BusinessWeek: The Few Decide for the Many (Electoral College)

[kskiska]

(snip)

America in 2004 is confronted with profound questions of war and peace, and there is a stark contrast between the GOP vision of an entrepreneurial "ownership society" and the Democrats' new middle-class safety net. But since the Red and Blue Zones are self-canceling in their political impact, fateful decisions get tossed to a shrinking pool of persuadable voters made up of undecideds in battleground states. Frets Democratic strategist James C. Carville: "Only 2.5% of the electorate is going to decide this thing."

Demography, as the saying goes, may be destiny. But an archaic system of representation that includes a winner-take-all selection of electors and eschews proportionate representation at the local level is denying a voice to political minorities. Are you perchance one of the 2.4 million hardy Democrats living in Texas? You might as well hang up your political spurs. Since the Reagan era, Texas has become solidly Republican. Or perhaps you're a GOPer in New York or California, home to a combined 8.5 million members of the Grand Old Party. Tough luck, pal.

(snip)

Since Republicans have fought their way to parity with Democrats, some political scientists see the 2000 election as the harbinger of an era of instability in which one candidate triumphs in raw popular support while the other finds the winning formula in electoral votes. For Republicans, the small-state bonus is the major reason. But a Democrat could easily be the beneficiary of the system's idiosyncrasies by narrowly winning industrial states with large numbers of electoral votes. For example, if Kerry snares Ohio or Missouri, he could win an electoral majority while trailing Bush in the popular vote.

There is a way to avoid such destabilizing contests: The candidate with the most votes wins -- no ifs, ands, or buts. Experts such as Pfiffner would like to see a national dialogue over a direct-election system. Such a debate would, of course, be intensely controversial since it entails a deviation from the Founders' design. But so did abolishing slavery and granting women suffrage. After 216 years of Presidential elections, it seems as if the time is right to reaffirm a basic tenet of democracy -- the one that says everybody's vote counts.

more…
http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/04_24/b3887070.htm?bw

[kiahzero]

1. Abolish EC and institute Condorcet voting

No more spoiler effect, and no more 'safe states.'

It shouldn't matter where I vote in a national election. In a statewide election, it doesn't matter whether I vote in one county or another; the state still counts the vote the same way. The same should go for national elections.

There are benefits to the EC, namely that it prevents 'recall mania' across the country. But these benefits do not outweigh the negatives.

[Left_Wing_Fox]

5. Codorcet possible, EC unlikely.

The problem is that the Electoral college is written into the Constitution: that's tricky to change, it has apparently been attempted before, and all prior efforts have failed, because voter ignorance and political opportunism are enough to prevent that universal 2/3 support of all states. Unless the republicans get nailed by the electoral college in 2004, I doubt there will be enough support for the system.

To my knowledge, the _method_ by which votes are counted are not part of the constitution, but are implemented on a more local level. Because of ths, it may be possible to implement alternative vote counting measures, like Condorcet, Borden Count, or even the baby step of Instant Runoff Voting at a local level: If enough states can do that, we can break the power of the two party system locally, and help get enough variety into federal government to get some real change and responsive politics, instead of a two party duopoly.

It's my biggest beef with Nader: He should be smart enough to know that his third-party candidacy is doomed to be nothing but a spoiler given the current system and political climate, and yet, i have seen nothing from him in attempting to reform the fundamentals of the system that would make his candidacy meaningful, and not just a dangerous Quixotic adventure.

[amjsjc]

6. What's Condorcet voting? n/t

[grytpype]

2. Hear hear!

Look at what the Electoral College got us in 2000! The best man won and the worst man was made President!

[Paschall]

3. I've heard that Democratic platforms...

...written by state Dem conventions in a number of states are calling for the repeal of the Electoral College and a constitutional amendment to guarantee one man = one vote. It will be very interesting to see how the national convention in Boston deals with this issue.

[DBoon]

4. The EC is inherently undemocratic

Vote belong to people, not to farms or oil wells.

Giving so-called "small states" disproportionate influence just gives the landed plutocracy of those states a strangelhold over the federal government.