Elections and the Electoral College

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by red_jon
The only problem with a proportional system is it allows extremist parties to gain a firmer footing.

Nothing wrong with that. That just means the voice of minorities will be heard instead of ignored.

Originally posted by red_jon
I can see both sides of the argument here - it isn't fair that rural votes are worth more than urban ones. But then if they have very few votes, politicians will completely ignore them.

That's the bare essence of democracy, the tyranny of majority. Of course, some systems enable the minorities to be heard. Minorities can even band together to attempt to become the majority, like it happened in Japan a while back.

Or more likely, two roughly equal factions will have to vie for the minorities to form government or pass legislation, thus as in my country less than 1% of the population who voted for the minorities have more of a say than the 51% who voted for the party currently in power.

Real good idea that one!

[Rex Little]

My only real complaint about the electoral system--and this applies to most other elections as well--is that a candidate can win a state's electoral votes without getting a majority of the votes cast. In a number of states last time, the vote went something like Bush 48%, Gore 47%, Nader and others 5%. It's just not fair that Bush got those electoral votes handed to him. In such cases, there should be either a runoff between the top two, or a way for voters to indicate their second choice.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by leftover_crack
Keep it. Its a good system that makes rural areas and states actually count. I mean if it were all popular vote. Bush and Gore never would of went to Wyoming or South Dakota.

Just imagine how neglected alaska would feel?

And this is a good argument how? Why should I care that Wyoming and Alaska get ignored. They should in now way have more political clout than the city of Chicago, which has seven times the people of either state. The people of those states have no right to a vote that weighs more than someone living in Chicago.

[gorilonblanco]

Ethelred:

Perhaps the electoral votes should be determined by the number of registered voters each state has (for example, say 1 electoral vote per 10,000 registered voters), considering that only registered voters can vote. That would probably even things up. What do you think?

Oh, in my state alot of the census takers are volunteers (I have some doubts as to their integrity).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by gorilonblanco
Ethelred:

Perhaps the electoral votes should be determined by the number of registered voters each state has (for example, say 1 electoral vote per 10,000 registered voters), considering that only registered voters can vote. That would probably even things up. What do you think?

It would make thing closer to an even vote for large and small population states. Wyoming and Alaska would still get a disproportianate vote because one electoral vote is kind of a minimum. Any system other than a literal one man one vote system must have some lack of uniformity due to round off errors.

That will always be the case in the House and I don't think it should be changed because the house with 435 members is allready unwiedly. The Soviet version of Parliment is hopeless due to the masses of members. Its like herding cats. The beurocrats have all the power under those conditions.

I may have a better chance herding cats. Just use a chute and lube the sides.

Oh, in my state alot of the census takers are volunteers (I have some doubts as to their integrity).

Well thats allways a consideration. I don't know how many are volunteers in California but there has to be a structured system of some sort with over 33 million people to count.

I remember thinking we were crowded with 20 million. My high school had 3000 students and wasn't even the largest in the school district. Lakewood and Millikan switched back and forth for that. Over 4000 students. One of the two was the largest in the country every year I was in high school and afterwards for a while as well. Our school district sent extra people to the state championships in some sports just to be sure the best six in the state could be there instead of losing at the Moore league Championships. Swimming and gymnastics were the ones I remember doing that.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CICSMaster
Or more likely, two roughly equal factions will have to vie for the minorities to form government or pass legislation, thus as in my country less than 1% of the population who voted for the minorities have more of a say than the 51% who voted for the party currently in power.

Real good idea that one!

If less than 1% of the population can get one representative in, and that one person can make the difference, so may it be. If the votes are so close, the "swing" votes become a lot more significant regardless of the system.

[Ned]

I read through this entire thread and I don't recall anyone mentioning that the Constitution does not grant any citizen the right to vote for president. It gave the power elect electors to the state "legislatures." Originally the state legislature did pick the electors. Later, they had the people vote and awarded electors according to the vote in a variety of patterns over the years. Most states now award the whole slate of electors to the winner of the popular vote in the state. But this is not set in stone and any state legislature may change the method at any time prior to an election.

As to "one man one vote" consider that a minority of Californians, let us say 40%, can give all the state's electors to one candidate, e.g., Clinton. Do the math. 4% of the US electorate gave Clinton 10% of the electoral votes in 1992.

Now that is voting power.

[The Mad Monk]

I sometimes think that the election of Senators should have been left in the hands of the states. Perhaps people would pay more attention to 'off-year' elections, then.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ned
I read through this entire thread and I don't recall anyone mentioning that the Constitution does not grant any citizen the right to vote for president. It gave the power elect electors to the state "legislatures." Originally the state legislature did pick the electors. Later, they had the people vote and awarded electors according to the vote in a variety of patterns over the years. Most states now award the whole slate of electors to the winner of the popular vote in the state. But this is not set in stone and any state legislature may change the method at any time prior to an election.

As to "one man one vote" consider that a minority of Californians, let us say 40%, can give all the state's electors to one candidate, e.g., Clinton. Do the math. 4% of the US electorate gave Clinton 10% of the electoral votes in 1992.

Now that is voting power.

Yes. I do seem to remember that during the Florida vote, the republicans said something along the lines of "Even if gore does win, we'll simply remove the slate and replace it with republicans." (in so many words).

How democratic

[Kepler]

Trash it and go with the popular vote. With the electoral college, the candidates more or less ignore half the states. The EC also motivates politically-minded giveaways that benefit particular states but screw over the country as a whole (e.g. Dubya's steel deal). Finally, it throws too much voting weight to rural, small states, which is a built-in advantage for populist policies.

The states have meaningful and sensible representation in the Senate. The EC has outlived its usefulness.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Yes. I do seem to remember that during the Florida vote, the republicans said something along the lines of "Even if gore does win, we'll simply remove the slate and replace it with republicans." (in so many words).

How democratic

T, Regardless of the wild talk, the Legislature was prepared to pick the Florida electors if neither the Bush nor Gore electors were certified by the statutory deadline, Dec. 18. There have been elections where a state so screwed up that they did not certify their electors and essentially disenfrancised the state. This happened to New York in the very first election.

In the Florida case, I believe they would have voted the slate to Bush because he won the most votes according to the first three counts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have heard of Amendments haven't you? You know those things in the Constitution where it was changed.

Yes, I have. But if you think for one instance that 3/4ths of the states will give up their Electoral College power you are a moron.

The only reform that is even close to being on the table is one to split EC votes among the percentage of vote recieved in state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

You have heard of Amendments haven't you? You know those things in the Constitution where it was changed.

Yes, I have. But if you think for one instance that 3/4ths of the states will give up their Electoral College power you are a moron.

The only reform that is even close to being on the table is one to split EC votes among the percentage of vote recieved in state.

But, Imran, every state has the power to divide its vote proportionately today. This still is not a constitutional issue. Lobby your state if you want to change the system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... Ned... I don't want to change the system, if you read carefully.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ethelred
So, Ming, why is an inhabitant of Wyoming deserving of a bigger vote than you have? You need to do something about you level of self-esteem.

You just happen to be looking at it the wrong way...

Try this example. If in Wyoming the vote is tied and the last voter casts his vote for Bush... Bush gets 3 crummy electorial votes.

Now in California, if the vote is tied, and the last voter casts his vote for Gore... Gore gets 60 electorial votes.

So I ask you... which state has the more important voter

My point being, the Wyoming voter is the one getting screwed under this system. No matter who he votes for, the best he can hope to contribute to the overall election is 3 crummy electoral votes. While a California vote can provide 60.

Now you can go ahead and change your question to "why should a California voter be worth more than a voter from Wyoming"

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... Ned... I don't want to change the system, if you read carefully.

Sorry, Imran.

I was just thinking how the debate would go in California:

Pro: Proportional is fair and gives small parties some electoral votes.

Con: Winner takes all gives California maximum impact. Elections will be decided by California.

As well: Small parties are the bane of other democracies and lead to instability because they end up being the decisive votes in a coalition government. To the extent a small party garners a sizable vote, they draw voters away from the major party candidate that is the most closely aligned with the small party. In other words, small party candidates hurt their own cause in a winner-take-all electoral vote voting system. This discourages small parties, enhances the two party system and promotes stability.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming


You just happen to be looking at it the wrong way...

Try this example. If in Wyoming the vote is tied and the last voter casts his vote for Bush... Bush gets 3 crummy electorial votes.

Now in California, if the vote is tied, and the last voter casts his vote for Gore... Gore gets 60 electorial votes.

So I ask you... which state has the more important voter

My point being, the Wyoming voter is the one getting screwed under this system. No matter who he votes for, the best he can hope to contribute to the overall election is 3 crummy electoral votes. While a California vote can provide 60.

Now you can go ahead and change your question to "why should a California voter be worth more than a voter from Wyoming"

Ming, you are absolutely correct. The arguments against the electoral college made by citing the greater voting power of Wyoming miss the mark entirely. The large states decide the election. The more electoral votes at stake, the greater the voting power.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
Ming, you are absolutely correct. The arguments against the electoral college made by citing the greater voting power of Wyoming miss the mark entirely.

Which is the point Ethelred needs to understand. I can't argue with him that certain people's votes are worth less than others... it's just the example he keeps using to support his argument is all wrong.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming


You just happen to be looking at it the wrong way...

Nonsense. Hang on for more.

Try this example. If in Wyoming the vote is tied and the last voter casts his vote for Bush... Bush gets 3 crummy electorial votes.

Now in California, if the vote is tied, and the last voter casts his vote for Gore... Gore gets 60 electorial votes.

So I ask you... which state has the more important voter

Which was the voter? If you can't tell me which was the ONE voter than it must be spread to all the voters in the state. In which case we are back to my point.

If you CAN tell me which was the voter I sure we can provide you with an appropriate place to stay for a long time for election code violations.

On top of which changing to a popular vote makes everyones vote equal in ALL states and in the US overall.

So we are back to why should some one IN ANY state have more voting power than others when a popular vote makes us all equal?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming


Which is the point Ethelred needs to understand. I can't argue with him that certain people's votes are worth less than others... it's just the example he keeps using to support his argument is all wrong.

Unfortunatly for you and Ned it works just as well in a generalized form except that some people (Ming and Ned perhaps but certainly others) can't handle generalizations well based on their inability to see that no one should be more equal than otherss in the vote for the President.

[Ned]

Ethelred, The current system is just fine because it seems to work. I, like most Americans, would like to really understand the downsides to a completely "national" election, one man, one vote. If this would somehow fundamentally change America, we are against it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, The current system is just fine because it seems to work.

Remarkable statement that is. It failed in the last election.

It doesn't work. It has failed more than once.

I, like most Americans, would like to really understand the downsides to a completely "national" election, one man, one vote. If this would somehow fundamentally change America, we are against it.

Well you aren't most Americans Mr EveryNed. You are just one person. Yet you are taking on speaking for everyone. Were you elected to the position. Do you have poll perhaps that supports that. Perhaps I am mistaken but I thought a heck of a lot Americans would like a national popular vote instead of the Electoral College. I could be wrong on this of course. After all I still hate the designated hitter rule like many Americans so tradition does count.

Well it end the situation that we presently have where a man can become President while not even getting a plurality of the votes. We literally have a loser for President and its at least the third time.

If that seems a fundamental change to you then perhaps you should reconsider what you think is wrong with making a fundamental change when many if not most would consider it a change for the better. There would still only be one President. He would be elected to represent all of us and not particular states. Everyones vote would count the same. There would still be nothing to drive the US to a multiparty system as we don't have a Prime Minister elected by the majority of a parliment which is what makes multiparty systems possible.

Of course if we had a popular vote in the last election then we would still have a loser for President but it would only be metaphorical instead of both metaphorical and literal as is the present case. Hard to avoid the metaphorical part when ALL the candidates where losers.

[Dom Pedro II]

I remember reading something some where (don't remember where) about if the this country had switched to "national" elections way back at the beginning, most of the elections that have taken place would have resulted very differently. Not always for the better either, but I suppose that depends on your politics.

Food for thought.

I really don't have an opinion on this one way or another. I'm a Fascist...




(not really)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ethelred
So we are back to why should some one IN ANY state have more voting power than others when a popular vote makes us all equal?

Did I ever say I disagree with you that one state's voters are more important than others? No... I didn't.

But what I am disagreeing with you on is which states voters are screwed. Your use of math is correct, but your conclusions are totally wrong.

It is nice to see you "NOW" saying "IN ANY STATE" vs

So, Ming, why is an inhabitant of Wyoming deserving of a bigger vote than you have?

That hopefully means that you now realize that Wyoming voters are just plain screwed. They will (with rare exception) NEVER have an impact on who is president. Talk about your vote being meaningless.

While California voters have the power to put somebody in the White House with their 60 electoral votes.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The electoral colege is a stupid stupid thing.
First of all, it igonres the vote cast by up to 49% of the voters. Then it give all of the electoral college votes to the candidate who won more than 50% of the vote. Those EC votes do not represent the other 50% of the people who cast their votes for the other guy.
Some representational democracy

For those who say that the candidates will ignore the farmers of america, when was the last time you saw any presidential candidate go to some rural town in Alabama? They don't have time . They will stick to the major population centers.

[Ned]

Ethelred, Bush was able to win the election because he took 10 more states (IIRC) than Gore. Those two extra votes for each state's senators were decisive in the last election.

But, our founding fathers intended these two extra votes to be decisive in a close election. Now, you may assume your ideology of one man one vote is preferable to the plan given us by the founding fathers, but I am reluctant to rush into change for the sake of change.

Your statement that system did not work in the last election is pure crap. It worked perfectly as intended. Apparently, though, you disagree with the result. But the conclusion you draw that the wrong man was elected president is simply elevating your personal choice for president or your personal preference for one man one vote into a constitutional principle.

The founding fathers deliberately set out to establish a system of checks and balances. They deliberately chose the electoral college to have two extra votes for a state's senators to assure that the election for president would be a balanced mixture of people power an state power.

This system has stood the test of time and should not be changed, IMHO.

Besides, George Bush has proven to be one the greatest presidents this country has ever had. I doubt Gore would have done even half as well considering his known cowardice.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The electoral college was established as a voting club. Since travel time took a long time back in the day, no candidate could reach out to everyone. (no media, no airplanes, no trains )Therefore, the Electoral College was designed to vote for the people of that state. There is no more need today of this system.

[MBD]

There's another another big advantage to the electoral college system. Every candidate wants to get a 'mandate' -- the more votes, the bigger the mandate to enact whatever the candidate advocated. But while the popular vote is usually very close, the electoral college rewards broad support, and thus enlarges the winner's mandate. Look at Kennedy in 1960 -- won the popular vote by .1%. No mandate there. Won the electoral vote something like 320-200 even with a third party candidate, and thus had a solid mandate.

And to those who advocate giving an electoral vote based on the winner of each congressional district, with the remaining two votes awarded to the candidate who wins the statewide vote -- it actually benefits the Republicans. According to a recent article, if that system had been in place, Bush would have beaten Gore by a bigger margin and Ford would have beaten Carter in 1976.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming


Did I ever say I disagree with you that one state's voters are more important than others? No... I didn't.

Then why do support the Electoral College?

But what I am disagreeing with you on is which states voters are screwed. Your use of math is correct, but your conclusions are totally wrong.

It was an example chosen only to emphasize the disparity. Your example was faulty in that it depends on a exceedingly unlikely event while mine happens in every election.

It is nice to see you "NOW" saying "IN ANY STATE" vs

Sorry that overestimated some people's ability to generalize. My mistake. Esecially since the inhabitants of Wyoming DO have 3.8 times the voting power per person despite your red herring about a case where the result depend on one vote.

That hopefully means that you now realize that Wyoming voters are just plain screwed. They will (with rare exception) NEVER have an impact on who is president. Talk about your vote being meaningless.

They always have three votes. No one person has ever had an impact. One state has on two occasion. Your state the first time but that is because it was counted last, while Mayor Daley rigged the election for Kennedy. At least it sure did look that way. And now we have the Florida case where again there a lot of irregularities even without a recount.

Neither cases would have happened in a national popular election of the President. Of course cheating could still occur but that is happening now.

While California voters have the power to put somebody in the White House with their 60 electoral votes.

Just like Florida huh. It was fifty-four in the 2000 election by the way. I think its 59 in the next not 60. Either way its putting the state over the individual voter.

Ah found it. We get screwed again. Its not 60 its 55.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/El...html?sort=Alph

California 55 electoral votes

10.22% of the the electoral votes

33,930,798 - 12.03% of the US population.

So Californian instead of getting 12 percent get only 10.2 per cent.

And since I mentioned Wyoming before here are the numbers for it.


Wyoming 3 electoral votes

0.56% of the electoral votes

495,304 - 0.18% per cent of the population

A popular vote would end the disparity. It would also help end this silly State vs. State crap since we are a single nation and the President is supposed to represent all of us.