatives using Single Transferable Vote.

[Amadeus]

However, if we were to switch to an all-out popular vote, California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. would be dominating every electionActually, that would discourage those states dominating elections because...

electoral college system: Kerry wins 51% of Californian votes, BUsh wins 49%. Kerry gets every single electoral vote from California - 'shows up' on the results as if Kerry got 100% vote from California when tallying up the national vote

popular vote: Kerry wins 51%, he gets 51%. Instead of getting additional 49% that he did not win nor deserves, he gets what he got. Same goes for Bush. He gets 49% votes, which would have been completely ignored under electoral college system.


Popular vote makes it impossible for candidates to carry elections just by campaigning in the 'battle ground states' only.

[PrtVeela]

And I believe I pointed that out as a problem. (It's called gerrymandering.) Still, one small loophole that can easily be exposed should not tarnish the nobility of such reform.

Gerrymandering, would not effect a Presidental Election. It might not even effect state elections, it could definatley effect wards and/or distict elections. For those that may not know what Gerrymandering is:
Lets say I live in county D, the county next to mine is county C. Now lets say that County D and County C are split pretty evenly over democratic voters and republican voters. Lets say that the Republicans are currently in control of the State congress. Therefore they re-draw county lines so that there is a heavy Republican majority in County C, and County D holds a small majority over the (likely) democratic voters.
In better words
Before GM After
County C: 50 50 County C: 80 20
County D : 50 50 County D: 60 40

This way they have more control over who wins a potential ward and/or district election.

Now this doesn't come into play for national presidental elections because: The whole state cannot be Gerrymandered twoard one specific party becasue it would A) be highly suspecious if a democratic state (i.e. Illinois) become Republican, nor it that possible. You cannot take a state that generally leans one direction and make it lean another just by gerrymandering.

For this reason a national election would not be swung on gerrymandering.

[Dagmar]

After watching a few segments of a show that took pictures of Condy Rice, Bush, Cheney, Mondale, Britney Spears, and Puff Daddy to a college campus where the average age of the interviewee was 23, and not one person could recognize anyone other than Britney and Puffy, I think that we should have a test before allowing anyone to have a voters registration card.
I mean seriously, if someone is old enough to vote and doesn't even recognize pictures of major politicians, how can they make informed decisions at the polls?

[claudius]

Prtveela, you are obviously not reading my posts with much interest. We were talking about gaining national electoral votes among congressional districts! That has been my compromise between the two extremes of popular vote and electoral college that I have been trying to lay out for you.

Consider this hypothetical situation in which the election operates under my proposed system: the eight congressional districts of Wisconsin (my home state) each vote who to give their *one* electoral vote to. And, being that my state is pretty much divided 50/50 among liberals and conservatives, Governor Doyle (a Democrat) decides that he doesn't want just half of the state's electoral votes to go to Kerry, but instead wants more than half; so he redraws the lines so that Kerry wins in, say, five districts instead of four. No, gerrymandering cannot happen as things are now; but, in the system that I have outlined, it is entirely possible! And that's one downfall of what I have proposed--albeit the only one.

[Amadeus]

After watching a few segments of a show that took pictures of Condy Rice, Bush, Cheney, Mondale, Britney Spears, and Puff Daddy to a college campus where the average age of the interviewee was 23, and not one person could recognize anyone other than Britney and Puffy, I think that we should have a test before allowing anyone to have a voters registration card.
I mean seriously, if someone is old enough to vote and doesn't even recognize pictures of major politicians, how can they make informed decisions at the polls?Well, that's against Amendment XXVI


Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. If one is not interested in politics enough, he/she is hardly likely to vote at all.
Besides, people should vote based on what kind of policies, etc. that certain candidates have, not what they look like. As long as people are familiar enough with the policies, etc. then why not?




I am starting to feel that this thread is becoming another repetition of VA Plan vs. NJ Plan discussion that our founding fathers had a looooong time ago.

[Dagmar]

Well, that's against Amendment XXVI

If one is not interested in politics enough, he/she is hardly likely to vote at all.
Besides, people should vote based on what kind of policies, etc. that certain candidates have, not what they look like. As long as people are familiar enough with the policies, etc. then why not?

I am starting to feel that this thread is becoming another repetition of VA Plan vs. NJ Plan discussion that our founding fathers had a looooong time ago.

Um, I think you missed my point. Amendment xxvi is regarding the voting age being set at 18. And this being the only requirement (except for citizenship).
The topic of this thread is how could we make our electoral system better. My solution is to also require of persons who meet the above mentioned requirements to pass a simple test in order to vote. If someone who is old enough to vote can't even pick out pictures of politicians, how can they be allowed to vote on issues that are important. I am not saying that we are voting on looks, but quite frankly these people if they do vote, are not using much more than what party is on the ticket to make a decision. Without regard as to what issues are being voted on. In other words I drink Coke, he drinks Pepsi, so I'm not voting for him. That is the problem in a nutshell.

[daniel4hp]

After watching a few segments of a show that took pictures of Condy Rice, Bush, Cheney, Mondale, Britney Spears, and Puff Daddy to a college campus where the average age of the interviewee was 23, and not one person could recognize anyone other than Britney and Puffy, I think that we should have a test before allowing anyone to have a voters registration card.
Let me get this straight. Not one college student interviewed was able to recognise pictures of Rice, Bush, Cheney, or Mondale? Let me ask you a few questions...
- Which colleges were visitted?
- How many people were interviewed?
- How were the interviewees selected?
- What, in any, influences were the interviewees under?
- How old were the said pictures?
- Were all interviews shown on the program, or only select ones?

See, I find it rather unlikely that, providing that average colleges were visitted, a fairly large sampling of non-intoxicated students who were chosen randomly from various locations at the campus were selected and shown recent photos, and all results were broadcast, that not a single college student could identify a picture of President Bush. That is impossible. There has to be some trick to that show, because the results you mention are most certainly not representative of the general population.

[Josephus Mondo]

I would like, at best, for the electoral college system to be abandoned, or at least to abandon the "winner take all" model.

The EC was appropriate for its time whem it was developed - both in technological terms and national interests. But we are now less a nation of states so much as a nation of citizens. The interests of the states are not so divergent (with regard to selection of President).

As it stands, the EC amounts to some voters having more of a vote than those from other states. And I find that untenable.

At the very least, abandoning "winner take all" would give us a better representation of the voters while maintaining whatever advantage is gained by the EC.

[Dagmar]

I would like, at best, for the electoral college system to be abandoned, or at least to abandon the "winner take all" model.

The EC was appropriate for its time whem it was developed - both in technological terms and national interests. But we are now less a nation of states so much as a nation of citizens. The interests of the states are not so divergent (with regard to selection of President).

As it stands, the EC amounts to some voters having more of a vote than those from other states. And I find that untenable.

At the very least, abandoning "winner take all" would give us a better representation of the voters while maintaining whatever advantage is gained by the EC.
A winner take all is exactly not what we want. That is a democracy, we are a republic. A democracy is basically mob rule. In a republic a minority has a voice.

And regarding the college "interviews", none of the students were drunk, all of the ones interviewed were at least 23 and said that they do participate in the voting process. Yes you may have a point that the show is choosing particular "interviews" for entertainment value, however I know several and by several I mean more than 50 people who can fall into this same group with the same sad results.
The point is that if anyone in this country is a registered voter and they don't have a clue as to what is going on why should they be allowed to vote.

This brings us back to the first issue of the electoral college. This is why it is needed.

[free_girl]

It should stand I say. Why you ask, because the Electoral College is one way of ensuring that America’s rural and heartland voters those who live on and cultivate most of the actual land in the U.S. are not entirely ignored. The Framers of our Constitution were not stupid. They created the Electoral College for a reason, and the Bush and Gore election, far from discrediting the electoral system, demonstrates its genius.

[MoodyMania]

We do not need the electoral college anymore. When the country was first created travel was hard and people were hard to keep track of. Now that we have so much improved our communication and transportation systems, the electoral college is unnessacary.
This is not the reason for the Electoral College. If there was no Electoral College a candidate could go to the 5 most populous states (it’s 5 or 6 I think that are needed to be elected) and tell them that all federal monies would go to these states only if they elect him. What would this do to the other 45 states? The Electoral College allows all states to have a significant role in who will be elected based on population. This will never happen though I don’t think because in order to change the constitution you need ¾ of the states to agree. And I can’t see the smaller states cutting their own throats doing this.

If you do away with the Electoral College you may as well do away with all states and we can then be called the United State of America.

[daniel4hp]

This is not the reason for the Electoral College. If there was no Electoral College a candidate could go to the 5 most populous states (it’s 5 or 6 I think that are needed to be elected) and tell them that all federal monies would go to these states only if they elect him.
That assumes that the candidate would win 100% of all of those states. The fact is, the Electoral College has gotten us thinking in terms of states, rather than individual voters, but if it was abolished, you wouldn't win states, you'd win individual voters. You couldn't assume that becuase you could win 60% of California that you'd get 100% of its votes.

They created the Electoral College for a reason, and the Bush and Gore election, far from discrediting the electoral system, demonstrates its genius.
Please explain how it is genius that while more people in this country wanted Gore to be President than wanted Bush, Bush somehow managed to get more Electoral College votes (this is assuming he legitimately won Florida).

This brings us back to the first issue of the electoral college. This is why it is needed.
Er, I'm afraid I don't see the connection between uneducated votes and the electoral college... could you explain?

[~Tonks~]

This is not the reason for the Electoral College. If there was no Electoral College a candidate could go to the 5 most populous states (it’s 5 or 6 I think that are needed to be elected) and tell them that all federal monies would go to these states only if they elect him. What would this do to the other 45 states? The Electoral College allows all states to have a significant role in who will be elected based on population. This will never happen though I don’t think because in order to change the constitution you need ¾ of the states to agree. And I can’t see the smaller states cutting their own throats doing this.

If you do away with the Electoral College you may as well do away with all states and we can then be called the United State of America.

The problem with that is that a candidate can still win with the 5 most populous states under the electoral system. A state gets as many electoral votes as it has representatives in the house and senate. So they have at least two, plus however many there are in the house. The representation in the house is based on population, as is the electorates from the state after the guaranteed two. This is why Hawaii has four electorates, while California, has over fifty. This is why such a big fuss was made over Florida last year. While electorates don't HAVE to vote with the majority vote of their state, they traditionally do, and the big five to capture are California, New York, Texas, Florida, and Illinois. You have to have 270 electoral votes to win the presidency. Securing those five, or at least a mixture of them, can help a lot. Even if you amassed twenty small states, it wouldn't add up to the power of capturing say, California.

By the time your state is announced to have two thirds the vote in either direction, if you voted differently from the majority, you can basically blow your nose in your vote because the electoral college is going to vote with the majority. This is why Gore won the popular vote by half of one percent but Bush took the presidency with more electoral votes, and a lengthy legal battle.

Honestly I think the vote should be by the popular vote. If every vote counts, count every vote.

[MoodyMania]

Sorry, I didn't mean to be ambiguous. what I meant was that theoretically all a candidate had to do was campaign in those most populous states, promise them everything and if they won those states they would be president. They could use all their campaign money to just win over the voters there.

I don't really think this could ever happen but in theory it could.

Because we are a republic and not a true democracy every vote does count Call Me Tonks. In your state your vote counts as much as anyone elses vote in that state. And at the end of the vote the states vote for the president. Now if we were a democracy there would be no state votes.

As I said before I don't see how we can ever get away from the EC because the smaller states would lose all national power. And since it takes 38 states to adopt a new ammendment I think it is here to stay for some time yet.

[Hagrid442]

I agree with your point on the Electoral College, MoodyMania. As flawed as it is, it does give the smaller states some say in who is elected.

Now, I think it should be reformed, however. It's not fair to give all a state's electoral votes to a candidate if they win in that state by a small margin. Maybe they should do some sort of proportional deal.


Oh, and as a joke... another way to improve the electoral system is to make sure Bush isn't on the ballots!!! :) :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[HollywoodBob]

Now, I think it should be reformed, however. It's not fair to give all a state's electoral votes to a candidate if they win in that state by a small margin. Maybe they should do some sort of proportional deal.Maybe make it so that the only way to win an entire state is to get a 3/4ths majority of the votes in that state. Making it proportional would be the equivalent of making it just a popular vote.

The thing I don't like about the Electoral college is that my state can be given to a candidate who less than half the voters choose. If there are 5 candidates, and the two big parties each get 46% and 45%, that means the state goes to the candidate that 54% of the state voted AGAINST. In my book that's not right that the majority of the state has to give up their votes to the person they didn't want in office.

Maybe what they should do is let that candidate win the state but only give them their share of the votes. So that in a state like Florida which has I think 25 votes, if a candidate only got 46% of the vote, they'd win the state but only 13 votes (round up for clarity).

Oh, and as a joke... another way to improve the electoral system is to make sure Bush isn't on the ballots!!! :) :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:That's the best idea I've heard yet. :D

-HollywoodBob

[MoodyMania]

Now, I think it should be reformed, however. It's not fair to give all a state's electoral votes to a candidate if they win in that state by a small margin. Maybe they should do some sort of proportional deal.

Well, from my understanding how the Electoral Votes per state are distributed to the candidate is goverened by state Law. Some states do not have to award all of them to the willing candidate (not sure when the last time they didn't though) but most do. So to change how they are awarded you would have to change 50 state laws. Good luck folks.

[DerHalfBlood]

I think it'd be best to just leave the American electoral system how it is. The only suggestions I have are to limit spending. I think all fundraising should go to one fund for all candidates and then everybody who is running (who has a legitimate shot) gets an equal share of the money for advertising.

[Elocin4684]

Abolish it and just make what ever candidate gets the most votes win. Plain and simple.

[red_fairy]

I think that the presidential election electoral college is not needed anymore. Back when communication and transportation were not good, it was important, but it is obsolete now. If they still continue to use it, it shouldn't be a winner take all for the states. They should be divided up according to the number of votes.

[ComicBookWorm]

Get rid of the electoral college. It is an anachronism left over from the days when travel was arduous and vote counting laborious. It tooks weeks to count the votes and then transport that information to Washington. And since the local states were doing the counting, it made sense to keep the tally local. Why transport all that paper to a central location like Washington to count them.

Also the system of voting for electoral college delegates was a patronage system somewhat designed to "rig" the result. Members of the electoral college are now superfluous since the outcome is know a month in advance. When they finally meet in December, we have already known the outcome for a month. Worse, in many states the electors aren't even bound to vote the way you wanted.

Make election day a federal holiday and have 24 hour voting that day. Many people can't get off work to vote, or get home too late to vote. Automatically mail absentee ballots to everyone. Use some kind of serial number to verify they haven't voted twice. Work out the kinks in online voting. Surely intelligent people can make the system relatively secure. And I am an IT professional so I think that won't be a piece of cake. But we already have dubious accuracy in our voting (hanging chads, polling place snafus), so I'm not worried about hacking. Our financial institutions have managed to have relatively secure online systems.

Have true public financing of campaigns to ensure an equal footing. Why should the person with the most money be able to shout the loudest via advertising. Have a public fact checking watchdog that can counter scurilous accusations with a reality check. I can't advocate having them approve all ads since that would probably be a first amendment violation. But they could run counter ads for the most eggregious ones--like Willy Horton for instance.

[msmooney]

Get rid of the electoral college. It is an anachronism left over from the days when travel was arduous and vote counting laborious. It tooks weeks to count the votes and then transport that information to Washington. And since the local states were doing the counting, it made sense to keep the tally local. Why transport all that paper to a central location like Washington to count them.

Also the system of voting for electoral college delegates was a patronage system somewhat designed to "rig" the result. Members of the electoral college are now superfluous since the outcome is know a month in advance. When they finally meet in December, we have already known the outcome for a month. Worse, in many states the electors aren't even bound to vote the way you wanted.

Make election day a federal holiday and have 24 hour voting that day. Many people can't get off work to vote, or get home too late to vote. Automatically mail absentee ballots to everyone. Use some kind of serial number to verify they haven't voted twice. Work out the kinks in online voting. Surely intelligent people can make the system relatively secure. And I am an IT professional so I think that won't be a piece of cake. But we already have dubious accuracy in our voting (hanging chads, polling place snafus), so I'm not worried about hacking. Our financial institutions have managed to have relatively secure online systems.

Have true public financing of campaigns to ensure an equal footing. Why should the person with the most money be able to shout the loudest via advertising. Have a public fact checking watchdog that can counter scurilous accusations with a reality check. I can't advocate having them approve all ads since that would probably be a first amendment violation. But they could run counter ads for the most eggregious ones--like Willy Horton for instance.


All excellent suggestions, ComicBookWorm. I would add that it might also behoove us to eliminate the state residency requirement (as it won't matter any more without electors), and thus allowing Americans to vote in whatever state they happen to be in without having to deal with jumping through hoops to get an absentee ballot. We'd have a much higher voter participation amongst college and university students this way. I'm in the midst of getting an absentee ballot now - I have to fill out some paperwork before I'm granted the privilege.

[codswallop]

Abolish it and just make what ever candidate gets the most votes win. Plain and simple.

I concur, more people would go to the polls....

[Auror Williamson]

I've always maintained that the Electoral System should be done away with.

The System was meant for different circumstances, i.e., the 1700's and 1800's.

There's no reason why it should not be 'The Candidate with the most votes wins'.

[MoodyMania]

Since the EC is part of the constitution it doesn't matter what individuals think of it. If we were not a republic then the EC would be outmoded I think. But as long as we have state governments falling under one central federal government I don't think you will ever get a 3/4 agreement from the states to change the constitution to remove it.

[purplehawk]

Then maybe the feds need to try a little harder. The electoral college is a joke and, in the present environment, a way to block the will of the people to elect the officers of their choice.

[ivancarli]

i'm not american...
did you american write your candidate in a paper or in electronic machines like here (Brazil)?

[MoodyMania]

Then maybe the feds need to try a little harder. The electoral college is a joke and, in the present environment, a way to block the will of the people to elect the officers of their choice.
The feds can't do a lot about it. The responsibility to elect electors is up to each individual state.

[purplehawk]

The feds can't do a lot about it. The responsibility to elect electors is up to each individual state.

There has to be a work-around. Where are our political science gurus?

[MoodyMania]

There has to be a work-around. Where are our political science gurus?
There is one...It's called a constitutional amendment. Short of that we can't just start deciding not to follow certain portions of it. I'm sure the USSC would find trying to do this illegal by a unanimous decision.

The states do have some things they could do. Such as assigning electors based on percent of each candidate instead of winner takes all. But even this is resisted by many states because it removes power they have unless all the states do it.

[purplehawk]

In other words, more political bickering and gridlock. Constitutional amendments aren't exactly a new occurrence but that business of ratification has often been a stumbling block. I hate states' rights.

[MoodyMania]

In other words, more political bickering and gridlock. Constitutional amendments aren't exactly a new occurrence but that business of ratification has often been a stumbling block. I hate states' rights.
But to remove or limit state rights would also take a constitutional amendment. So it's a catch-22.

[morgiana]

The electoral system was established when there was no real mass communication system. The people voted, the votes were counted in a district, someone took them to the state capital, then the voting results were divided by candidate and tallied. A representative for the state then went to the electoral college and voted according to his states votes. This is on the first vote only if a second vote is needed they can vote for whoever they want with NO consideration to the votes in their state. It could take up to 3 months to get election results.

Today we know the results before some in the west can get to the polls. They have quit releasing the results until polls close in the west.

I think everyone should have 1 vote. In a presidential election all votes for president should go directly to a Federal Tally Center anonymously to be counted. This way the vote would be fair. With electoral votes many states give all their votes to the leading candidate.

There should be an easier way to vote. Last state election I went to vote before work, everyone else in my neighborhood did too. It was a very long line and since I couldn't find parking I left. I'm sure I'm not the only one. there could be polling places at work, on the internet, in libraries, on college campuses and how about the mall. You could be issued a card that would let you vote once only but at the location of your choice.

All in all we can't complain too much, in the US, we get to vote, there is more than 1 candidate to choose from and no one shoots you if you don't vote for their person or simply for voting.

[daniel4hp]

i'm not american...
did you american write your candidate in a paper or in electronic machines like here (Brazil)?
It depends on where you live. Some states have electronic voting machines, some have traditional paper ballot voting. A few states have electronic voting machines that print paper ballots. There may additionally be different systems within the same state. I believe at the present time paper ballots are still the most common method nationwide.

[MasterDarkNinja]

Well lets here now.

-Make it be the popular vote to determine who's the president not the electorial system (why should what the majority of people voted for not matter because of the locations of where the people voting for the other canidate lived?), the electorial system may work out for determining how many representatives each state has in congress but for the presidential race it doesn't work out. Another problem with it is that congress is supposed to vote for who won in their state for who is the next president, only it's not illegal to vote for a person that didn't win in your state in all states. There would be chaos if when congress was doing the electorial votes the canidate who was supposed to lose ended up winning. Another problem with the electorial system is that if a state worth only 3 electorial votes has a really close race it's worth the exact same amount as another 3 electorial vote state that one canidate wins with a landslide.

-They shouldn't start to count up the votes and announce on the news who's winning the election while some states still have time to vote (like the western states). When it's 8 PM on the east coast and the polls are closed it's only 5 PM out in states like California so people are just going home from work and going to vote then so hearing "it looks like [insert canidate here] is going to win the election at the moment" on the radio can cause people out there to say to themselves "well no point in voting if that canidate already won my vote won't change that". (they believe that New Mexico would have gone to Bush had it not been for timezone fallout).

-Make sure that the votes are counted up properly, some states use paper that chads are supposed to get knocked out of in order to tell who the person voted for. However the chads that are supposed to fall out don't always come out, and why shouldn't your vote count just because only 2 out of 4 of the corners were disconnected from the paper?

Those are all I can think of at the moment that could be done to improve the voting system in america.

[Sherlock Holmes]

-Make it be the popular vote to determine who's the president not the electorial system
The problem with that is that then only the most populous parts of the country will matter. Counting the votes as we currently do means that a larger portion of the country matters in electing the President. It's not perfect, by a long shot, but the the President as currently elected does represent the country as a whole better than one elected on a purely popular vote.

-They shouldn't start to count up the votes and announce on the news who's winning the election while some states still have time to vote (like the western states).
Yes, you're right. However, the decision to do this is done privately (that is, by the TV networks), not by the government. Hopefully, after the Florida fiasco in 2000, they will be more cautious about doing this.

-Make sure that the votes are counted up properly, some states use paper that chads are supposed to get knocked out of in order to tell who the person voted for. However the chads that are supposed to fall out don't always come out, and why shouldn't your vote count just because only 2 out of 4 of the corners were disconnected from the paper?
Is it that hard to check your card before you put it in the ballot box and make sure your "chad" completely fell out?

[Wab]

-They shouldn't start to count up the votes and announce on the news who's winning the election while some states still have time to vote (like the western states). When it's 8 PM on the east coast and the polls are closed it's only 5 PM out in states like California so people are just going home from work and going to vote then so hearing "it looks like [insert canidate here] is going to win the election at the moment" on the radio can cause people out there to say to themselves "well no point in voting if that canidate already won my vote won't change that". (they believe that New Mexico would have gone to Bush had it not been for timezone fallout).

If I recall results from the eastern states of Australia aren't announced until the polls close in WA (up to three hours depending on the season).

Although it would never work a Westminster system of parliament at least makes the leader accountable every day it sits through Parliamentary Question Time.

[purplehawk]

The problem with that is that then only the most populous parts of the country will matter. Counting the votes as we currently do means that a larger portion of the country matters in electing the President. It's not perfect, by a long shot, but the the President as currently elected does represent the country as a whole better than one elected on a purely popular vote.

How is that true? A vote is a vote is vote, right? The candidates were certainly close enough in popular vote in the 2000 election. It had nothing at all to do with the more populous areas. Those went to Gore, for the most part, but it was the less populous states - and the south - that kept Bush in the running.

[Kaonashi]

Texas is pretty HUGE, and they are generally pro-Bush.

[purplehawk]

Well, Texas belongs on another planet, anyway.

[lanifiel]

Well, Texas belongs on another planet, anyway.
Why, pray tell, does Texas being on another planet?

[MasterDarkNinja]

The problem with that is that then only the most populous parts of the country will matter. Counting the votes as we currently do means that a larger portion of the country matters in electing the President. It's not perfect, by a long shot, but the the President as currently elected does represent the country as a whole better than one elected on a purely popular vote.Yeah I know, the founding fathers were trying to make it so that the canidate that represents the needs of the country the most is the reason why that they made the electorial voting system determine who's the president. But still both ways for determining who wins the election have their flaws.
Yes, you're right. However, the decision to do this is done privately (that is, by the TV networks), not by the government. Hopefully, after the Florida fiasco in 2000, they will be more cautious about doing this.Yeah that's certainly true, in today's society I doubt it that it's possible to stop the news from announcing who's currently winning the election before the polls close everywhere in the nation.
Is it that hard to check your card before you put it in the ballot box and make sure your "chad" completely fell out?You have to put it in a ballot box? I live in a state where it's all done by computers now so I'm basing what I said about the chads from what I had heard on the news about it.

[MoodyMania]

Why, pray tell, does Texas being on another planet?
My guess is she hate Bush so much she feels he has contaminated the whole state. Just a guess on my part though. :rotfl:

[purplehawk]

My guess is she hate Bush so much she feels he has contaminated the whole state. Just a guess on my part though. :rotfl:

I don't hate George Bush. I don't hate anyone. I think he is the wrong man for the job, particularly at this time.

As for Texas, I lived there a short time when my husband was in the Air Force. I don't remember it fondly. I worked as an underwriter for Texas auto insurance claims early in my working career. Texas has it's own insurance manual, or at least they did in the early eighties. I worked closely with big brokers in Dallas and Houston by telephone and suffered some of the most incredible racial slurs imaginable about the holders of the policies they wrote. So you'll just have to forgive me for not having a particularly good impression of the state.

[Kaonashi]

LOL!

But anyway, I think the electoral vote isn't the best. For example, if you are in New York and the vote goes 55 % Kerry and 45% Bush, under the current rules Kerry will get that state. That's like telling the 45% that voted for Bush they might have well stayed home. Why shouldn't their votes count? It's not fair to the people who might vote Democratic in TX either. In fact, it's not fair to the people, period.

[purplehawk]

I don't think those men who scripted the Electoral College could possibly have forseen the internet and the instant communications we enjoy today. The College is just one of the antiquated provisions of the Constitution that should be written out... along with the right to bear arms.

[MoodyMania]

I don't hate George Bush. I don't hate anyone. I think he is the wrong man for the job, particularly at this time.


It was just a joke. Hence the laughing face at the end. If it offended you then I appologize.

[purplehawk]

No offense taken, Moody.

[Sherlock Holmes]

LOL!

But anyway, I think the electoral vote isn't the best. For example, if you are in New York and the vote goes 55 % Kerry and 45% Bush, under the current rules Kerry will get that state. That's like telling the 45% that voted for Bush they might have well stayed home. Why shouldn't their votes count? It's not fair to the people who might vote Democratic in TX either. In fact, it's not fair to the people, period.
But, under a popular vote this would still be true. To win the popular vote, presidential candidates would merely need to win the four or five most populous states. All the rest wouldn't matter. With the electoral college, the interests of the most populous is lessened somewhat, meaning that the interests of the voters of the less-populated states are also important. Thus, the president represents the whole country (people of the populous and the not-so-populous states) somewhat better than he would if the election was purely popular. Like I said, it's far from perfect, but the reasoning is as sound today as it was then. The founding fathers didn't want the new country to be completely dominated by Virgina + Massachusetts or New York, as would have happened under a purely popular vote. The electoral college was a way to make sure that all the states had a say in the election.

Do the math yourself, if you're interested. I checked the numbers myself, a year or so ago, using the 2000 census information, although I don't know remember the exact numbers. The electoral college system does require candidates to pay attention to a few more states than they'd need to under a popular vote, although the difference isn't huge.

[purplehawk]

But didn't the 2000 election hinge upon the last populous state (Florida) to call in with final numbers?

[HollywoodBob]

Plus using a popular vote system there's no chance of a candidate "winning" a state. The likelihood of every voter in any state voting for the same candidate is so abyssmal that the mere suggestion of it is ridiculous.

Our nation is polarized, a popular vote system would be just as close as the electoral, the difference would be that there would be little chance of a candidate that less than half of the country voted for being elected. Then we'd merely have to worry about shenanigans similar to the 2000 election being pulled. And there's always a risk of those since we all know that honesty, integrity and fair play are qualities diametrically opposed to being a politician. :D

-HollywoodBob

[purplehawk]

Plus using a popular vote system there's no chance of a candidate "winning" a state. The likelihood of every voter in any state voting for the same candidate is so abyssmal that the mere suggestion of it is ridiculous.

Here, here! :agree:

Our nation is polarized, a popular vote system would be just as close as the electoral, the difference would be that there would be little chance of a candidate that less than half of the country voted for being elected. Then we'd merely have to worry about shenanigans similar to the 2000 election being pulled. And there's always a risk of those since we all know that honesty, integrity and fair play are qualities diametrically opposed to being a politician. :D

Or a Supreme Court justice. :rotfl:

There really needs to be fair play rules in effect, too. Some of what's coming out of the GOP campaign is not only wrong-headed, it borders on criminal. For example, Cheney today warned Americans about voting for Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack. Absurd Story of the Week (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html)

I guess Cheney has forgotten 9-11 was deliberately timed to occur on Bush's watch.

[ComicBookWorm]

But, under a popular vote this would still be true. To win the popular vote, presidential candidates would merely need to win the four or five most populous states. All the rest wouldn't matter. With the electoral college, the interests of the most populous is lessened somewhat, meaning that the interests of the voters of the less-populated states are also important. Thus, the president represents the whole country (people of the populous and the not-so-populous states) somewhat better than he would if the election was purely popular. Like I said, it's far from perfect, but the reasoning is as sound today as it was then. The founding fathers didn't want the new country to be completely dominated by Virgina + Massachusetts or New York, as would have happened under a purely popular vote. The electoral college was a way to make sure that all the states had a say in the election.

Do the math yourself, if you're interested. I checked the numbers myself, a year or so ago, using the 2000 census information, although I don't know remember the exact numbers. The electoral college system does require candidates to pay attention to a few more states than they'd need to under a popular vote, although the difference isn't huge.
A vote is a vote whether it is in a big state or a small state. The candidate would still have to win the majority of the votes. If that candidate didn't have policies or opinions that the majority liked then it wouldn't matter if they lived in small or large states. When travel was difficult and we didn't have mass communication, then there were concerns about candidates ignoring small states. That is all irrelevant now.

[~Tonks~]

Exactly Comicbookworm. A vote is a vote. Instead of thinking inside the lines of state boundaries, think inside the lines of the country border.

Think about it like this. You have a pile of red dots and a pile of blue dots. You don't know which one has more dots, but they're both pretty big piles. If you put them in a bag and shook it up and dumped it on a table, they'd be all mixed up, but the same number of each color would be there. Even if blue dots were more concentrated in some areas on the table, it wouldn't matter. Whichever color had more dots, that would be the color that won out. The few red dots interspersed in the mass of blue ones would still have a fair representation and they would still count because it wouldn't be about "points" being cast depending on where the most dots were by region on the table. And even if there were some parts of the table where there were hardly any dots, few and far between, they'd still each count as one dot, instead of being penalized for having sparse population and not having as much representation. You could even seperate them back into piles respective of their colors and the count on each side would be the same as before you mixed them up.

Besides, if you took everyone who lived in California, New York, and Florida, and sprinkled them throughout the middle of the United States, then took everyone who lived in the middle and crammed them into California, New York, and Florida, all of the voting power of those people that once lived in California would be dwindled down due to lower population in each state and being spread out, while suddenly the former residents of the smaller states would have a lot more power.

So essentially the electoral college depends on where you live and how many people live in the same area you do, which trivializes the power and privilege of voting.

[purplehawk]

Nice analogy, Tonks! :tu:

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well-said, Tonks. I would argue, however, that the structure of the American government is intended to represent both the people and the states, as entities. It's called federalism: the idea the states are sovereign in their sphere and the central government in its sphere. This idea has been diluted since 1789, of course, but it's part of the reason for the electoral college.

If you believe that states don't matter, then of course you would believe the college should be eliminated. But the founding fathers looked back at history and realized that all prior democracies had self-destructed after a short time. In an effort to avoid this fate, they created a system of goverment in which the people had a voice, but which had other checks and balances which could keep the mob from taking control. The electoral college is part of this.

Would it be better if the president was elected on a purely popular vote? I'm not sure. Votes under the current system are a bit more diversified, country-wide, requiring a presidential candidate to be more centrist than he'd have to be otherwise. I think that's good. As I've said before, the electoral college system requires candidates to pay more attention to more states than they'd otherwise need to, and I think that's also good.

The bottom line is that this popular vote question only comes up in the aftermath of a very close election, such as the 2000 election, brought up by the losing party. But changing the vote to a popular vote wouldn't change anything: instead of winning with 271 states, a president would be elected with 51% of the vote (actually, with the 3rd parties, he could probably be elected with only 46% or so). The same problem still exists: that half the country's voice was ignored (or more accurately, half the country lost).

I recognize that it seems strange, and un-democratic, for a president to be elected whom less than half of the people voted for (but keep in mind that, even under the current system, no one can be elected with much less than half of the popular vote). But I do think the greater reasons for the electoral college are valid, and that replacing it with a purely popular vote would merely move the problems around. I don't think it would actually result in a better selection system.

[ComicBookWorm]

The issue isn't so much that a candidate with less than 50% won the vote. It was that the candidate with the most votes didn't win.

The electoral college was designed to ensure that all states would be visited, and they could see and hear the candidates. We now have jets, television, and the internet. No one is isolated and everyone gets to see and hear more from the candidates than they could ever want. The fear when the electoral college was designed was that some states wouldn't matter so politicians could skip them. The people wouldn't even know if their issues were being addressed. This is hardly the case anymore with mass communication.

[Professor Moody]

The VERY easy answer to the title question is to remove the majority election and replace it with a proportional election (throughout the whole of the USA). Never will you again have the problem with a president getting less votes than an opponent. Anyone can go for president, and the guy (or gal) with the most votes, wins. IT´S THAT SIMPLE!

[purplehawk]

I am no fan of states' rights period. States' rights have been the rallying cry of those who first enslaved black Americans and have since been utilized to permeate racial discrimination into the very fiber of this country. I don't think the Electoral College serves any useful purpose other than allowing states to circumvent the people's right to choose their leaders. Leave the states in the mix and it becomes politics as usual, which does not bode well for minorities in this country.

I prefer a system that allows Americans to vote in the privacy of their homes, or in some other computer-enabled facility. No more "dignitaries" cuddling up to candidates for photo-ops (or the attendant private conversations about what patronage is being passed for their support of said candidates). No more ultra conservative or far-left misleaders meddling in the business of casting a vote. The political process in this country has taken full advantage of technological gains to reach more people. Why not use technology to eliminate so much that is bad about how we elect a president?

[MoodyMania]

The electoral college was designed to ensure that all states would be visited, and they could see and hear the candidates. We now have jets, television, and the internet. No one is isolated and everyone gets to see and hear more from the candidates than they could ever want. The fear when the electoral college was designed was that some states wouldn't matter so politicians could skip them. The people wouldn't even know if their issues were being addressed. This is hardly the case anymore with mass communication.
It was more designed so that the smaller states could have their voiced heard and not so they could necessarily hear the candidate. If you went to a strictly popular vote then you could possibly elect a president who would then only listen to 5 or 6 of the most populas states. Would it be fair to let New York City or LA tell the breadbasket states or say Alaska how they should be living? Policies that are good for cities are not necessarily good for rural areas. Yet if a president or their party want to stay in power they will do the will of those that elected them.

The way it is now all areas count so all candidates must look at the needs and wants of all parts of the country. When you elect a senator or a member of the house you are letting that person make decision and vote for you in congress. When you make a vote for a presidential candidate you are letting the electors make the decision and vote for you. So what is the difference. If you really wanted your vote to could then you should be voting on every single issue that congress brings up. But obviously that would be way to costly and cumbersome. That is wht we have representaional government. We elect other to do this. Same thing with the electoral college.

I think it has only happened 3 times in the history of out nation where the winner received less votes than the losing candidate. so 3 times in 128 years doesnt seem too bad to me. It actually sounds more efficient percentage wise than most things the government does.

[daniel4hp]

It was more designed so that the smaller states could have their voiced heard and not so they could necessarily hear the candidate. If you went to a strictly popular vote then you could possibly elect a president who would then only listen to 5 or 6 of the most populas states.
This is a common misperception based on the American mentality of "states" caused, largely, by the electoral college.

If there was no electoral college, then for Presidental elections, there would be no such things as states. A candidate couldn't assume that he would "win California," because, without the electoral college, he could never get 100% of the votes in California. She couldn't assume she could "win New York," because without the electoral college, she could never get 100% of the votes in New York.

Without the electoral college, candidates would not win states, they would win individual voters. They would need to look look at more than whether a state was red or blue. They would have to look at how strongly red or blue it was, at what percent of the vote they were likely to get. They would need to campaign in a large number of states, because they couldn't win just by winning a majority in California, New York, and a handful of other big states.

Yes, big states would get more attention than small states. But all states would have to be considered, because every vote in every state would matter. Republican votes in Democratic states would matter must as much as Democratic votes in Democratic states. Votes in states like Virginia would matter just as much as votes in states like Ohio.

You ask, "Would it be fair to let New York City or LA tell the breadbasket states or say Alaska how they should be living?" But is it fair to let people in so-called battleground states tell people in states that have a much larger population (ie, California or New York) how they should be living? Is it fair that voters in Ohio are more important than voters in Texas? At least without the electoral college, if there was any bias at all, the bias would have to be favorable for a majority of people in the country.

[MoodyMania]

This is a common misperception based on the American mentality of "states" caused, largely, by the electoral college.

If there was no electoral college, then for Presidental elections, there would be no such things as states. A candidate couldn't assume that he would "win California," because, without the electoral college, he could never get 100% of the votes in California. She couldn't assume she could "win New York," because without the electoral college, she could never get 100% of the votes in New York.

Without the electoral college, candidates would not win states, they would win individual voters. They would need to look look at more than whether a state was red or blue. They would have to look at how strongly red or blue it was, at what percent of the vote they were likely to get. They would need to campaign in a large number of states, because they couldn't win just by winning a majority in California, New York, and a handful of other big states.

Yes, big states would get more attention than small states. But all states would have to be considered, because every vote in every state would matter. Republican votes in Democratic states would matter must as much as Democratic votes in Democratic states. Votes in states like Virginia would matter just as much as votes in states like Ohio.

You ask, "Would it be fair to let New York City or LA tell the breadbasket states or say Alaska how they should be living?" But is it fair to let people in so-called battleground states tell people in states that have a much larger population (ie, California or New York) how they should be living? Is it fair that voters in Ohio are more important than voters in Texas? At least without the electoral college, if there was any bias at all, the bias would have to be favorable for a majority of people in the country.
Actually only those states which have large urban populations would only have to be visited by the Democrats based on past voting records. If New york City votes 80% about democrat in presidential elections then why should the Democratic candidate visit anywhere else in the state? The same can be said about all other large urban areas. I'm sure rhose running the candidates election would know exactly where they had to spend their time based on past elections. This would free up a lot of time and money just campaigning in those areas. Or at least a lot less then they have to spend at the moment campaigning heavily in all the swing states.

[purplehawk]

You ask, "Would it be fair to let New York City or LA tell the breadbasket states or say Alaska how they should be living?" But is it fair to let people in so-called battleground states tell people in states that have a much larger population (ie, California or New York) how they should be living? Is it fair that voters in Ohio are more important than voters in Texas? At least without the electoral college, if there was any bias at all, the bias would have to be favorable for a majority of people in the country.

This is good stuff. ^ Certainly a more graceful way of saying what I tried to say a few posts above. A bias favorable to a majority of Americans sounds better to me any day than a bias that favors politicians and special interest groups with their private agendas.

Our thread on race went the way so many threads do in the DoIMC, but one of the questions asked was what might improve race relations in the United States and abroad. Abolishing the electoral college here in the United States is one good way to begin the process.

[Speculator]

The only thing I see wrong with the system we have now is human error and tampering. We either need to find people who wont tamper with the ballots or have machines do everything.

I see what most of you are getting at with attacking the electoral system and I don't think your fooling anybody.

[purplehawk]

How far would you stretch the definition of human tampering, though, Speculator? I would say it goes far deeper than ballot tampering. Our current system is kind of built around what used to be called "pork barrel politics," meaning state caucuses and other political groups have far too much influence over the entire process. I doubt this is what was intended when the Electoral College was written into law. It feels almost as if the states are electing our president rather than John and Jane Public, and that isn't the way it should be IMO.

[katiekake]

The VERY easy answer to the title question is to remove the majority election and replace it with a proportional election (throughout the whole of the USA). Never will you again have the problem with a president getting less votes than an opponent. Anyone can go for president, and the guy (or gal) with the most votes, wins. IT´S THAT SIMPLE!
This makes a lot of sense to me as well. We don't necessarily need to get rid of the Electoral College as much as we need to make sure that the Electoral College is representing the state's population fairly. Proportional elections would make sure that every vote in every state counts.

[daniel4hp]

This makes a lot of sense to me as well. We don't necessarily need to get rid of the Electoral College as much as we need to make sure that the Electoral College is representing the state's population fairly.
This is fine for big states, but when a state only has 3-5 electoral votes, it can be pretty hard for it to be proportional. And as long as the electoral college exists, votes in smaller states will count (slightly) more than votes in larger states, which really isn't fair the people who live in bigger states. I say just get rid of the electoral college.

I see what most of you are getting at with attacking the electoral system and I don't think your fooling anybody.
Could you explain what you are trying to say here?

[purplehawk]

Haha! I wondered about that too, Daniel, but decided not to ask.

I'm also with you on the Electoral College. It's an idea that outlived its usefulness.

[ComicBookWorm]

We have the inverse desired effect happening because of the electoral college. California will not be visited much at all (except for fund raising). And the battleground states like Iowa, Ohio, and Michigan will be visited frequently. The south will also be neglected. So if the intent was to spread the message around it hasn't worked. A few states will get all the attention and some states will not seem to exist. We will wind up with politicians focusing on the issues only the mid-west is interested in when there is a big country out there with a lot of disparate concerns.

Nothing about the electoral college is as intended. Political messages aren't being addressed to all those concerned. Pork barrel politics control local state electors. And the person with the most votes didn't even get the office. Futhermore since mass communication and mass travel negate the time and distance concerns relevant when the constitution was drawn, then all we have left is disfunctional institution.

I could understand the opposition to removing the electoral college if we were someone changing the right to vote, but otherwise I see it more like when we recognized the right to vote for blacks and women and lowered the age to 18. It would be acknowledging that times have changed.

[purplehawk]

Pork barrel politics and that awful states' rights business is the very reason the Electoral College hasn't come down before now. The states have a far greater say in a presidential election than the people who live in any particular state. Bizarre.

[katiekake]

This is fine for big states, but when a state only has 3-5 electoral votes, it can be pretty hard for it to be proportional. And as long as the electoral college exists, votes in smaller states will count (slightly) more than votes in larger states, which really isn't fair the people who live in bigger states. I say just get rid of the electoral college.

Yeah, that makes sense too. I'm actually taking a correspondence course through my university, US & AZ Constitutions, and there is a 15 page paper that I need to write on the electoral college. Do you have any references that you might have seen and could recommend? I'm still kind of learning about the exact purpose and process of the electoral college.

[MoodyMania]

Pork barrel politics and that awful states' rights business is the very reason the Electoral College hasn't come down before now. The states have a far greater say in a presidential election than the people who live in any particular state. Bizarre.
This actually shows that the EC is working as it was intended to work. As a democratic republic the people were never meant to elect the president. That was a job left up to the states. The people elect their representatives to congress and that is how their voice is heard on the national level. But the "states" voices are heard by their ability to elect the president.

I know you don't like states rights but what do you suggest? Maybe do away with all states? To do this another amendment would have to be done away with (I think it's the 10th amendment) And without state rights we would have to almost dismantle the constitution and rewrite it.

[Speculator]

The way our electoral system works is each state has a certain amount of representative to vote for us. The people in the state vote for the president and all the representatives vote according to the majority. This happens with every state and at the end of the election it's all tallied up and whoever has the most votes wins. I have nothing wrong with this system. I'm sure everyone already knows that though. When I say tampering I'm talking about the stacks and stacks of ballots for the last election that was found burned but nothing was done about it. We either need to get honest people working with the ballots or have the whole system computerized (that can have problems with hackers though) or better yet have cameras all over the place so everyone can see what's going on in there.

When I say I know why you guys are attacking the system is because it's painfully obvious that your bitter towards the fact that Bush won the last election. Had Gore won the same way you wouldn't have said a thing and neither would I because this is how the system works and I happen to think it works well as long as it is done correctly and honestly.

And sorry if I sound a little out of it right now...I just had my wisdom teeth taken out on friday and I'm not feeling so hot.

[purplehawk]

I know you don't like states rights but what do you suggest? Maybe do away with all states? To do this another amendment would have to be done away with (I think it's the 10th amendment) And without state rights we would have to almost dismantle the constitution and rewrite it.

The 10th Amendment states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The 12th Amendment states:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. (See Note 14)--The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Now, I know we later modified it to allow the president and vice-president to run as a single ticket, but much of what I see there isn't happening today in practice. Moreover, this amendment was put into law to supercede the provisions originally set in place by clause 3, section 1, of Article II. This was done after Jefferson and Burr tied in the election of 1800. The presidential election process was yet again revisited in the 20th Amendment, in part using this argument.

''[W]hen our Constitution was adopted there was some reason for such a long intervention of time between the election and the actual commencement of work by the new Congress. . . . Under present conditions [of communication and transportation] the result of elections is known all over the country within a few hours after the polls close, and the Capital City is within a few days' travel of the remotest portions of the country. . .

IMO, that argument is still extant today.

[ComicBookWorm]

The way our electoral system works is each state has a certain amount of representative to vote for us. The people in the state vote for the president and all the representatives vote according to the majority. This happens with every state and at the end of the election it's all tallied up and whoever has the most votes wins. I have nothing wrong with this system. I'm sure everyone already knows that though. When I say tampering I'm talking about the stacks and stacks of ballots for the last election that was found burned but nothing was done about it. We either need to get honest people working with the ballots or have the whole system computerized (that can have problems with hackers though) or better yet have cameras all over the place so everyone can see what's going on in there.

When I say I know why you guys are attacking the system is because it's painfully obvious that your bitter towards the fact that Bush won the last election. Had Gore won the same way you wouldn't have said a thing and neither would I because this is how the system works and I happen to think it works well as long as it is done correctly and honestly.

And sorry if I sound a little out of it right now...I just had my wisdom teeth taken out on friday and I'm not feeling so hot.
A lot of the states are winner take all which means that all the electoral votes go to one candidate even if they are evenly split with only a slight majority. This effectively invalidates the votes of all those in the minority since their votes could add up throughout the country. Also, small states automatically get two extra electoral votes since the electoral count per state is the total of all their congressional representative plus the two senators. This addition of the senators to the total electoral votes is quite diluted in large states and overly magnified in small states.

That's how Al Gore could have 500,000 votes extra nationwide and lose by a few hundred votes in Florida. And that's ignoring all the voting irregularities there.

[purplehawk]

The Constitution doesn't even mention the Electoral College. It refers to electors - which are supposed be elected by the people as the representatives of the people. Do any states still allow people to vote for their electors? It seems as those the states have hogged every bit of the elective process for themselves. Members of the electoral college in my state are appointed.

[ComicBookWorm]

The Constitution doesn't even mention the Electoral College. It refers to electors - which are supposed be elected by the people as the representatives of the people. Do any states still allow people to vote for their electors? It seems as those the states have hogged every bit of the elective process for themselves. Members of the electoral college in my state are appointed.
They're all pork barrel patronage positions even if there is a nominal vote like here in California. Who are these guys and how do they get on the ballot? Well the parties put them there. And many of the states don't even bind the electors to vote the way the state did.

[purplehawk]

You know what? We need to do something about this mess. I'll say it again: the Electoral College has outlived it's usefulness - if indeed it ever had one other than as a convenient means to subvert the voice of the people.

[MoodyMania]

I have seen several different reasons the EC was established. Here is some information from the FEC (http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf). It is in PDF format so if you do not have Adobe Reader you won't be able to view this.

[purplehawk]

That's a great link, Moody. Thanks for including it.

As the issue of how we elect our presidents has been revisited multiple times, and the Constitution revised or amended according to the wisdom of those times, I stand by what I said. The electoral college has outlived its usefulness and should be quietly put to death.

It won't be an easy fight, though. The Founding Fathers had trouble with just "thirteen large and small states jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government." Today we have 50.

[iluvhhr]

I don't like the Electoral College. It's very unfair. We spoke about it in my history class on November 2, and I remember my teacher saying that it's seen as uncostitutional. The citizens' votes are directed toward their state. The popular vote doesn't seem to mean much this way. Even if you lose the popular vote, you can still win the election.

[purplehawk]

A whole lot of us don't like it. There are, however, power-mongers in all fifty states who would be loathe to see the Electoral College dismantled.