Electoral College; Yes or No?

[Gaith]

If every American's vote was counted equally, neighbors would get involved with canvassing neighbors across the country, not just in the swing states. And this'd be reflected in polls, and candidates would be influenced by those polls. Since South Dakota is a safe red state, a popular vote would increase your individual votes' importance.

And which of the elected politicians would feel beholden to you, and express concern for you? None of them. Not a single one.

Uh, your Congressional Representatives? You know, the people whose job is to "represent" you?

Uh, maybe two Senators, the same as California and Texas, and infinitely more than DC?! Live in one of those states/DC for a while...

Do you resent the fact that South Dakota had the same number of Senators as Texas? Why shouldn't we have equal representation? We're equally sovereign.

Suppose a massive, unknown volcano were to suddenly vaporize an entire state, and all if its inhabitants. I'd consider it a greater tragedy if that happened to Texas than to Vermont. Wouldn't you? Because you seem to be saying that some people are worth more than others. "I live in a small-population state, so I'm worth more than a person who lives in a big city."

 

[Pavonis]

I don't think ridiculous hypotheticals are helpful.

The fact is that South Dakota, Texas, Ohio and all the other states are all sovereign and joined in the Union. Why shouldn't they have equal representation in the Senate?

 

[Gaith]

^ I see the logic and understand the reasoning behind your position. I don't agree, but I get it. Do you really not understand my position, or do you think if you keep asking "why don't you agree with me?" over and over I'll eventually do so, out of, I don't know, sheer boredom?

You don't believe in the "one person, one vote" principle. Neither, apparently, does gturner. You think distinctions in geography are more important than disctinctions in numbers of American citizens. That's the unbridgeable source of our disagreement. End of story.

As for the Constitution, I don't find it to be a perfect, God-given document that should never be reformed for fairness' sake.

 

[sbk1234]

Ughhhh! I'm more confused than ever!

 

[Pavonis]

Your hypothetical was ridiculous, and wanted you to focus on reality. I believe in "one person, one vote". But the US isn't homogeneous, and pretending that it should be isn't helpful. Some states are going to be more populous. The States don't exist as mere administrative units for the Federal government. They created the Union, the Union didn't create the states. The Federal government should reflect that the States differ. The House exists to address the population differences between the states; the Senate treats the states as equal political entities. The Presidency comes in between. The candidate has to draw broad support to win across many different regions, and not just win a popularity contest.

As for me, I honestly don't understand your objection to small states having representation. Any representation at all for a smaller state will be disproportionate somehow. The math of the problem will mean that somehow it isn't fair in someone's eyes. It can't be helped. South Dakota has only one representative for all 800,000 people. Is that fair? Texas has one representative for every 650,000 citizens. Texas citizens are better represented than South Dakotans. That doesn't seem fair to me.

 

[E-DUB]

I would, if I had the power, keep the Electoral College but get rid of the two extra electors apportioned to each state. The vote of a used car salesman in Wyoming should not have more impact than the vote of a used car salesman in Wyoming, Michigan. This would have resulted in a Gore win in 2000. I have not checked it for the prior "anomalous result" elections but suspect that it would reverse the results of those as well. The reason for not abolishing the body altogether is that it "firewalls" the problem in extremely close national elections like 2000, where the winners margin of victory was less than the margin of error for the entire process. "Under the popular vote, state lines wouldn't matter.", some have said. My point exactly, in 2000 recount mania would not have been confined to Florida, heck we'd still be counting those ballots.

But, it's probably all academic because any amendment to eliminate the EC would have to be approved by the states, enough of whom benefit from the current system to effectively roadblock any attempt to change it. Do you really think that any state legislature would vote to give their state less influence simply because it was the right thing to do? I wouldn't make my intake of oxygen contigent upon that occuring.

 

[Showdown]

I support the Electoral College. The election is not just about the people, it is about the states. It is from the Great Compromise and the reason why we have two houses in Congress. One is based on population and one is based on state. It is in between the two.

Despite of what some politicians say, I highly doubt they are serious about getting the Electoral College. It makes their jobs easier. They only need to focus commercials on swing states. Swing states don't determine the election. They are "in play." Other states, like Texas and California, are "in the bag."

Local elections are just as bad. Politicians trade votes for districts during redistricting. They fight for city blocks, because it would give them a few extra votes against a future opponent. It is called Gerrymandering.

 

[Jimi_James]

It would be nice if the Electoral College was an actual school the people had to go to, with basic knowledge they had to learn and tests they had to pass before being eligible candidates for office.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I'm strongly in favor of abolishing the Electoral College. It may have worked when there thirteen States with relatively low populations-- probably not, but it may have-- but it certainly doesn't work now. What it does now is contribute to low voter turnout, create a two-party system that weaponizes ideology and promotes extremism and occasionally result in the election of the loser.

There are two reforms that need to happen to correct the current problems with the system: The abolition of the Electoral College and the ranking of candidates.

The abolition of the Electoral College would end the Red State versus Blue State nonsense. As it is now, many people don't vote because they believe their vote doesn't count-- and they're right. I live in Massachusetts, so it doesn't matter if I vote or not; the Democrat is going to win. Personally, I vote anyway, as a matter of principle, but it doesn't really matter. Blues in Red States and Reds in Blue States have no say-- worse, the large segment of the population who, like me, are neither Red nor Blue, have less than no say. Abolishing the Electoral College would mean that politicians would have to deal with the people and that everybody's vote would count, driving up the turnout and changing the demographics of the elections.

Being able to rank the candidates-- i.e., saying "I vote for Wesley Clark, but if he loses I want my vote to go to John Kerry and not George Bush"-- would make it possible for third-party and independent candidates to have a chance at actually winning an election. This would also serve to increase voter turnout, give the people a real choice and reduce the power of the two major parties, ultimately breaking the back of the two-party system.

These two reforms would give the people more say in how their president is elected and provide candidates that are actually qualified to do the job, rather than just figureheads for a couple of extremist political corporations. Optimistically, it could change our entire culture to something more benign and civilized.

 

[Gaith]

The States don't exist as mere administrative units for the Federal government. They created the Union, the Union didn't create the states.

This is a classic example of taking Founding Fathers-era logic and stretching it to the present, to the point of absurdity. Yes, the original handful of states created the Union. But the Union absolutely started creating states after a few decades. Did Nebraska, Oregon, or Hawaii "create the Union"? Please!

Thomas Jefferson endorsed the Constitution, but thought that reforms, even fundamental ones, should be considered every generation or so. But maintaining Founder-era logic has become a kind of dogma for many right-wingers, as is represented in your statement above.

South Dakota has only one representative for all 800,000 people. Is that fair? Texas has one representative for every 650,000 citizens. Texas citizens are better represented than South Dakotans. That doesn't seem fair to me.

You're referring to the Huntington-Hill method? It may not be perfect, but it does seem an honest attempt at fairness, a closest approximation of "one person, one vote" without weighing Representatives' votes slightly differently.

The Electoral College makes no such pretense. Like the Senate, it was designed in large part to empower states over citizens, and in so doing to delay a major political battle over slavery until such time as the Union was a bit more solid than it was in 1789. It's a fundamentally unfair system that has outlived its usefulness.

 

[Squiggy]

As for me, I honestly don't understand your objection to small states having representation. Any representation at all for a smaller state will be disproportionate somehow. The math of the problem will mean that somehow it isn't fair in someone's eyes. It can't be helped. South Dakota has only one representative for all 800,000 people. Is that fair? Texas has one representative for every 650,000 citizens. Texas citizens are better represented than South Dakotans. That doesn't seem fair to me.

Since the electoral college in 48 states is winner-take-all, it's very disproportionate to the tens of thousands of people in South Dakota who didn't vote for the state winner.

Let's look at that last election, shall we?

McCain won the state by getting 203,054 votes.
Obama lost the state by getting 170,924 votes.

How were the voices of those 170,924 people heard in South Dakota?

 

[Pavonis]

I concede. I'm in the wrong. Clearly I'm swinging back to an anti-EC stance.

I'd still like to point out, though, that there's no system anyone can set up that everyone will see as completely fair. Pretending that a system that is preferable to you must obviously be fair to everyone is ridiculous. I'm not unaware that the EC is "unfair" to some, but people shouldn't think that any other system would be better for all and that everyone would embrace it happily. Some acknowledgment of that fact would be welcome.

 

[MacLeod]

All forms of demorcatic elections have their pros and cons.

If you'll allow me to quote myself. Which was way back on the first page.

No system is perfect, they each have flaws.

I'm not an American so I have no vested interest in which system you use.

The EC could be reformed so that each candaite recieves a number of EC votes propartionally to their vote share in each state.

i.e. if a State has 50 college votes, and party A gets 40% of vote, and parties B C D each get 20%. then 20 EC votes whilst the others get 10 each.

 

[Gaith]

The EC could be reformed so that each candaite recieves a number of EC votes propartionally to their vote share in each state.

i.e. if a State has 50 college votes, and party A gets 40% of vote, and parties B C D each get 20%. then 20 EC votes whilst the others get 10 each.

The trouble with that idea is that the Electoral College is not actually an institution: states decide completely independently how to assign their electors, and only a Constitutional amendment could impose such a reform on all fifty states.

I concede. I'm in the wrong. Clearly I'm swinging back to an anti-EC stance.

I'd still like to point out, though, that there's no system anyone can set up that everyone will see as completely fair. Pretending that a system that is preferable to you must obviously be fair to everyone is ridiculous. I'm not unaware that the EC is "unfair" to some, but people shouldn't think that any other system would be better for all and that everyone would embrace it happily. Some acknowledgment of that fact would be welcome.

Sweet, welcome to the light side of the Force!

As MacLeod said, I'm happy to admit that perfection is impossible to come by in political terms. I've served as a polling place worker twice, once as a site leader, and the amount of plastic bags, tickers, counters and other stuff makes one realize just how terrifying fragile the whole process really is. And I don't think it'd be a good idea, for instance, to hold monthly elections on national ballot initiatives. There is, in practical terms at least, such thing as too much democracy.

Still, I'll take a popular vote for president over the fractured and outdated electoral system any day.

 

[tomalak301]

I was talking about this to my father the other night, and one idea that he had which I loved was to have a modified Electoral College system. The point of the whole thing was to make it more fair for the small states, and on paper, that's good but in execution the thing sucks. What I like was instead of a winner take it, do it on the representative level and split the votes. So for example, in California you have 56 total votes, but maybe some of that goes to the Republican candidate and some of that goes to the democratic. As for the whole issue with TV, people love results shows, so why not reveal the results on Wednesday night instead of Election night. Have Tuesday be voting day only, then the people have a full day or so to count the votes. This way, we do get to find out how states like Hawaii and Alaska voted, which everyone ignores now.

I know this system will never happen, but it's the fairest compromise I've heard. It also makes every state important, and despite the disgusting two party system that feels like it's tearing this country apart, we are still a union.

 

[Gryffindorian]

We have the Libertarian Party, Peace & Freedom, Green, Reform, etc. I don't see why any of.them shouldn't get the attention Republicans and Democrats get. I'd be in favor of adding a few more: Labor, Socialist, perhaps even Conservative and Progressive.

And Moderate, too.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Moderate? That's just crazy talk.

 

[The Green Mushroom]

I'll start out by saying I do not like the Electoral College. At all.

I'll also say that I believe we NEED a Senate and every state needs to represented equally. I won't spout any nonsense about states being sovereign entities (try seceding and see how sovereign you really are), but the states are important. Fundamentally important enough that the people of each state should receive equal representation in the Senate. States are not counties or towns, they are much more than that.

But the President is no longer the Big Chief of a club of 13 semi-independent states. He is the leader of an entire nation. And because of that, he should be chosen by a majority of all the citizens (that bother to vote).

I will end by saying that a lot of the problems of the Electoral College may stem from the House of Representatives. Many moons ago, some genius decided that the House must have 435 members and no more. That means that every ten years 435 seats and, directly, 435 Electoral Votes are shuffled around. This results in the number of people represented by each Congressmen becoming less and less equal and therefore less and less proportional. If Congress adopted something called the Wyoming Rule, where the smallest state's population is the optimal size for one congressional district, the situation might get better. Might.

 

[Squiggy]

Agreed. The states are really only "semi-soverign". They have some powers devolved to them, but not all. The Civil War and subsequent Supreme Courts really changed the nature of the union from a confederation of States who were in a mutually benefitial compact to a single nation of many states. Citizens stopped thinking themselves as Lee did. They were no longer Virginians or Pennsylvanians or Georgians but Americans.

Of course there are still people who believe in more states-rights because we're not really that far removed from those days. Strom Thurmond's father was born during the Civil War and he's only dead a decade.

However, the proof is in the pudding. The United States wasn't a world power until we stopped the intra-state squabbling and acting like a single nation.

 

[sonak]

the electoral college is a fundamentally non-democratic anachronism from the 18th century. The question is would any country set up such a ridiculous system today?