Al Gore Calls for End of Electoral College

[cal04]

Source: National Journal

Many Americans are disenfranchised and some states are ignored because of the Electoral College, and it's time to abandon it, former Vice President Al Gore said on Thursday night as part of Current TV's coverage of the Republican National Convention.

"I really do now think it's time to change that. It's always tough to amend the Constitution and risky to do so, but there is a very interesting movement under way that takes it state by state, that may really have a chance of succeeding. I hope it does," Gore said.

Asked to describe the movement, Gore was vague, saying it "started in California and it's gained a lot of momentum."

(snip)
"I supported the idea of the Electoral College because the logic is, it knits the country together, prevents regional conflicts, and it goes back through our history with some legitimate concerns," he said. "But since, I've given a lot of thought to it and I've seen how these states are just written off."


Read more: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/al-gore-calls-for-end-of-electoral-college-20120830

[still_one]

1. It will never happen. The south won't let it /nt

[xxenderwigginxx]

10. For once I agree with the south

as I live in Arkansas.
Total U.S. Population 285,230,516
Population living in Urban Areas 225,956,060
Population living in Rural Areas 59,274,456
The total population of my state is only 2,937,979. Our voices and our interests would be COMPLETELY ignored. The Electoral College is imperfect, but at least helps insure that a president is not only elected by large metropolitan areas. In a "majority rule" system, the presidency could be won by an individual who is only supported by one region. To simply assert that we should get rid of it and elect by popular vote takes an overly simplistic view of the electoral college.

[still_one]

14. That was not the intent of the electoral college. That is why they have 2 senators from every state

The electoral college is an outdated albatross

[xxenderwigginxx]

21. You began with a completely unargued statement and ended with an unargued opinion...

support the things that you say. What was the intent? The number of electors in each state is the sum of its U.S. senators and its U.S. representatives.

[still_one]

22. No matter what my view is, the fact is it won't go away, it is here to stay /nt

[xxenderwigginxx]

24. Maybe, but anything can be changed..

I just want to be careful what we change it to.

[still_one]

34. In theory yes. Either way I hear you /nt

[CreekDog]

40. Look, Arkansas has slightly fewer people than Chicago, but Arkansas voters have more power

why should one group of 3 million people have less power than another?

and no, Chicago doesn't have the whole of Illinois standing up for it's voters. it's voters in rural areas are often voting against the city's interests, as your voters in rural areas are often voting against Little Rock's interests.

just end the thing. a person is a person is a person. each should have the same power in their vote.

[xxenderwigginxx]

41. You are comparing a city to a state..

Last edited Fri Aug 31, 2012, 05:25 AM - Edit history (1)

On a state v state level, Arkansas' industry, concerns, problems are not the same as IL. But you would in effect have IL deciding what the national policies, funding, etc are for AR. The states with larger population would control policy and gear it toward their own industries, concerns, etc and the low pop states would be left with the scraps

[CreekDog]

43. look it's not the way democracies do things

what other country allocates its power this way?

which of the founding fathers thought the idea you supported is a bad one?

i have a feeling that you don't know the answers to any of these questions and i think because the EC is the American way is the reason you like it.

but that doesn't make it right.

[xxenderwigginxx]

44. I'm not speaking in favor of EC, I'm advocating against popular vote.

And attacking me personally claiming to know my thought process or reasons is disingenuous. I agree that it is not the way democracies do things, I do not support pure democracy.

[CreekDog]

48. I'm not arguing for pure democracy, but the voters should have equal power

compared to other voters.

2 senators for 37 million people and 2 senators for 3 million is NOT giving voters the same power.

and 37 million voters in CA, per individual they have less power than an individual in Arkansas in choosing the president.

that's not right.

you can still have a republican style democracy and have fair distribution of votes.

no wonder our public transit is so bad here compared to other countries. urban voters have less power than their rural counterparts.

[xxenderwigginxx]

45. There is more involved in changing the system than just getting rid of bad policies

you have to replace them with good ones.

[CreekDog]

49. the popular vote to elect the president and vice president

through passage of a constitutional amendment would be the idea.

not sure if Al's idea to get an earlier solution is going to work.

[pipoman]

119. This is a republic not a democracy, like it or not...n/t

[tabasco]

128. A republic is a form of democracy.

I'm really tired of hearing that stale right-wing canard.

[pipoman]

129. And I tire of people ascribing the dictionary definition of 'democracy'

to the US. Now, I'm sure you'll have no problem referring me to something (anything) proving your accusation that the idea of the US being a Republic founded on democratic principals is "right wing"...no, that too is tiring...assholes who can't make their case based on facts going around accusing others of being right wingers.

[tabasco]

135. No,

I'm not going to educate you. That's your job.

[xxqqqzme]

58. So you think it is a good

idea for states w/ smaller populations can control /filibuster policies that would benefit all Americans. I don't like backward/religious fanastism dictating women's healthcare or their threats to destroy Social Security, Medicare, the environment and education. Since I live in a huge donor state, why should I have to tolerate welfare states wasting our tax dollars?

[xxenderwigginxx]

59. Then address the filibuster policies

don't give all power into the hands of 10 states and leave the other 40 with scraps

[cpwm17]

76. No, it's about giving equal power to all voters

Right now power is given to certain states to elect the President. The President represents the voters - all voters, not the states.

[slackmaster]

78. People in Arkansas have a tradition of voting only once

And only while they are alive.

[JDPriestly]

47. If we did away with the electoral college, then each voter in your state would have the

same influence as each voter in my state, California.

Seems extremely fair and wise to me.

One person. One vote. That is how it should be.

What is wrong with that?

[CreekDog]

51. Nothing wrong with that, each voter having the same power

besides, voters move.

the idea that a voter is voting their state's interest solely and that their interests change by dint of moving from one state to another is ridiculous.

i've lived in 3 states and voted the same way in all of them.

[onpatrol98]

112. Sounds reasonable...

Sounds reasonable, but states are so different. I've got acquaintances in some more urban areas who think anyone who doesn't use some sort of public transportation or walk to work is killing the environment and should be forced into some other model.

Well, hey, I can understand their feeling, but I live in a very rural area, and there is no public transportation. Very few possibilities in the entire state. By their sheer numbers alone, should they decide what's best for my state.

I like the idea in theory. But, in practice, I think it would be disastrous. And, I think in this upcoming election, the electoral vote may be our friend.

[JDPriestly]

120. In a democracy, sheer numbers decide a lot of things like whether tax money goes to fund or

streets for cars and trucks or to public transportation.

Unless a basic human right is at issue, the majority pretty much rules.

None of us would want it any other way. It can be tough when the majority wants something that is bad for a small segment of the population. But I think that rural populations are still a large enough portion of the general population that they can get what they need.

[DonCoquixote]

64. not necessarily

If anything, a pure popular vote means that EVERY LITTLE VOTE will count, and that there is a reason to appeal to small districts, as opposed to knowing that the state government has already paibnted their state blue or red.

Take Florida, supposedly one of the winners of the electroral college as we are a big state, yet, thanks to the Tallhassee machine all but rigging Florida to go red, many of us southern blue people know we are ignored.

[apnu]

65. You are confusing Congress with the EC

Your Congrssional Reps are ther to serve your interests locally. You ( and I) have two Senators specifically so that larger states (in population terms) cannot muscle out smaller states. The Electorial College is ther for election one person, nationally, to represent all of us. The EC was put in place because America was so large and out communcation technologies was a few guys on horses, so having states elect voters to head to Washington to vote for a President made sense. Since the invention of the telephone, that problem is solved.

Futhermore, the EC, like Congress, is specifically pinned to population. Candidates already spen most of their time in large value swing states, such ad OH, PA, and FL. If IL, CA, TX or ,NY were in play they would spend a lot of time in those places campaigning instead of hosting fund raisers. So your fear of being ignored is already happening, just not the way you thought.

I agree with Al Gore. The Electorial College doesn't make sense in this modern age.

[CreekDog]

94. Yeah, why should more than half the goverment be based on voters

[treestar]

74. In a popular vote system, it would not be decided in any areas

Each person's vote counts equally, no matter where it is from.

Now rural people have disproportionate influence. That's why we don't have single payer and why right wingers have so much say in what goes on in this country.

[Floyd_Gondolli]

81. They are already ignored

Same for me next door in Oklahoma. We have marginalized ourselves by becoming crimson red states. The Dems don't bother and the Pukes already own us.

Not sure how old you are, but can you even conceive of a scenario in which a Dem would carry Arkansas in a presidential election in your lifetime? I'm guessing the answer is no.

[xxenderwigginxx]

97. I am 31 and Clinton carried AR in 1992 & 1996

[GTurck]

75. I don't like...

the Electoral College either but it probably will not go away. Maybe it can be changed. My idea is why not make it proportional rather than winner take all? Whatever percentage of the vote a candidate got in each state would be reflected in the Electoral College. Wild? Maybe but it is time to think outside the box.

[slackmaster]

77. I agree that it will never happen, but the Southern states are not the issue

States with small populations will block it:

Alaska
Montana
Nevada
the Dakotas
Washington
Wyoming
Vermont
Delaware
Rhode Island
New Hampshire
Maine
Hawaii

I believe that's enough to block an amendment right there.

[Dkc05]

2. electoral college is a fraud

They are already bought and paid for by mittens. I heard Michael Moore already conceded we have been sold out.

[XemaSab]

3. There are about 40 states that are either BLUE or RED

I live in California. The candidates need our money, but our votes? Are a foregone conclusion.

[Ken Burch]

4. At the very least, we can push

for initiatives in as many states as possible to make electoral vote distribution in each state proportional. This might mean doubling or tripling the size of the EC...but so what? It's people who meet in a state capital one time.

Electoral college abolition needs to be in the Democratic platform.

[Ken Burch]

5. btw, is that an old file photo, or did Al grow another beard?

n/t.

[BlueStreak]

6. He didn't say what solution he preferred. Popular vote is absulutely the wrong answer.

There are two big problems with the EC structure:

1) The small states are structurally over-represented. A resident of Montana's vote is worth much more than a resident of California.

2) As a winner-take-all arrangement, it nullifies nearly half the voters in 80% of the states.

But the EC has some virtues. The most important virtue is that it forms a firewall against state-level election fraud. Under the EC system, if Ohio's results are corrupt, that doesn't do anything to invalidate or nullify, say, Arkansas' votes. Another thing it does is to lock in a state's voting power for a decade, which I think is a good thing. A simple popular vote system rewards somebody who is able to load up a gay-bashing referendum on Utah's ballot, sure to gin up more right-wing voters out in that state, and that gives Utah (in this hypothetical) an unfair amount of representation.

The system that I believe would make sense is to have a modified EC system where each state gets one elector for every 100,000 residents of the state as of the last census. And those electors would be divided PROPORTIONATELY based on that state's popular vote. That would still preserve the firewall protection, but it would solve the two main problems with the EC.

This would change our elections dramatically. All of a sudden, Texan, Georgia, New York, and California are all worth campaigning in. In fact, you MUST campaign there because you will need your proportion of the electors even if you don't win the state. California conservatives and Texas liberals would, for the first time in modern history, have a voice in the process, and that would be a good thing.

[jeff47]

8. Yes, Texas, Georgia, New York and California would be worth campaigning in

But Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Kansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii and the rest of the low-population states would not be worth campaigning in.

Yes, these states are currently over-represented. But they'd be utterly ignored in a popular vote-based system. Candidates would only bother campaigning in the large cities, and only care about issues in those large cities. Giving a damn about farm issues, for example, would be a waste of time and campaign resources.

And before you ask, no I don't have a better idea. The Electoral College sucks. So does only using popular vote.

[BlueStreak]

11. No. I do not agree with your statement

"But Iowa, Nebraska, Idaho, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, Kansas, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii and the rest of the low-population states would not be worth campaigning in. "

Obviously if a Democrat spends more time in Texas and New York, then he will have less time to spend in other states. But all the electors spend the same, so if you can pick up an extra 5 electors in KY and TN by spending some time and money there, you might do that rather than fight for the last 2 electors in CA. As I see it, the system I propose would make it at least a 35-state contest versus what is practically a 10 state contest now.

The only states that probably get no attention are ND, SD, HI, AK, MT, and ID -- but they get no attention today either.

[BlueStreak]

17. Let me give a little example.

Kansas has a population of about 2.8M. Under my system, that would give them 28 electors divided proportionately. In a hypothetical race, if the Democrat did nothing at all, it would probably split about 18-10 for the Republican. In my system, there would be about 3000 electors, so you would need to win about 1500. A candidate could look at this and say that contesting Kansas might get the race to 16-12 in favor of the Republican. That is a win of 4 electors, and that could be significant.

Kentucky would have 43 electors. Same argument, without campaigning, it might go 26-17 for the Republican. By contesting the state you might get it to 23-20 for the Republican. That is a gain of 6 electors.

47 electors in SC. Same story. I think they would be worth contesting. And if the expected loser doesn't contest at all, there is an incentive for the expected winner to really pile on because that would get the winner extra electors.

It would make the whole thing much more democratic and much less predictable. it would also provide much more of an icentive for voters to go to the polls if they are in a state where the winner is a foregone conclusion.

[jeff47]

23. Now do the math for the large cities.

Greater Los Angeles: About 30M people.
Greater New York: About 20M people.
Greater San Francisco: About 10M people.

Greater Los Angeles gets 300 electors in your system. Do nothing, and it will be about 55% D, 45% R. That's 135 Republican electors, and 165 Democratic electors. If campaigning bumps that by 5%, that's 15 electors. That's more than all 3 of your example states combined.

Why would I spend resources in Kentucky, Kansas and SC? I can get more electors by staying in Los Angeles. And bumping that percentage would be far easier in one city where I can attract and campaign massive crowds.

Your alternative is I split my time between 3 widely-dispersed areas where I can only talk to relatively small crowds. That's a lot more money and effort per vote than staying in Los Angeles.

ETA: Even worse, what hope does KY, KS and SC have to ever get attention? North Carolina provides an excellent example where a state can become a "toss-up" after being traditionally forgotten. With 100% popular voting, that will never happen. The cities that are important will stay important forever, and everywhere else will be forgotten forever.

[BlueStreak]

30. But the other side wants to win also.

Each side will have to pick where they think they can make the most difference, and that is not necessarily the biggest population centers.

For example, the advertising cost might be lower in the less populated areas.

There might be some regions where your candidacy resonates better, and that's where you put the extra energy and hope the other guy doesn't kick your ass too hard in the places where you don't compete as vigorously.

I strongly recommend that you take a few days to game this out rather than reacting immediately. Ir is a far-reaching thing -- a chess match. It is not as predictable as it may seem at first.

[jeff47]

32. It's a zero sum game.

If I abandon Los Angeles, my opponent gets a whole lot more votes for a whole lot less effort and money while I desperately try to claw together scraps by traveling thousands of miles and talking to 1/100th the people.

For example, the advertising cost might be lower in the less populated areas.

Yes, but I'm only reaching 1/100th the people. Woot! I got 1 more electoral vote while my opponent got 100 more.

I strongly recommend that you take a few days to game this out rather than reacting immediately.

I don't need to game this out. I'm living it. That's why I bothered explaining New York state government history.

[jeff47]

18. The flaw is you're still thinking states.

With popular voting, it's all about the large cities. Because that's where the majority of voters are. A tour through the midwest would net much fewer votes than hammering your message home in LA, NY and Chicago. Simply because you could reach fewer voters.

This isn't a theoretical exercise for me. I've experienced first-hand the switch from something Electoral College-like to 100% popular vote. While it's great for the big cities, it's very bad for everywhere else. And that "everywhere else" will never have any hope of getting attention back.

[BlueStreak]

31. There's nothing wrong with that. My system would be an improvement.

It is all about the population centers already. My proposal would make MORE voters relevant than what we have today. There is absolutely no reason for me to vote this year, other than the principle, because Obama isn't competing here (Indiana). I've volunteered for the campaign, but they aren't really even having any events at this stage, and may not have any. I may go to Ohio, Michigan, or Wisconsin for the final stretch. With my proposal, there would be good reason for the Obama campaign to compete in Indiana, even if they don't expect to win the state.

[jeff47]

35. Wow are you wrong.

It is all about the population centers already

Really? Obama and Romney are holding tons of events in Los Angeles and New York City? No? Oh, maybe it isn't about the population centers already.

There is absolutely no reason for me to vote this year, other than the principle, because Obama isn't competing here (Indiana).

Alright, now imagine there's no reason for you to vote ever again because your area doesn't have enough people to be worth expending any effort. Doesn't sound like an improvement.

With my proposal, there would be good reason for the Obama campaign to compete in Indiana, even if they don't expect to win the state.

Math says no.

Campaigns have finite resources. They can't campaign everywhere. So they're going to campaign where they get the most votes per dollar spent.

All of Indiana is 6M people. But most of those are very spread out. Campaigning in rural areas is an utter waste of money, because so few votes would come from it.

Greater Indianapolis is around 1.5M people. 15 votes in your system. 300 votes for Greater Los Angeles. 200 votes for Greater New York. 150 votes for Greater San Francisco. If I bump the needle 6% in Indianapolis, I get 1 vote. If I bump the needle 6% in New York, I get 12 votes.

I'm not going to scrounge for 1 vote in Indianapolis when I can get 12 in New York. And abandoning New York for Indianapolis means I gain 1 vote and lose 12 to my opponent. Net -11 votes.

Even if it's hard-fought in New York, it would be stupid to abandon it for Indianapolis.

Look, this is a theoretical game for you. I'm telling you what happened when a similar system was applied to New York state government. Your theories did not work out. No one competes for the non-NYC votes. They aren't worth the money.

[cpwm17]

79. That's why we have Congress

They represent the states and regions. The Senate already over represents the small states and rural areas.

The President represents the American voters - all voters. Presidential candidates might campaign more in the cities in a fair system because that is where there are more voters. It's 'one person, one vote', not 'one acre, one vote.'

[jeff47]

88. One house of Congress represents the states.

The House represents the population (with some rounding errors), and the Senate represents the states.

Again, I understand the problems with the Electoral College. But those problems do not mean popular vote doesn't have it's own problems.

[JDPriestly]

50. California only gets attention as a place to get money.

[BlueStreak]

67. Exactly. There is no real incentive for EITHER Rs or Ds to vote

Because in California, it just doesn't make a difference. The Democrats are going to get all the electors. Same for the Republicans in Texas. Our current winner-take-all system is ANTI-democratic -- it discourages voting.

With proportional electors, every vote CAN count. Everyone has an incentive to vote.

And another positive (in my opinion) result is that it would make it entirely possible for a third party yo accumulate a significant number of electoral votes, raising a very real possibility of coalitions. That would be a very good thing for democracy, but both of the big parties would fight that to the death, of course, The billionaires would also probably fight it because the current 2-party system is easier for them to control.

[Sirveri]

98. That's why they don't want proportional voting.

The entire idea behind the EC was to create a stable two party system where the major parties absorbed smaller third parties into their own planks and weren't required to build coalition governments like in a parliamentary system. It was a trade off of better representation in exchange for greater stability.

[JonLP24]

71. I think they would spend time here

AZ is the 16th largest state in the US with the 6th largest city by population size.

[jeff47]

87. Phoenix would get attention. The rest of the state would be ignored. (nt)

[xxenderwigginxx]

16. California gets 55 EV and my state gets 6

excuse me if I don't feel over-represented. To assign 1 elector for every 100,000 residents and divided PROPORTIONATELY based on that state's popular vote, is basically the same as majority rule. My state would be a forgotten wasteland.

[BlueStreak]

19. And the problem with majority rule is ... ?

Your vote would have essentially the same weight as every other citizen's. I don't see the problem with that.

[xxenderwigginxx]

29. The problem would be that a person could be

elected president by only winning in 4 out of 50 states.

[BlueStreak]

33. Can you please illustrate that with a scenario?

As a practical matter, I don't see how that could happen.

[xxenderwigginxx]

37. Majority vote is about numbers.

There are a few populous states such as CA FL TX etc that contain a majority of the population. Those few states would decide every election & subsequent policies for all 50 states simply because they had the most people.

[jeff47]

39. To add some numbers to this

50% of the US population lives in 9 states.

(In order of population)
California
Texas
New York
Florida
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Michigan
Georgia

[xxenderwigginxx]

42. Thank you.

Those 9 states with maybe 1 or 2 others would hold total sway over the remaining 40 states. That is not a good idea. Its the same battle the 99% are waging against the 1%

[CreekDog]

53. those 9 states have 18 senators, the other states have 82

ridiculously undemocratic.

this has delayed civil rights legislation, health care and so forth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. You're looking at states as monolithic entities

and that's the biggest problem with the use of the Electoral College as it is now. Nearly all states give all their EC votes to just one candidate, and so people talk about "winning this state" or "these states", even though there can be millions of people in a state who voted for a candidate who got no EC votes from that state.

With a system of electing the president on a majority vote basis, it wouldn't be states electing candidates; it would be citizens. Rather than candidates concentrating on swing states (is Arkansas often a swing state? Do you feel that your vote for the Democratic candidate since 2000 has had the remotest chance of getting the Democrat an electoral college vote?), candidates would concentrate on swing voters - whom you find all over the country.

Do you want the president to represent states, or to represent citizens?

[xxenderwigginxx]

60. How their EC votes are given is determined by the state.

Not all states have a winner takes all system, though most due. Address that in your own state if you do not like it. California has considered National Popular Vote legislation, which I also think is a bad idea. Had this system been in place in 2004, Bush would have won all 55 of California's electoral college votes despite the fact he lost the state by more than 1 million votes. You are correct that candidates would stop concentrating on swing states, and that AR is not a swing state. Candidates would instead focus on population centers, which also leaves AR at the bottom of the list (along with 30-40 other states). It wouldn't be states electing candidates, but it wouldn't be "citizens" either, it would be cities. A city like Chicago with a pop of 3 million could determine the fate of an entire state like AR with a pop of 2 million. In answer to your final question, I want the pres to represent the citizens of EVERY state, not just the 10 most populous.

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. Using a popular vote treats each citizen like an individual

Their vote is never lumped in with anyone else's. So, no, it wouldn't be 'cities' electing candidates, it would be individuals. Campaigns might find it more cost-effective to campaign in high concentration areas (which would give them less travelling time between events, for instance), but it makes it like marketing any product for which each person is a potential buyer. Companies don't just say "we'll market in big cities, and ignore the rest"; they know there are potential customers everywhere, and don't turn up the opportunity (nor do they let their competitors grab markets they ignore). In the modern age, with media reaching everywhere, and the internet, so much marketing is country-wide.

[BlueStreak]

69. Right, but that gives too much of an advantage to election-riggers

A person who was able to get an extra 5000 Republican votes to show up on a touch-screen machine in Toledo nullifies 5000 votes all over the country. A proportional EC produces all the benefits of popular vote elections while preserving the election fraud firewall. It is the best of both worlds.

[muriel_volestrangler]

80. There's no advantage to a proportional EC

If someone uses fraud to get one extra electoral vote from one state, that still affects the whole country. The amount of effort needed to switch one electoral college vote fraudulently will be proportional to the amount of effort needed to switch it using genuine votes.

If you say "but 5000 fraudulent votes are probably not enough to switch one electoral college vote", then you are also saying "5000 voters who genuinely decide to switch their vote aren't enough to switch one electoral college vote". If you want to give people the ability to make a difference, then there will always be the ability for someone to make a fraudulent difference by faking their votes.

In the end, you can't say "we can't give you a proper democratic say - someone might steal your vote" to anyone. You should give people a vote, and work to make the system secure.

[BlueStreak]

82. There is an advantage to a firewall.

With a proportional EC, if a state, say Ohio, is completely corrupt, the most they can do is poison THEIR elector counts. That is bad, but not nearly as bad as having that nullify other states' voting power. In other words, one or two corrupt states could not throw the entire election except in a very close race. But without that firewall, a couple of states could theoretically throw off the national popular vote by 1,000,000 or more, and that very definitely could flip an election.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. If a corrupt state alters, say, 10% of its individual votes

then in your system they would alter 10% of their electoral college votes too.

If that state is, say, 6% of the population of the country, then they would alter 10% of 6% of the electoral college votes, ie 0.6% of the total electoral college.

Under a direct system of presidential election, altering that number of individual votes would also alter 10% of 6% of the total country's votes - still 0.6%. There's no difference.

[BlueStreak]

84. No. That is not "my system"

My proposal says that states would have one elector for every 100,000 citizens as measured at the most recent census. That would give Ohio ~115 electors in a system where ~1500 would be needed to win. A massive fraud in Ohio could shift the electoral count by maybe 12 or 14 at the most and all other states would still have their share of electors based on their population. It is an effective firewall. It cannot prevent election fraud, but it can prevent Ohio fraud from making a shift of, say 50 electors.

[muriel_volestrangler]

90. Right, using your example numbers

You are working with 300 million citizens, and 3,000 total electoral college places.

If about 6 million vote in Ohio (roughly the same as 2008), then, to shift 14 EC places out of 115, you fake 14/115 * 6 million = 730,435 votes. It's a turnout of 6/11.5= 52% of the total number of citizens.

The fraud would be 14 out of 3,000 - 0.466% of the college.

In a direct election, with the same turnout across the country, that's 52% of 300 million = 156 million. 730,435/156 million is 0.00466, ie 4.6%.

[BlueStreak]

91. I don't follow your numbers, but it isn't about the numbers anyway.

The concept of the firewall is that I, as a citizen of Indiana, have no opportunity to affect the people who are in charge of Ohio's corrupt elections. I don't want any case where Ohio spoils my vote. The EC firewall does that. It limits the damage to Ohio's ~115 electors.

Without the firewall, it would theoretically be possible for Ohio's magic election systems to register thousands of vote that never happened, thereby allowing one or two corrupt states to overcome the votes of other states.

If you want numbers, let's say the real popular vote was 40M for Mr. A and 39,750,000 for Mr. B and that produced an EC distribution under my system of 1550 to 1450 -- a spread of 100 electors nationally. If Florida and Ohio used their magic election machines to create 200,000 false, unauditable votes for Mr. B, that would give Mr. B 40,050,000 popular votes and the victory if it were simply based on popular vote. With the EC firewall in place. the two election fraud states (I'm speaking hypothetically, don't you know?) would not get EXTRA electors. They would simply realign the allocation of electors they were entitled to according to census data. In this scenario, that would not come anywhere close to tipping 100 EC votes.

In other words, if we go on a simple popular vote, that means that any single magic election machine anywhere in the country could theoretically generate as many votes as necessary to flip the election. And don't tell me people wouldn't try this. It has already been done. There are well documented cases of precincts with unauditable touch-screen machines reporting far more votes than they have registered voters. Obviously that was fraud, but the votes are still normally counted because there is (by careful design) no audit trail that could provide the correct numbers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Your scenario is one in which the total vote is very close, but the electoral college is not

The difference of 250,000 in voters 79,750,000 is only 0.31%; but the difference of 100 electors out of 3000 is 3.3%. So in that case, it is easier to make a difference with the votes. But a scenario in which the electoral college is closer than the total votes is just as believable; and in that case, it would make the difference if enough votes were changed to alert the balance of the electoral college - and the cheating party would win the electoral college, without having to fake enough votes to win the total vote.

There is no 'firewall'; if Ohio corrupts the numbers it sends to the electoral college, then it has corrupted the electoral college. It's either a small number of electors in a small college; or a large number of voters in a large popular vote.

Your problem seems to be that you don't trust the electronic machines currently in use. It would be ridiculous to change basic form of voting because of that, but not take the far simpler measure of fixing the integrity of voting.

Ask the French how they elect their president. They manage it with a popular vote - in 2 rounds. They don't compromise their system by counting votes using machines they don't trust.

[BlueStreak]

106. You don't seem to understand the concept of "firewall"

A firewall does not prevent a fire from happening. It prevents it from spreading. In my example, the EC as a firewall would limit to corruption to Ohio's electors. And you can come up with a scenario where that is just enough to tip the election, but it is far safer than a system that would allow any precinct in any state to nullify the votes of all the other states.

You gave France as an example. I don't know the details, but I fully expect that they have a single organization ultimately in charge of their elections and they have a unified set of laws, regulations, practices, and machinery used in every polling location.

That is absolutely NOT the case in the US, and that is why we must have firewalls.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. Ohio's electors are part of the election of the president

If there are more pro Mr. B electors than there should honestly be, then the electoral college is corrupted, and that can alter which person gets in as president. The 'fire' has spread to the president.

"a system that would allow any precinct in any state to nullify the votes of all the other states" - this does not make any sense. There is no precinct that is as big as the rest of the country combined.

You appear to be making a good case for running US federal elections in a uniform, honest way. That seems to be the problem you see. Why not fix it, rather than insisting on a form of election which still groups people together, rather than allowing them to be each treated equally, as individuals making an individual choice?

[xxenderwigginxx]

99. Cities would elect the candidates because most "individuals" live in them

[muriel_volestrangler]

107. Most individuals in the US are white; would you say it is white people who elect candidates?

I wouldn't.

[xxenderwigginxx]

115. Sometimes it is. Obviously you can win elections without the minority vote or repubs would never win

[BlueStreak]

68. Exactly. Proportional electors REDUCES the dominance of the big states

And forces the candidates to actually campaign in those states. Democrats would have to campaign in NY, IL, NJ, MN, CA, etc. Republicans would have to campaign in TX, GA, IN, etc.

Today there is no incentive (other than the principle of citizenship) for anybody in those states to cast a Presidential vote. Under a proportional EC, every voter in every state would have an incentive to vote.

[slackmaster]

85. The problem is that sometimes the majority tramples legitimate interests of minorities

There was a time, not long ago, when at least some states had majority opinions against mixed-race marriages.

[CreekDog]

108. so the minority should get the right to win elections with less votes than the majority?

what a confusing thing to support.

[slackmaster]

110. A simple majority of ELECTORAL votes is required to elect the President

The President isn't elected by popular vote.

[CreekDog]

111. We were talking about what you think, not how it works

Or more precisely your rationalization that how it works makes things fairer for the minority.

[slackmaster]

113. What I think doesn't matter. The EC is intended to protect the interests of small states.

To prevent them from effectively having no voice in the election of the President.

It's exactly the same reason every state gets two Senators no matter how small it is.

It's a moot question IMO. Elimination of the EC would require an amendment, and there will always be 13 states whose legislatures feel that the EC protects their interests.

[CreekDog]

114. "what I think doesn't matter"

if only!

[jeff47]

7. I used to want to end the Electoral College

Then I moved to upstate NY, near Utica.

A little history: The NY State Assembly has always been population based, and has always been dominated by New York City. The NY State Senate used to be geographically based. Because of that, upstate NY's issues got attention from the state government.

Then a lawsuit happened. The ruling was that both houses must be population based.

Since then? NY State politics are only about New York City. Virtually nothing is done for upstate NY, which is now in massive decline. Outsourcing killed the manufacturing jobs, and lack of political attention prevents any meaningful efforts to attract new jobs or provide any stimulus to the area. The locals wish things were as good as in Detroit.

So my fear is that ending the electoral college will do similar things on the national level. Why would a candidate spend any time in the "empty" states? You'd win by winning NYC, Boston, DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and a few other very large cities. And so only those city's issues would get addressed by presidential candidates.

I don't like how the Electoral College over-represents "empty" states. But there's at least a chance your state may become "in play". See: North Carolina. But I think using only popular vote is worse because even more people would be ignored, and there's no chance that would change - nobody will be knocking New York City off the list of places to campaign.

[BlueStreak]

9. Re: the empty state problem

Please see my proposal in post #6. By making the EC distribution proportional in each state, that gives a voice to 80 million potential voters who now really have no voice. That does not solve the "empty state problem". But I don't agree there is an "empty state problem". It is the people, not the states, that form this more perfect union. States that don't have very many people should not expect to have so much say. What we have today is a case where the less populous states are systematically over-represented, and that becomes at least a mild case of the tail wagging the dog.

As a practical matter, I don't see where it would change too much. Nobody campaigns in the states that have 3 or 4 electors.

[jeff47]

15. I'm using 'state' as a convenient grouping mechanism.

Because under your proportional system, it's actually the large cities that are important. Everywhere else is a waste of time.

Under your system, why would a presidential candidate care about "farm issues"?
Why would a presidential candidate care about coal?
Why would a presidential candidate care about fisheries?

It's not that the "empty" states would have not as much say. They'd have no say whatsoever. And they would never have any say again. At least with the Electoral College, a low-population state has a chance of becoming a toss-up and getting attention.

I fully admit that the Electoral College is flawed. But I've now experienced the "joys" of 100% popular vote government. It's really, really, really, really bad for anyone not in a population center.

The Electoral College, as flawed as it is, is better.

[BlueStreak]

20. In my system, the non-urban areas get MORE of a voice

If the pattern is big cities dominating the election, that essentially nullifies every voter who is not in a big city. In my system, it would sill be worthwhile to compete for votes outside the urban centers because the electors would be assigned proportionately.

[jeff47]

26. Only because you haven't done the math yet. (see my other reply)

[BlueStreak]

25. And remember the "empty states" get 2 Senators. That is a huge amount of power.

Even if it doesn't give them a big say in the presidential race, it gives each "empty state" 1/20th of the power needed to stop anything in Congress as the filibuster is now being abused.

If 10 "empty states" get together with 10 relatively low population states, they can block the whole country, as we have seen.

Or to put it another way, states representing less than 25% of the nation's population can have veto power over everything. That's a Senate thing, not an EC thing, but it is a huge power advantage for the low-population states.

[jeff47]

27. Assuming the filibuster will remain is not a good idea.

After this much abuse by the Republicans, it's not going to be around much longer.

[markpkessinger]

117. You do know, don't you, that NYC . . .

. . . gives far more to the State in revenue than it receives from the State by way of comparable services?

[jeff47]

122. Link? (nt)

[markpkessinger]

125. Here ...

Downstate gives more to the state in taxes and revenues than it gets back in expenditures for services and other assistance. Upstate, on the other hand, gets more than it gives.

That's according to a new report by the Rockefeller Institute of Government, analyzing the regional distribution of revenues collected and dollars spent within the New York State budget. The report, Giving and Getting, examines actual receipts and expenditures for the 2009-10 fiscal year.

The study considered “state funds” only, excluding federal assistance and state expenditures supported by such aid. Institute researchers looked at four regions in the state:

New York City;
The five suburban counties that are most closely linked to the city geographically and economically — Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam;
The Capital Region (Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga and Schenectady counties); and
The state’s remaining 48 counties. < . . . ?

http://www.rockinst.org/newsroom/news_releases/2011/12-20-giving_getting.aspx

The city has a strong imbalance of payments with the federal and state governments. New York City receives 83 cents in services for every $1 it sends to Washington in taxes (or annually sends $13.1 billion more to Washington than it receives back). The city also sends an additional $11.1 billion more each year to the state of New York than it receives back.[5] The city's total tax burden is among the highest in the United States.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City#cite_note-5

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/weekinreview/25basicA.html

[jeff47]

134. Ah, there's the problem

The report, Giving and Getting, examines actual receipts and expenditures for the 2009-10 fiscal year.

Upstate is an economic wasteland. They are no longer paying as much because there's no money here.

The situation was different back when upstate actually had an economy.

[shawn703]

12. Okay, but after this election

Since I'm confident Obama will win based on the Electoral College numbers, but there's still a slight chance he could lose the popular vote.

Besides, it would be great to be able to tell Republicans to "get over it" like they used to say to us after the 2000 election.

[Freddie]

62. I see that happening also

The Electoral College may be our friend this time.
The EC helps "decide" an election when the popular vote may be extremely close, *usually* favoring the popular vote anyway. If only different by a few thousand votes, what's to keep one state from "finding" some unreported votes as happened in Wisconsin recently?
I like the idea of a modified EC with 1 vote per congressional district but only if Congress was changed to make it purely proportionate. The current limit of 435 in the House is not in the Constitution, but became law in 1929 as a huge wave of immigrants settling in Eastern states made the PTB fearful of those states having too much power. As a result the "empty states" are over-represented in Congress. A fair solution would be to increase the size of the House so there would be 1 Congressperson per, say, 200000 residents.

[slackmaster]

86. Therein lies the key hypocrisy of many people who wish to end the Electoral College

If your goal is really to make it more likely that the candidate of your choice will win future elections, don't pretend that it's really about fairness.

[bhikkhu]

13. The easy way to do is is proportionate delagations at the state level

...that is, where the delegates a state sends to the electoral college are not "winner takes all", but are divided according to the popular vote.

It would be a little rougher than a strict popular vote, with rounding and all, but much closer to the ideal than what we have now. And it can be accomplished state-by-state. whenever, without a constitutional amendment.

[BlueStreak]

28. As a practical matter, it would have to be done nationally.

California and New York aren't going to adopt proportional EC if the big red states don't.

[cpwm17]

95. If California abandoned the electoral college we could say goodbye to ever electing a Democrat again

Last edited Fri Aug 31, 2012, 10:48 PM - Edit history (1)

for President, unless all states abandoned the electoral college at the same time.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

36. I'm for a direct democracy. None of this republic shit. nt

[24601]

123. Yeah - why waste time with the Constitution - just do it like you want it...not! Direct Democracies

do not protect rights of the minority. If you don't want to live in a Constitutional Republic, no law keeps you here,

[TexasBushwhacker]

38. My beef with the EC

is that it's winner take all for most states and it's based on population, more or less, and not on voter turn out. So you could have a high voter turn out in a states with less electoral votes and they would have less impact on the election than a large state with more electoral votes, even if that state had a low voter turn out. And while people say that candidates would spend all their time campaigning in the big cities, right now they spend all their time campaigning in swing states. I'm a Democrat in Texas. I'd like my vote to count for President!

[BlueStreak]

70. It is a virtue of the EC to negate the factor of turnout

Turnout is easily manipulated by putting a big wedge issue on the ballot. If we moved to a popular vote, that would give an incentive to put BS issues on the ballot just to gin up the base. And that would have the effect of nullifying voters in states that didn't get ginned up.

The proportional EC eliminates that factor, but still gives every voter a good reason to vote, even without having fake wedge issues on the ballot.

[treestar]

73. Not only does it not count, it goes to Rmoney

When your state's EC votes go to him!

[JDPriestly]

46. We in California don't count nearly as much as the voters in Rhode Island or Wyoming or

Montana. It isn't fair. The electoral college tilts the country to the right.

[JoePhilly]

127. That makes little sense.

Just look at the current national polls, and the electoral college projections. Obama should win the EC easily, 300+ votes probably ... but nationally, its much closer.

[jberryhill]

52. This just occurred to him now?

[Drunken Irishman]

54. Oddly, the EC will probably benefit Obama this election season...

I don't think Romney will win the popular vote, but I think Obama will have a bigger victory in the EC than he does in the popular vote.

[LarryNM]

55. Eventually, the EC may become Proportional But

we will still have winners of the popular vote "losing" the election. The situation with the Senate is even worse. The U.S. was founded and largely continues to be favorable to old money and rural areas. Urban areas are still viewed as filled with suspicious "others".

[xxenderwigginxx]

61. Winning the popular vote and "losing" the election

has only happened 4 times in US history

[karynnj]

57. It didn't start with California

In fact, several states have already passed legislation that will lead to eliminating for all practical purposes the electoral congress when states with over the number of votes needed to elect the President pass it. Two leaders I have heard who proposed this a long time ago are Former Senator Birch Bayh and former Congressman John Anderson. http://www.fairvote.org/what-is-the-national-popular-vote-plan#.UEBsMsFmSO0

I think the move would have a MAJOR change in how we do elections and it would favor the Democrats. Imagine the excitement of large rallies in all big Democratic cities. Think of rallies in NYC's Central Park or the Boston Commons - something unlikely to be done in the general election now because neither NY or MA would be in play in a close election.

This would likely help candidates not favored by the media the most - both Kerry and Gore surprised crowds who actually saw them - by being far more interesting, funny and nice than the media stereotyped them. This would lead to far more people actually seeing our candidates.

[tclambert]

63. Well, now Republicans must support the electoral college, since they cannot ever agree with Al Gore.

"Whew, sure is hot today."

Republican response: "It is NOT. It's all an Al Gore hoax!"

[bamacrat]

72. Popular vote makes more sense considering we are a democracy.

The swing in the electoral college come down to a hand full of COUNTIES across the country. But of course Gore is more for popular vote...

[librechik]

89. Thank you Al Gore n/t

[Throd]

92. One voter, one vote. What's not to like?

[TexasBushwhacker]

100. Exactly

Make it easier to vote, not harder. Absentee ballots should be available to anyone who asks for one.

[24601]

124. No, I'd limit absentee ballots to legal voters, not just anyone who asks. I don't want 8 year olds

and North Koreans voting. Why would you?

[MurrayDelph]

105. Until we have a better way of counting votes

I would rather stick with each state having a set number of votes per state.

Otherwise, states with crooked leaders (for example, Florida, Ohio, or Wisconsin) would find themselves recording several million more Republican votes than there are residents.

[Liberalynn]

96. I think it should be abolished too!

[Cleita]

101. I'll second that.

It's time to stop rule by the minority, which is what the electoral college creates along with the 2/3rd majority to pass a bill in congress. Do away with both so the majority can govern like it should.

[sgsmith]

103. Or in other words

Since most Southerners in the 1960's didn't approve of civil rights for Negros, you think that their majority vote should govern.

Right.

[Cleita]

104. I don't think there would have been a majority nationwide.

Most of us not in the south did approve of civil rights for African Americans.

[Auggie]

102. I agree

[and-justice-for-all]

116. The electoral College is fucking stupid...

and needs to end.

[Billy888]

118. Just want to be careful what we change it to

I just want to be careful what we change it to.

[Exultant Democracy]

121. One person one vote. No taxation without equal representation.

Anything else is anti-democratic.

[w4rma]

126. The Electorial College is a firewall against state-level election fraud.

That is why it should stay. Perhaps it could be improved, however, because it ENABLED election fraud in 2000.

[wilt the stilt]

130. watch this video on the electoral college

[cal04]

132. Thank you wilt the stilt for the link

[humblebum]

131. As long as the electoral college remains, your vote is merely a suggestion. Dump it.

It served its purpose in a bygone era, but now is very undemocratic and a slap in the face for the concept of one person-one vote.

[taught_me_patience]

133. Generally, Californians hate the EC

Candidate spend more time in Peoria than all of California. It's fucking crickets out here. Do we have any representation? Something is seriously wrong.

[roamer65]

136. I'd favor preference voting and getting rid of the EC.

I would dearly enjoy putting the Rethugs dead last on my vote, for each and every one of them.

Preference voting should also get rid of a runoff election.

[roamer65]

137. If you want to read about something very fraudulent and undemocratic about the EC...

Go research the history of the 3EV's of the new state of Colorado in the 1876 election. When you become a state on August 1st, 1876, you have plenty enough time to organize an election for November...unless you're a Rethug state legislature and simply don't want to have one. They gave the EV's to Rutherfraud Hayes without an election.