Why I Hate The Electoral College System...

[arwalden]

Because in states like Texas (which is presumably all wrapped up for Bush*) the voters for Kerry aren't likely to show up at all. "Why bother?" they ask themselves. What difference will it make?

How can Democrats in such heavily Republican areas find the motivation to vote when they know that it "won't-make-a-difference"?

Does the Electoral College system help to suppress the vote? I think so.

-- Allen

[bunkerbuster1]

1. I hate it for many reasons, but like exactly one (1) reason

You can tell a great deal about a person, right away, if they tell you they think the Electoral College was a brilliant idea.

other than that--yeah. like you say. nuke it til it glows.

[factcheck]

25. I am with you...

... sort of.

I like it because people who say they don't like it can never cite actual reasons because they did not research the issue and it makes it easier to know that you are arguing with someone who is unarmed. :)

[donheld]

2. Total agreement here

The Electorial College should have been abolished long ago.

[Radio-Active]

3. Electoral College votes

should be distributed proportionally, based on percentage of the popular vote. Candidate with most EV's wins (not majority).

You are right, now it's a winner takes all system.

I believe Colorado is voting to make this change this year.

[factcheck]

6. Not if I can help it...

Sorry, but I was not too far off from what you are saying before I heard it actually explained to me why there is an electoral college:

To prevent tyrannical rule by one party/class

The problem with popular vote is that if one party dominates in percentage of voters, then that party will always rule. Now, keep in mind, this is not as evident in a two party system, but make it 3 or 4 and the potential for problems is huge!

The problem with proportional voting is that each state simply awards its electoral votes based on the percentage of the popular vote within that state.

Here in Colorado, for example, there are 9 electoral votes. It is so close that it will be 5 to one candidate and 4 to the other. This is the same situation that exists in almost ALL states. Therefore, why bother to show up and vote? If no one voted at all, the split would be right down the middle just as it is now!

I have to be honest, if this amendment passes in Colorado and stands up to legal challenges, I will never vote in another Presidential election. Why bother? The vote will essentially go right down the middle maybe with a lean slightly to one side or the other. Sorry, but my vote is then a throw away vote because the votes would go just like that if no one voted at all.

Proportional voting is a VERY bad idea. In our current system, the party is so closely split that there would be so much potential for ties where Congress would choose the President. No thanks!

But, this is all moot because to change the electoral college altogether it would require an amendment to the US Constitution. Not going to happen anytime soon.

However, direct voting is a recipe for disaster and proportional voting simply has too many flaws. Our current system has worked well for a very long time.

[pmbryant]

9. The Electoral College does nothing to prevent tyrannical rule

It is the distribution of powers between executive, legislative, and judicial branches that is meant to prevent tyrannical rule. The EC has nothing to do with that.

"Direct voting is a recipe for disaster"?

How so? Would it really be disastrous for the people of this country to be able to vote directly for their President, without the intervening artificiality of the Electoral College?

Is it disastrous that people in big states like California and Texas vote directly for their Governors? I certainly don't see any push for instituting county-based pseudo-electoral colleges in those states.

Obviously our current system has worked most of the time. But it failed miserably in 2000, and came very close to failing miserably in several other recent elections (1960, 1968, 1976).

We should not settle for something that can be so easily improved.

[factcheck]

17. See my post below

Learn your US history. Prevention of tyrannical rule is the exact reason the electoral college was created.

[pmbryant]

26. Here's the real history.

From the Mother Jones article posted elsewhere in this thread (emphasis added): http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_202.html

Advocates of the electoral college often appeal to the wisdom of the Founding Fathers -- after all, they set up the system, presumably they had something just and wise in mind, right? Wrong. History shows that the framers whipped up the electoral college system in a hurry, with little discussion and less debate. Whatever wisdom the Founding Fathers had, they sure didn't use it to design presidential elections. At the time, most of the framers were weary after a summer's worth of bickering, and figured that George Washington would be president no matter what, so it wasn't a pressing issue.

Most of the original arguments in favor of an electoral college system are no longer valid. The electoral college was partially a concession to slaveholders in the South, who wanted electoral clout without letting their slaves actually vote. (Under the electoral college, slaves counted towards a state's electoral vote total.) The framers also thought that ordinary people wouldn't have enough information to elect a president, which is not necessarily a concern today.

[factcheck]

27. Riiiight...

Can we get our history from unbiased sources please?

[pmbryant]

31. Care to state your case?

What specific problems do you have with that excerpt?

--Peter

[factcheck]

37. There was actually a great deal of discussion

and many opinions (Read the Federalist Papers for opinions) at the Constitutional Convention:

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

[pmbryant]

51. The concerns of the founding fathers are no longer valid.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.

Over 200 years later, the concerns of the Framers are no longer valid. Thanks to modern communication, people have plenty of information on candidates from all over the country. Even if a "favorite son" candidate emerged, no single state, not even a single region, is anywhere close to big enough or monolithic enough to dominate a national election. Candidates would have to run nationally to be elected in a direct popular vote system.

The more modern arguments in favor of the Electoral College put forth in that article were demolished by the author of the Mother Jones article posted elsewhere in this thread.

Furthermore, that article appears to have been written prior to 2000, when many of the obvious flaws of the Electoral College system were exposed for all to see.

--Peter

[factcheck]

53. Hmmmm...

Well, first you rebut an idea that was presented to the Constitutional Convention that was decided against as a basis for your argument against the EC???

Let me ask you this: If in THIS election, Bush gets more of the popular vote and Kerry gets more of the electoral vote, will you say the same thing???

Remember we are just discussing hypotheticals here, I don't care about whether you believe this will happen or not or the politics of it; I want to know if you will say that Bush is the true winner of the election, or that there are still flaws in the Electoral College?

That the EC does not directly follow the popular vote is not a flaw. It would be if we were a Democracy, but since we aren't, it is not a flaw.

And I do not lend much credence to any article published by a highly biased source.

[pmbryant]

69. I would say the same thing, yes

I am absolutely against the Electoral College.

--Peter

[factcheck]

79. ... without any reason for being so, but against anyway :) n/m

[Braunschweiger Bone]

62. EC does force candidates to run nationally

You said:

"Candidates would have to run nationally to be elected in a direct popular vote system."

This is most certainly ~not~ the case. a popular vote system would result in candidates campaigning only in large metropolitan areas and population centers. Good luck for all those people living in less populated areas. They would basically be ignored. And although the thought of that sounds good to me right now-- in this time and place--we've got to remember that rural/urban political makeup can and has changed over time. What if 100 years from now, the big cities are overflowing with radical right-wing Catholics who have 10 kids per family?

It is the EC which actually does force candidates to run nationally. A lot of little states adds up just as much as a few big states.

[Debi]

66. Iowa is proof

That candidates have to run nationally. We have 7 electoral votes but have had B/C here 3x in the last week and K/E will be here 2x in the next week.

That would not happen if popular vote reigns - Iowa has only about 2.8 million people. Drop in the bucket to NY or CA

[pmbryant]

77. Unfortunately, that's not proof

Iowa is important in this election because it is a swing state, not because of any alleged benefit the Electoral College gives to small states.

States of similar size and larger (e.g., Mississippi, Oklahoma, Georgia, Connecticut, and more) are being completely ignored because they are "safe".

--Peter

[Debi]

102. Iowa is important because of 7 Electoral votes

not because of it's population. If popular vote were used the 590,000 Republican votes would be cancelled out in Texas, the 581,000 Democrat votes would be canecelled out in New York and the 719,000 no party votes would be cancelled out in one suburb of Los Angeles.

[pmbryant]

108. Lots of states have 7 EV or more

If the 7 EV was what made Iowa important in this election, than tons of states would be just as important or more so. After all, lots of states have 7 electoral votes or more.

So why don't you see Bush and Kerry making the rounds in many of those states (e.g., MS, KY, CT, IN, GA, IL, NY, TX, CA, etc)?

--Peter

[Debi]

124. I agree that Iowa is 'in play' because it's going 50/50

right now.

But that would change if we were looking at just a popular vote. because Iowas population would be drowned out by the population of the larger states.

California is solid blue, so some Californians don't feel their vote 'counts' b/c all the electoral votes will go Kerry. But if we went to popular vote California would 'drown out' Iowa.

[pmbryant]

126. In a direct election, states don't vote, people do

California or New York or Texas wouldn't drown out Iowa.

The vote of one person in California (or New York or Texas) would count the exact same of the vote of one person in Iowa.

Admittedly, voters in Iowa and Florida and the other few swing states would not get the same attention they do now. But the attention would be distributed nationwide, as it should be in a national election.

The argument that, in a direct election, candidates would only focus on major urban areas in big states is false. There are not enough votes in those areas to win an election.

--Peter

[Debi]

129. You're kidding, right?

You're going to tell me that candidates will travel to Parkersburg, Iowa; Butte, Montana; Laramy, Wyoming, Manly, North Dakota and Rapid City South Dakota to get votes rather than just hit New York City, Los Angeles and Huston?

[pmbryant]

133. Definitely not

NY, LA, Houston, Chicago == 30-35 million people, say (including suburbs).

Of those, say, 6 million are too young to vote, half the rest don't both to vote. That leaves approximately 12-15 million voters, very roughly.

Even getting 60% of those is only 7-9 million votes. To win a candidate needs well over 50 million votes. Some speculate that the winner of this election will need almost 60 million votes.

So yes! The candidates will visit other places. Wherever they think they can pick up votes by doing so. It's hard to predict exactly how campaigns would be run, since we've never elected a President that way, but without a doubt, candidates would visit medium and small towns. If for nothing else than the great photo ops. ;-)

--Peter

[factcheck]

139. So you...

add in DC, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami... do you see a trend?

12 major metropolitan areas so far in only 9 states (+ DC) representing 4 rather small regions of the country.

These guys are NOT showing up in Fargo! Except for a photo op! And do you really think that the candidate is listening to anyone when he is just there for a photo op? No way!

[pmbryant]

146. every vote should count the same

Add up all the voters in those cities you mention and their suburbs (to be generous), plus the ones I mentioned, take 60%, and I doubt you're anywhere close to 50 million votes, much less 60 million.

And if you try to expand the list, you're going to have to reach down to smaller and smaller cities across a wider region of the country. (Of course, your list already encompasses a decent chunk of the country, small as it is.)

In the current system, both candidates spend virtually all their time and money in 10 states, completely avoiding the entire rest of the country. How is that acceptable?

Who exactly is showing up in Fargo with the current system?

--Peter

[factcheck]

149. Well, you asked...

John Kerry, John Edwards, Howard Dean AND George Bush all made campaign stops in Fargo this year. :)

[pmbryant]

154. Primaries don't count

The electoral college doesn't apply to primaries.

I don't know when Bush visited there, but the other visits were no doubt back during the primary season.

--Peter

[factcheck]

159. So many people refuse to face the truth

until they run face first into it with their eyes still closed. :)

Nader 8/23/2004
Edwards 8/15/2004

Not sure on the Bush one.

However, I really think that it is erroneous to say that "primaries don't count".

Like the campaign restarts after the primaries?

Here, let me save you the trouble, your next argument will be: Well, Kerry didn't go, he sent Edwards. My response: do you think even Edwards would show up there if there were direct voting? He wouldn't have time!

And, Nader doesn't count! My response: to you, maybe. But he does to some people and if this is anything like 2000, he will have a direct effect on the election.

Sorry, I couldn't come up with any more absurd arguments than that, I will leave that up to you. :)

[pmbryant]

171. The electoral college has nothing to do with primaries

And so primaries have nothing to do with this discussion. I think it's pretty clear that that's what I meant by 'primaries don't count'.

If Edwards campaigned in North Dakota in August, when there is absolutely no reason under the electoral college system for him to have done so, then this whole argument about trying to predict who will campaign where under what system falls apart, as it becomes impossible to predict anything.

Under the electoral college, there is no reason for either Presidential candidate to campaign in North Dakota, as they would be spending time recruiting votes that would have no impact on the final result.

Under direct voting, a single vote in Fargo is worth the same as a single vote in suburban Houston is worth the same as a single vote in Hartford, Connecticut is worth the same as a single vote in Toledo, Ohio, etc etc etc. So the incentive to campaign in Fargo is greater under the direct vote system than under the EC.

So if Edwards went there with the EC in place, then yes he would likely also go there (or somewhere equivalent) with direct voting in place.

Finally, do you really think basing our voting system on the principal of making sure you get face-time with a candidate (instead of a fellow American somewhere else) rather than on the principal of one person, one vote is a wise decision? That certainly seems to be your argument.

Peter

(I won't talk about Nader as I have no idea how he came up.)

[factcheck]

175. So little fact....

"If Edwards campaigned in North Dakota in August, when there is absolutely no reason under the electoral college system for him to have done so"

Edwards was campaigning as the vice-presidential candidate on behalf of Kerry. "no reason"??? Oops!

"Under direct voting, a single vote in Fargo is worth the same as a single vote in suburban Houston"

Yes, but why go somewhere where you can only reach a few hundred thousand single voters when you can go to the bigger cities and reach millions of single voters??? Direct elections are a very bad idea. There are many reasons that idea was struck down when our Constitution was written!

Sorry, but under the current EC, the 3 North Dakota EVs give each voter there a far greater weight than voters in some larger states, so it makes sense that candidates are going to wander into that area at least once IF there is the possibility of swaying all 3 of those votes their way.

[sharman]

179. Idiot

Sorry, but this argument is so ridiculous when the reality is staring everyone in the face this, and last, election.

NO ONE is showing up to campaign in California. The only time I see campaign ads is in a news story about the campaign blitz in a small county in Wisconsin. Ditto Texas, New York, etc. All the attention is going to a handful of states that just happen to have an evenly split electorate. Exactly the dreadful thing you say will happen in a direct vote system is what is happening in spades as we speak.

There are so many reasons the electoral college is a travesty. But it drives me freaking mad when people trot out this argument, when the reverse is so obviously the case.

[shivaji]

168. Hello! Iowa is a SWING state because we have EC.......

if nationwide popular vote was the only criteria, the population centers would obviously get the lion's share of attention.

[pmbryant]

172. So why shouldn't voters in Mississippi or Connecticut get attention?

Why should Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nevada get all the attention and Mississippi, Connecticut, Nebraska, Utah, Indiana, Hawaii, and Georgia get none?

What makes people in these other states less worthy?

--Peter

[factcheck]

176. Easy

Single answer:

Less electoral votes due to a lower population base.

So, your argument for direct voting falls flat because those same states would get just as little attention AND you could add Iowa, Wisconsin and Nevada to the little attention list because of their low populations.

The idea of the campaign is to make as few stops as possible while winning as many votes as possible. This would be very easy under direct voting. Hit NY, Florida, Texas and California. Add in a few other major metropolitan areas. If you, as a candidate, take away the majority of those votes and then you simply split the rest, you win. Period.

When are you going to admit that the direct voting idea simply does not hold water in a country as large as ours? Maybe in a smaller European country where the population base is not so spread out, but not here.

[sharman]

180. Hello

The "safe" states get no attention. Population centers should get attention. They have, you know, lots of people. No one is campaigning in California, New York, etc.

Exactly the evil you decry under direct voting--that some states will get little attention--is what is happening under the EC. Except that the states that get the attention do so not for a good reason like, you know, that's where lots of people live, but for the complete accident that the state happens to have a relatively evenly divided population.

Try another argument.

[pmbryant]

71. Nonsense

Everyone (or at least I thought everyone) knows that Presidential candidates only care about swing states, of which there are anywhere from 10 to 20, typically.

Campaigning in 10 to 20 states is not campaigning nationally.

--Peter

[factcheck]

78. Swing states

would still be a problem with proportional voting, except that there would be less of them. MOST states would almost equally distribute their votes.

For example, apply proportional voting to the 2000 election and 15 states have a difference of 2 or more electoral votes going to one candidate vs. the other.

But, I do not believe that 2 would be that big a deal. So, let's look at 3 or more:

5 states:

California 6
Illinois 3
Massachusetts 3
New York 8
Texas 7

And DC 16

That is the margin of difference in proportional electoral votes that would have been awarded. Five states and DC would be the 'swing' states. I guess that is less campaigning that the candidates would have to do, though.

As you can see, all that is accomplished is simply apportioning out the votes more equally. This would result in tighter races overall and more potential for controversy and ties.

Good argument AGAINST proportional voting.

The argument against direct voting has been made pretty clear.

[pmbryant]

87. Well, that's one thing we agree on

I agree that proportionally distributing electors is a worthless idea.

Either keep the current winner-take-all Electoral College, or move to direct election. No sense in half-measures.

--Peter

[ProfessorPlum]

130. There would be MORE swing states with proportional voting

EVERY state would be a potential swing state. Imagine if you just divided up the country based on voter party right now, and assigned EV based on that. In each state, by working on just a small number of voters, you could pick up 1 EC vote (for a net gain of 2 EVs over the other party's total). There would be 50 swing states.

Take TX. Right now it has 11 EVs, and they almost always without fail go to the GOP. But let's say that you could divide them proportionally and there were 8 GOP EVs and 3 Dem EVs. TX is now a battleground state, with both parties working hard to change the proportion to either 9/2 or 7/4. It takes much less work to do this than to change the entire state to DEM.

THAT would drive voter participation.

[factcheck]

140. That works...

in a 2 party system, in one state... That is the ONLY thing in proportional voting that makes much sense. Unfortunately, there are too many other flaws that greatly outweigh this benefit.

However, if we could create a system that has this type of benefit, but eliminates 99% of the other flaws, that would be a different story.

[Braunschweiger Bone]

89. Perhaps, but...

10 to 20 states is better than just the 10 largest cities, which is where a popular vote campaign would focus.

Keep in mind, too, that "swing" states change over time. New Mexico used to be rethug, no problem. Now it's a swing state. Minnesota, the only state to go for Mondale in '84, will likely be a key swing state in the next election. Demographics change.

[RummyTheDummy]

156. Oh you mean from the Heritage Foundation?

Or perhaps Fox News?

[factcheck]

160. NO WAY!

Like I said: unbiased!

I certainly don't trust the news to give me the news. :)

[Terran]

132. So you think it "worked well" in 2000? n/t

[factcheck]

161. I think

it worked as well as it was designed to. I believe the outcome would have been more factually accurate if we removed the 2 EVs for each senator from every state.

That does not mean that the popular vote is ALWAYS the way the election should go.

[prayin4rain]

4. I'm in Texas and I am voting, Hopefully we can at least embarrass him.

But yeah I wouldn't mind seeing that changed...although I think it would be awfully difficult to do.

[andyhappy]

109. right on man!

dont let the polls stop ya!

[aePrime]

5. I'm in Idaho

I really don't think my vote for Kerry will matter here, but I'm going to vote anyway. Why? Because if Jackass manages another win without the popular vote, it's going to become really difficult to defend our antiquated system.

[jobycom]

7. As a Democrat in Texas

I can assure you that Democrats here are heavily focused on local elections, regardless of whether Kerry has a chance or not. In districts where Democrats have a chance to win local elections, the Democrats will turn out heavily. In regions where the Republicans already have it wrapped up, Democrats may get discouraged, but that would be true with or without the electoral college.

I think you may have it backwards, even. Without the electoral college, the party whose presidential candidate trails nationwide might have a lower turnout nationwide, and this could cause the party with the edge to clean up in local and state elections, especially in regions that are close otherwise. Say there's a close election in a swing state. Say the Democrats trail nationally in the presidential election. Without the electoral college, the Democrats might feel that their vote is a waste of time, and stay home, thus costing local and state candidates in that state. But with the electoral college, the Democrats feel they have a chance to win the EC votes in that state, if not nationwide, so they turn out in droves, and perhaps elect more statewide and local Democrats. Given that Tom Delay used the Texas state legislature to gain more seats in the US Congress by redistricting, these local seats are critical. The electoral college breaks the country up, so that just because a party is losing one place, there is still hope in another.

It's got its problems, but I still like it better than a direct vote.

[pmbryant]

11. I don't see any energizing effect of the Electoral College

In fact, I only see a depressive effect over most of the country.

If your candidate is trailing nationally by a large margin, I don't see any motivational factor in the possibility of winning a single state. Did it really cheer Bob Dole's supporters up that he won Colorado in 1996, despite being blown out nationally?

I simply do not see how the Electoral College can have an energizing effect in any state. In a close Presidential election, under the EC, only voters in the 10 or so "swing states" feel extra motivated. Voters in the other 40 feel their vote won't count, as their state is "safe" for one candidate or the other. In a close Presidential election, under direct popular voting, voters in every single state will have the extra motivation.

And as I said above, in a Presidential election that is not close, there is no extra motivation no matter what state you are in.

--Peter

[jobycom]

18. Well

I work with elections a lot. I do see it. Sorry to disagree.

[pmbryant]

23. What about the depressive effect in states that aren't close?

Even if what you say is true, the only energizing effect would be in states that are close in a particular Presidential election. Whether the overall national election is close or not, the number of states that are close enough to be fought over will be 10 to 20, maybe 25 at the absolute most.

So even if there is an energizing effect in those 10 to 20 states, what about the depressive effect in the 30 to 40 "safe" states?

--Peter

[jobycom]

45. About the same as it would be in the nation as a whole without the EC

Which was my original point.

In states where one party blows away the other, the losing party will be less likely to show up. If that state is overwhelmingly going for one party, then getting out more of the other party is often only an exercise in proper civics, not really a practical thing. In close states, turnout is more important. The EC gives close states a chance to feel more involved. That's exactly what it was installed for. And that helps local turnout. In a direct system, if Kerry is trailing nationally by 5 points, a lot of Democrats won't show up, and that will kill a lot of Dem candidates in close states, and certainly won't help turnout in blowaway states.

[factcheck]

48. OK

So your argument appears to be that if one lives in a solid red state, for example, then they will not show up to vote in races OTHER than the Presidential race??

If that is the case, then those people do not deserve to have their vote counted anyway!

The right to vote is absolute, IMHO, if you give up your right to vote, then please don't tell me how unfair the system is!

[jobycom]

173. I'm sorry, but

if that was a response to my post, I don't see any connection...

[factcheck]

177. Sorry

I didn't mean 'YOU' as in you personally. What I was really trying to say is that I believe it is sad that so many simply would not show up to vote in local and state races just because they felt their vote 'didn't count' in the Presidential race.

[pmbryant]

63. Let's look at the bigger picture

You see an advantage of the Electoral College in GOTV efforts in certain situations, but apparently fail to see the severe disadvantages for those same GOTV efforts in other situations.

(Also, you may be confusing cause and effect. You claim that a losing candidate causes de-motivation, but I think an equally plausible case can be made that de-motivation causes a losing candidate. But I won't pursue that angle at this point.)

In brief, here is how I see how your argument for the advantages of the Electoral College over direct election of the President:

Blowout Presidential elections:
(A) 5-10 swing states: slight extra motivation to losing-party voters to GOTV in EC system over what they would have in a direct vote system.
(B) 40 safe states: no difference. (All voters in either system have a de-motivation to vote.)

Close Presidential elections:
(C) 15-20 swing states: no difference. (All voters in either system have a large extra motivation to vote.)
(D) 30-35 safe states: de-motivation for all voters in EC system versus large extra motivation in a direct system.

So as I see it, since you favor the Electoral College, you think the slight advantages in blowout Presidential elections (scenario A) are worth tolerating the large disadvantages in close Presidential elections (scenario D). Perhaps that would be true if close Presidential elections were a rarity. That has not been the case recently.

Furthermore, the slight advantages of (A) are only in a handful of swing states. The larger disadvantages of (D) are spread over the bulk of the country.

And, more fundamentally, the slight advantages of (A) in those few states in those few elections are certainly not worth sacrificing the basic democratic principal of one person, one vote.

--Peter


EDIT: Added "scenario" in front of (A) and (D) in 3rd to last paragraph (for clarity).

[jobycom]

174. You're splitting mouse hairs

First, that's not the only reason I think the EC works, but the discussion was on how it effects voter turnout, so that's all I discussed.

Second, without firm numbers on how turnout is effected, you can't get that specific. The first person made a generalized argument using only a reasonable statement as to why he thought the EC depressed turnout. I used an equally generalized statement to claim that it doesn't, it might even help it. As for the various scenarios you draw up, how they play out depends on the numbers, and there aren't any numbers. Find the numbers, we can talk.

I can't see throwing out a system that has worked all but two times in our history because of logical, untested assumptions. This isn't a liberal/conservative/progressive thing either, since all parties are just as likely to be on the other side when it suits them. Check out the Kennedy/Nixon election for proof.

Democrats are upset over Gore. It's possible this time that the tables could be reversed. If Kerry wins the EC but not the popular vote, will we all be claiming that Bush should rightfully be president? I won't, the system is as it is. Without really good proof that a direct vote would be better, I can't see a reason to change it. The Republicans will cheat, no matter which system we use.

[pmbryant]

178. Well, at least you're right that this isn't a liberal/conservative issue

This is a lot more than "mouse hairs". The vast majority of people in this country have miniscule voice in the selection of our chief executive thanks to the electoral college. A small fraction of people have a greatly elevated voice. To me, that is not acceptable in the long run. I would think this gross unfairness would also turn off most progressives and most who favor true democracy.

Ok, I pursued the turnout argument because that was one of your major reasons for supporting the electoral college. You are right that I don't have firm numbers, but I think the scenarios I depicted are clear enough that they provide a good starting point for countering your turnout argument. Certainly there are no firm numbers on the other side either.

Just because the Electoral College supposedly works most of the time is no reason not to get rid of it for a system that would work all of the time. We can do better.

And the electoral college has come very close to failing us on more than two occasions.

(1) 2000. It failed us. Not only did the popular vote winner get deprived of a victory, but disputed results in several close states cast the true winner of the electoral college into serious doubt. Alternatively, there is absolutely no doubt who won the popular vote.

(2) 1976. Ford nearly won the electoral college despite a significant loss in the popular vote. This was a near miss.

(3) 1968. George Wallace nearly threw the election into the House of Representatives, where the single representatives of Wyoming and Delaware have the same clout as the entire delegations of Texas and California. Another near miss.

(4) 1960. Yet another near miss, as some southern states whose voters chose Kennedy tried to give their electors to a third-party candidate instead.

That's 4 close calls or failures in the last 11 elections.

Finally, the cheating issue:

It is a lot easier for dirty tricksters to cheat on a state-by-state basis than it is to do so nationwide. Stealing a measly few hundred votes in Florida gave Bush 10% of the electoral votes he needed to become President. Stealing a few thousand in Wisconsin, Iowa, Oregon, or New Mexico would have had a similar effect last time.

If we had a direct vote, for anyone to have stolen the 2000 election nationally, he would have had to steal hundreds of thousands of votes, even in a razor-thin election like 2000.

So if you are worried about cheating, the electoral college should not be your preferred system.

--Peter

[sharman]

181. So, this is worth

letting someone take the most important office in the land who does not have the support of the majority of the population?

Plus, I don't buy the premise.

If an election is not close, on a national level, then the electorate will show up if there are local races of interest, and if they choose not to vote, so be it.

In a close presidential election, every voter knows his vote counts. Every neighbor and friend is a potential vote to win to your cause--you don't have to vanpool into some stupid swing state, because it doesn't matter if whom you win over in California.

But you know, it's not a real tough issue, I just don't see it. If you believe in democracy, that's majority rule, end of story.

[JohnnyCougar]

8. Aren't there like 5-10 competitive house seats in Texas?

Get out and TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!!!!!

[Xithras]

10. Forget it. The electoral college system will never be abolished

Getting rid of the electoral college would require an alteration to the Constitution. It may be possible to get Congress to pass an amendment altering or abolishing it, but you will NEVER get enough legislatures in enough small states to ratify it for it to go anywhere. California, Texas, New York, Florida...states that would be largely unaffected by the change would ratify, but the Dakotas, Nevada, Utah, the Rocky and midwestern states...they would NEVER approve the amendment because it would effectively silence their input into a national election. It would go the way of the ERA.

Instead of wasting time and mental energy on trying to abolish the EC, you'd should spend time and effort in your own state to change the way those EC votes are distributed.

Keep in mind, though, that this cuts both ways. While the Dems in Texas would get a voice through a proportional or district based EC award scheme, so would Republicans in California, who (last I checked) still held about 40% of the vote.

So the question is: Is it worth it to give those Texas Democrats a voice, if it costs us almost half the EC electors in California?

[ProfessorPlum]

12. The votes in each state SHOULD be assigned proportionally

though. That would make every person's vote COUNT. And that would be a good thing.

[factcheck]

15. Please

Someone try and actually post some numbers as to why direct or proportional voting would be a 'good thing'! I get sick of hearing people spout this because it sounds good.

Scenario #1: Current situation, but with proportional voting. Yes, the 2000 election would have gone 261-273 rather than 271-266. However, today that would be different. Red states have seen the greatest increases in electoral votes over the last 4 years. And, since so many states are so close to 50-50, this simply opens the door to electoral ties.

Not to mention, do we give a minimum of 1 vote to each independent too? What is the minimum percentage required to get at least 1 vote? This could create a situation where the independent candidates have a FAR greater effect on elections.

And, what if we did not have a 2 party system, but a 3-party system? And each party was taking roughly 1/3 of the vote? Or worse, one of the parties takes 50% and the other two almost evenly split the rest? The majority party would then simply use the tactic of creating discourse between the other two parties and would always rule.

Scenario #2: 3 dominant parties, direct (popular) voting. 1 party generally receives 50% of the vote and the other 2 roughly split the rest, like above. That one party would ALWAYS win the Presidential election which would make it far easier for them to dominate other areas of the government as well.

Remember, we did not always have 2 dominant parties and it is naive to think we alway will. What if one, or the other, or both faction off into 2 or more additional parties?

We cannot simply look at the electoral college system as it applies today and say that it isn't working simply because it did not work for our candidate last time. What if it works FOR Kerry this time? I think then we will hear the same people who complained about it singing the praises of the electoral college.

It is a good system. The men who created it were rather brilliant actually.

[pmbryant]

30. What you imply is a horror is called "democracy".

I won't address your argument on splitting electoral votes proportionally, because I think that is a worthless idea myself.

Direct election should be our goal.

Scenario #2: 3 dominant parties, direct (popular) voting. 1 party generally receives 50% of the vote and the other 2 roughly split the rest, like above. That one party would ALWAYS win the Presidential election which would make it far easier for them to dominate other areas of the government as well.

In this scenario, the 50% party should win. After all, it receives double to votes of any other party.

If a party dominates government in a way that the people are unhappy with, it can be voted out at the next election. If this party continues to get double the votes of any other party, then they must be doing something right.

That is not "tyranny"; that is "democracy".

--Peter

[factcheck]

35. Ummmmm...

OK,

"If a party dominates government in a way that the people are unhappy with, it can be voted out at the next election. If this party continues to get double the votes of any other party, then they must be doing something right."

Roughly 50% of the US voters vote Republican and roughly 50% vote Democrat now.

Let's say that the Democratic party split into two roughly equal factions and 25% of the voters voted Dem1 and 25% voted Dem2 and 50% voted Republican. Note: I use this example because this is the one that would be most appalling to you.

So, envision the country as it is now, BUT with 2 factions of the Democratic party.

Do you think that because now the Republicans would be ALWAYS controlling the Presidency that "they must be doing something right"?

You badly need to read some of the Federalist Papers. :)

Think deeper.

[pmbryant]

39. That's democracy.

I wouldn't like that scenario, personally, but that'd just be tough cookies for me. I would have to work at uniting the two Dem factions and then trying to steal a handful of GOP voters. That's how democracy works; fighting to win more votes than your opponent.

No one has a problem electing the chief executives of big, diverse states like California, Texas, and Florida with direct vote. Why shouldn't we do the same thing for the whole country's chief executive?

--Peter

[factcheck]

42. But....

The United States is NOT a democracy, so this will never happen.

[pmbryant]

65. Never say never

:-)

Peter

[factcheck]

67. Never...

:)

As long as we do not change our entire system of government.

[SeanQ]

96. I think you miss another aspect to that

One of the benifits, in some peoples opinion, of multi-party systems, is that it is rare for any one party to lock up the government for extended periods of time and encourages multi-party coalitions (compromise). If the GOP in your senario wins the presidency over and over again, chances are Dem1 and Dem2 will work together, at least occasionally, to unseat the GOP. Or one of the two Dems will try and fragment the GOP and match them in voting strength.

More imprtantly, it's even more unlikely that the GOP above would ever get > 50% of the senate and house. There would almost _never_ be a single majority party there. So no party would likely ever again be able to control all parts of the government!!! Half of our problem right now isn't just that B* is president, it's that the GOP controls both sides of the house as well!

[factcheck]

104. Well...

I am not going to say anything more about Dem1 and Dem2 working together except to say that we do not currently see any of the parties actually working together now. And it would be in the Republicans best interest to keep Dem1 and Dem2 at odds; and they would. Dem1 and Dem2 would likely be successful every so often, but the problem would arise if Dem1 became a little more powerful than Dem2. Dem2 would become jealous and that would be the end of the peace.

The Republicans would easily win more than 50% of Congress. It is fact that, generally, having a sitting President campaigning for you helps quite a bit. And, in my scenario, 50% of the population is Republican. Believe me, it would be easy.

Look at now. The Republicans have more than 50% of the Congress. Are we saying that more than 50% of voters are Republican? Nope. What we can say is that they have been more effective at getting their people elected. How much easier does this become when that party controls the Presidency at least 90% of the time and the Dem parties are fractured?

This could happen in so many ways. Maybe for a time we would see each party holding 1/3. Maybe we see Dem2 in power and the R's and Dem1 splitting the rest, etc.

But, I don't think we want to see ANY one party in power for too long. They become complacent and forget who they work for. And direct voting presents the problem of having one party remain in power for far too long.

[ProfessorPlum]

34. Your argument for the current system

and by that I mean winner takes all in each state (which states currently divide their votes? I think Maine and possibly Nebraska do) is that it would be awful if the person who more people voted for actually won the election.

I thought that was what democracy was about.

With proportional voting, yes, you would have to figure out how to divide votes and when a party had won enough to win a whole elector. But we have people who can actually do division and they could probably figure something out.

The problem with winner takes all in a state, let's say TX, is that it effectively disenfranchises EVERYONE in that state unless it is close. Neither the votes of GOP or Democratic voters in TX really matters right now. If a state is solidly in someone's camp, the entire state CEASES TO MATTER. No ads are played there, no campaigning is done. Do you think the parties would care about GOTV efforts in TX? What for?

The bottom line for myself, personally: I find it very demoralizing not to have my vote count. I'd be even more motivated to get my neighbors out to the polls if I thought their votes actually counted.

"Rock the vote" and all those other voter participation efforts ignore the elephant in the living room: Your vote only "matters" if you live in a battleground state.

[factcheck]

38. There again...

If the United States were a democracy, your statements might apply.

[ProfessorPlum]

52. Of course it isn't a pure democracy

I know that (/chimp)

But I think there would be nothing wrong with making it more democratic. What is your problem with that?

[factcheck]

54. BIG problem....

My problem with that... which should be everyone's problem with that, is that you are proposing changing our very style of government. That is a pretty serious undertaking that will not be solved, nor end, with the abolishment of the EC.

[ProfessorPlum]

55. horrors!

I'm filled with the vapours about changing our very style of government. Just because our very style of government sucks and everything, we wouldn't want to change it.

Seriously. What is your objection to having every vote count, again?

[factcheck]

70. Every vote counts...

as much today as it did 10 years ago and 20 years ago and 50 years ago. Maybe not 100 years ago. Much more fraud then than there is now.

EVERY vote counts. But, since we are not a Democracy, we have a system that protects against potential tyrannical rule of a majority party. Therefore it may seem as though every vote does not count on the surface.

I am not saying that the EC is without flaws at all. It's not. But it has less flaws that direct voting or proportional voting. If we could come up with a truly better method, I would be all for it!

[ProfessorPlum]

82. There have been very few elections where a candidate

won the popular vote but lost the EC. Therefore, I don't see how the EC affects "tyrannical rule of a majority party" except extremely rarely.

I understand what you are trying to say. It's like creating minority congressional districts, so that the representation from one state in the House can be more reflective of the makeup of the state as a whole. In this way, it is less likely that you have all caucasian delegations from a state that is 60%/40% caucasian/other ethnicities, for example.

But proportional division of electoral collage electors would accomplish the same thing. In the above example, you wouldn't have to gerrymander. If the state had 10 electors, you could divide them 6 and 4, for example (Using race as a substitute for party is a bad example here, but you see what I mean). Proportional voting would make the whole state a safe haven for the minority, as their votes would actually count in their state. Democrats in TX would have a chance to send some electors, as would Republicans in CA. See? No more tyranny of the majority on the state-wide level.

Edit for grammar

[factcheck]

88. I think

I have demonstrated quite extensively why proportional voting is a very bad idea; possibly even worse than direct voting.

Just take a basic example of the 2000 election. If 45 of the states would have only had a difference of 2 or less electoral votes given to each candidate, what reason is there to show up and vote?

Why not just stay home and let the other 5 states decide the whole thing?

I mean, C'mon! I am not going to worry about voting if I can only hand my candidate 2 extra votes at best when I know that my state is giving the other guy some votes too! And fore MOST people, it would be either 1 or 0 extra votes.

Bad, bad idea.

[ProfessorPlum]

93. What? That doesn't make any sense at all

I currently live in a small state, with three EC votes. We are considered safe for Kerry. Therefore, whether I vote or not, whether my neighbors vote or not, whether my coworkers vote or not, barring some huge unforeseen event, Kerry will get 3 EC votes from my state. It's hard to think or to feel that my vote really "matters".

Now, imagine that we had proportional voting here. Say the state was divided roughly two to one for the Democrats, so that in a neutral year with everyone voting along party lines, we would expect 2 Ds and 1 R from our state.

Suddenly, my vote counts!! By whipping up voter registration and participation in my state, I could get that extra EC vote away from the Rs! Or, if the Republicans really poured it on, they could win one of our electors for their side - or at least they would be motivated to work hard to hang on to that one elector.

My potential influence on the number of EC votes Kerry gets would suddenly go from next to none to possibly one. And that's great news. It would certainly make a good case for getting more people involved in the process.

And each of the 5 states you are quoting above that would "decide things" would each probably be divided roughly down the middle. We are, after all, much more of a "purple" country than we are red or blue. Things would be very much up in the air everywhere.

The more I think about this, the more I think proportional division in the EC is the way to go. Your arguments haven't presented one reason why it is not a good idea.

[factcheck]

97. Ummmmm.... what?!?

"Say the state was divided roughly two to one for the Democrats, so that in a neutral year with everyone voting along party lines, we would expect 2 Ds and 1 R from our state.

Suddenly, my vote counts!! "

How so? You said that your vote didn't "matter" when you knew your state was solidly Dem and would give all 3 votes to your candidate.

Here you say that the state is divided 2 to 1, but now your vote would count?

No, with everyone voting along party lines, as you say, your vote still doesn't count. Your state will still go 2D, 1R.

So, actually, your vote counts less. You only succeeded in giving up 1 electoral vote that you CANNOT get back.

Do you want to think this one through again and try a different approach? :) We can call this one a 'do over'. :)

[ProfessorPlum]

106. You're being deliberately obtuse

Obviously this would be a disaster if safe states on one side all went to proportional voting and safe states on the other side kept winner takes all. But everyone going to proportional voting at the same time would raise the stakes for all voters.

Imagine a state with 30 EC votes, 2/3 D and 1/3 R. In a winner take all, if I am a GOP in that state, I would have to convince 1/6 of the voters to change party lines, in order to tip the state, which would then go from 30 D to 30 R.

In a proportional vote, there are normally 20 Ds and 10 Rs in each state. To get an extra EC vote, I only have to convince 1/30th of the states voters to change their minds. That is much more possible, therefore much more worth trying.

You are correct to point out that it becomes more locked in, percentage-wise, for smaller states where rounding (if you don't want to assign "partial" EC votes) has a much bigger effect. But the absolute numbers of votes you have to change in that case more approaches the number you would have to change in the larger state.

[factcheck]

112. Good point...

This is a very good point. I like the idea, but I still believe outright proportional voting is a bad idea overall.

Your idea holds water in your analogy, but can this be applied across 50 states, multiple party systems, etc.?

I am not sure. I think we still run into the problem of too many votes being throw away votes in even states.

I also think this idea fails when you apply a 3rd party. It is no longer 2/3 - 1/3 then. Even if that third party is only taking 1 EV from that state, it could make the entire difference.

And, how do we award votes? A minimum percentage of popular vote? Then we open up the possibility of a candidate getting a few hundred less than the amount necessary to win even 1 vote and challenging it, with attorneys for both major parties taking sides, of course.

And, does this whole idea not guarantee that races will be much closer to even which means more contesting of elections? And making it closer, does this not mean that we would likely end up with more ties that end up in Congress?

I do like your point about actually having a chance to sway voters to gain one more EV, but I think proportional voting overall is fatally flawed.

[ProfessorPlum]

118. Multiple parties will always muddy the waters

You are correct, in proportional voting there would be some threshold a candidate from a third party would have to reach before they got one EC vote. And that would force states to pay attention to, and count, those votes for more marginal candidates more carefully (as opposed to just throwing them away, which is what they do now).

I guess my point is this: If you divide the EC up by population, just based on representation in the house, as you've suggested, then the matter of each electoral vote becomes a matter of winning enough voters to your side (within each state) as it would take to win an election in the house, and it would be just as (roughly) local. The entire country's EC votes would be up for grabs, and the scale of campaigning would have a much sharper focus. Small numbers of people really could have a dramatic effect, GOTV efforts would really COUNT no matter which state you lived in . . . I would like to participate in a system like that.

[factcheck]

120. Getting closer...

Well, we are at least getting closer to an idea that might work.

If only it were up to us. :)

[ProfessorPlum]

123. Indeed.

That would be great. Ah well.

[sharman]

182. If you're worried about multiple parties

then have a run-off system.

It's nonsense to allow the obvious injustices that have been wrought by the electoral college system, because of a hypothetical situation that hasn't been the reality in this country

[pmbryant]

13. Not true. Its elimination is only a matter of time.

Only the attitude that it is impossible to abolish makes it impossible to abolish.

There are compelling arguments that the Electoral College is unfair to large states. There are compelling arguments that the Electoral College is unfair to small states (really!). The most compelling argument of all is that the Electoral College is unfair to every state that isn't a swing state, which is the vast majority of states.

This country has proven with its history that it is willing to pass Constitutional amendments based on moral principals, even if it dilutes the power of those voting on the amendment. Giving the vote to blacks and to women are the most dramatic examples of this. Direct election of Senators is a less dramatic, but still very important, example.

Direct democratic election of the President is only a matter of time. Hopefully it will happen sooner rather than later. The first task is to eliminate the notion that it is an impossible goal.

--Peter

[ProfessorPlum]

47. Wow, unfair to "small" states? Really?

I can think of lots of reasons why it is biased against people in large states. How could it possibly be unfair for small states? Don't their votes count for much more in choosing the president than large states?

[pmbryant]

80. Yes

If you live in small state Alaska, does your vote count for President? If you live in small state Rhode Island, does your vote count for President?

No, because those states are completely safe for one candidate or the other.

The only states that benefit from the Electoral College are the small number of swing states. Voters in the large state of Florida had a pretty decisive effect last time around, didn't they?

--Peter

[factcheck]

83. And...

the only states that 'benefit' from direct voting are the most populous states - probably 5 at most, and the only states that 'benefit' from proportional voting is a whole different selection of 'swing states' - again about 5.

It is easy to sit there and point out apparent flaws in the EC, but who has a better idea? The only other two presented are actually more flawed.

[ProfessorPlum]

85. You are thinking in terms of "states". Why?

Why should "states" as entities choose the president? Why not "people" for example?

You are basing your argument on what hurts or help states and not people. I don't give a crap about hurting or helping states. I want to have presidential elections that give more power to/motivate people.

[factcheck]

91. Ahhhhh...

Now we are getting to the heart....

Because the United States of America is NOT a Democracy!

OK, OK, I have tossed out that bait quite a bit, now I will explain:

For those of us who slept through American History class (notice that I said 'us' - I learned more outside of school), here it is put very simply:

The way our country was founded was as a group of separate states uniting agings a common foe.

Therefore, the Democratic Republic of the United States of America was founded.

We may be one overall country, but it is one that is comprised of separate states all with representation in a central government.

To try to change our system to one where the President is elected by a majority of the people in the country invites the idea that our representatives (senators, etc.) should no longer represent individual states and should be selected in an entirely different manner.

THAT is how it would be if our country were a true Democracy, everything that was decided on a nationwide basis would be done so by pure majority vote. However, we are a Democratic Republic of United States and, therefore, this system MUST be protected.

Now, don't start with the sovereignty of states and all that crap. I am not going to get into a states' rights thing here. I am arguing the states thing from a historical viewpoint and not a political one. Our founding fathers created this country out of a group of UNITED STATES and I don't believe we should be looking to change that.

[ProfessorPlum]

98. You're not even correct here

quit the lecturing tone, I'm quite aware of arguments for and against states' rights. I find them rather antiquated, as for most intents and purposes the states' righters have pretty much already lost most of their battles. Our nation is most decidedly federal.

"States" don't elect the president - you keep trying to assert that and argue that position, what would hurt one state versus another. Members of the EC elect the president, and they do indeed come from the states.

There are two separate issues:

1) the way we assign the number of electors from each state richly rewards people in states with small populations, and screws people in large states. I don't think you can really argue that. It isn't fair, but that is the way it is. Some people, probably from larger states, might reasonably want to change that. I'm not sure whether it is good, bad, or neither, but it is most definitely true.

2) the winner takes all method of assigning electors depresses voter turn out in "safe states". That is my opinion, based on the kind of scenarios we have been discussing, but I can't think of a single argument by which one could reasonably argue that winner takes all improves voter turn out in safe states. Maybe I'm wrong, but no one here has presented one. One way to improve this is to implement proportional assignment of electors from each state. I argue that that would make everyone's vote count much more, locally, stimulating voter participation and turnout.

[factcheck]

105. Nope...

If our country were truly Federal, the Federal government would control all and we would not have state governors for example. We would ONLY have Federal representatives.

Sorry for the 'lecturing' tone, but here is one that is a little more condescending: Do your homework before formulating an opinion much less an argument. It gets frustrating to debate someone so factually unarmed.

1. OK, change the apportioning of EVs to the states. I agree with that. The problem arises from the 2 EVs for the senators. Eliminate them. Make it purely based on population. I am sure there are some flaws there too, but they could be ironed out.

2. You still have ignored EVERY solid reason why proportional voting is a bad idea. I simply am not going to explain it again.

[ProfessorPlum]

110. Yup

The states have SO much power. That's why when the federal government, for example, wants to implement a 55 mph speed limit, and holds federal funds for highways over their heads, they cower and get in line as they are told. The states are the Fed's bitches. Again, I'm not sure if that is a good thing or a bad thing - people have been arguing that for over 200 years, but it is definitely true. Sure, states have some small power, but the federal government is really calling most of the shots.

1. that's a decent suggestion

2. you haven't PRESENTED any reasons why proportional voting is a bad idea. So for you to explain it again would be impossible.

[factcheck]

113. Which is why...

I loved when our state of Colorado thumbed their noses at the Federal government over the .08 blood alcohol thing and told them: we have a budget surplus, so go ahead and withhold the money! :)

"you haven't PRESENTED any reasons why proportional voting is a bad idea. So for you to explain it again would be impossible."

Go ahead and read all of the posts. I will wait. :) Sorry, but that is ALL I have done is to point out its flaws.

[ProfessorPlum]

86. You are getting size mixed up with "safety"

Here is a chart that shows the exact opposite of what you are arguing.

http://banzhaf.net/ec2000.html

As you can see, voters in Alaska, Wyoming, and Vermont are the big winners in this scenario. Their votes count nearly three times that of a voter in CA, NY, TX, FL, or PA.

[pmbryant]

94. That chart doesn't represent true voting "power"

Common sense tells us that a single vote in Florida in 2000 had a more important effect upon the result of the Presidential election than a single vote in any other state.

The true measure of voting power is not electoral votes per population, but electoral votes per margin of victory.

In 2000, such a statistic accurately places Florida at the top of the list, and other swing states just below it. And it places blowout small states like Alaska, Wyoming, and Rhode Island way down the list.

Florida's 25 electoral votes per 537 vote difference gives a voting power in 2000 of 46.6 EVs per 1000 votes. Alaska's 3 electoral votes per 88,394 vote difference gives a voting power in 2000 of 0.034 EVs per 1000 votes. California's 2000 voting power was 0.042 EVs per 1000 votes, slightly higher than Alaska's. Another swing state, Iowa, had a voting power of 1.8 EVs per 1000 votes in 2000. A hell of lot bigger than Alaska and California, but still tiny compared to Florida.

--Peter

EDIT: Corrected 2nd paragraph to read "... is not electoral votes per population" instead of "... is not electoral votes per voter" to reflect what the chart presented. Argument is still the same, of course.

[ProfessorPlum]

125. That's true

the chart makes no effort to talk about margins of victory, which will necessarily change each and every year. Again, there are two issues here

1) the relative power of voters in small states, due to the way EC votes are apportioned (this is what the chart addresses)

2) the suppressive effects of winner takes all strategies in safe states (and the accompanying hysteria in the battleground states) on voter turnout.

Your statistic takes both of these effects into account at the same time. I think it is reasonable to treat them separately, for the sake of argument.

[apnu]

14. I feel the EC is oblslete in today's world

Howver, that's just my opinion.

Here's a Mother Jones peice on the EC:
http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_202.html

The Indefensible Electoral College
Why even the best-laid defenses of the system are wrong.

By Bradford Plumer
October 8, 2004

What have Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, Bob Dole, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO all, in their time, agreed on? Answer: Abolishing the electoral college! They're not alone; according to a Gallup poll in 2000, taken shortly after Al Gore -- thanks to the quirks of the electoral college -- won the popular vote but lost the presidency, over 60 percent of voters would prefer a direct election to the kind we have now. This year voters can expect another close election in which the popular vote winner could again lose the presidency. And yet, the electoral college still has its defenders. What gives?

As George C. Edwards III, a professor of political science at Texas A&M university, reminds us in his new book, Why the Electoral College is Bad for America, "The choice of the chief executive must be the people's, and it should rest with none other than them." Fans of the electoral college usually admit that the current system doesn't quite satisfy this principle. Instead, Edwards notes, they change the subject and tick off all the "advantages" of the electoral college. But even the best-laid defenses of the old system fall apart under close scrutiny. The electoral college has to go.

What's wrong with the electoral college

Under the electoral college system, voters vote not for the president, but for a slate of electors, who in turn elect the president. If you lived in Texas, for instance, and wanted to vote for Kerry, you'd vote for a slate of 34 Democratic electors pledged to Kerry. On the off-chance that those electors won the statewide election, they would go to Congress and Kerry would get 34 electoral votes. Who are the electors? They can be anyone not holding public office. Who picks the electors in the first place? It depends on the state. Sometimes state conventions, sometimes the state party's central committee, sometimes the presidential candidates themselves. Can voters control whom their electors vote for? Not always. Do voters sometimes get confused about the electors and vote for the wrong candidate? Sometimes.

(more: http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2004/10/10_202.html)

[pmbryant]

41. Great article. Everyone hear should read it.

Those arguing in favor of the electoral college should be prepared to rebut the arguments therein. :-)

Peter

[factcheck]

46. Easy to rebut..

Biased organization. Give me history or give me death! :)

[hughee99]

60. If a voter gets confused and votes for the wrong canidate

How would getting rid of the EC help? On my ballot, it will say something like.

John Kerry (D - MA)
George W. Bush (R - TX)

The names of the electors do not appear on my ballot. I can't imagine anyone (Palm Beach County not withstanding) getting confused by this. I agree that the EC is not a good system, but IMHO, a direct democracy will create as many issues as it solves. If we're going to go through all the trouble that it will take to change the system, we need to have some better plan in place to propose, rather than just swapping one set of problems for another.

[bif]

16. We're not a true democracy until it's gone

Majority rules. Period. If the majority of the people decided chose Al Gore (which they did by nearly a half a million votes) then he should be president.

[demokatgurrl]

20. Definitely obsolete. With the technology we have

now, counting votes should be no problem.

Oops. sorry, forgot about the problems.

But, nevertheless, it is still obsolete. The country is too populated now, and we DO have available technology to accurately count the votes, it's just that the technolgy is being harnessed in evial (Diebold) ways. And it really makes some states seem so irrelevant that the candidates don't bother with them. That seems entirely wrong to me. We in PA have to look at Bush every other week, while some of you lucky dogs never have to see his face. Every vote, and every state, should count.

[factcheck]

21. Now you are getting it!

First, if, in this election, Bush gets the majority of popular vote, but loses in the electoral college, I want to hear you say the same thing! That Bush, not Kerry, should be President!

Here is the exact nature of the problem:

You, and most, if not all, others here believe that America is a Democracy based on the exact tenets of a democratic government.

Therein lies the problem.

[sharman]

183. Thank you!! Thank you!

Why is that such a darn hard concept?

And the one feature that has not been adequately touched on yet in this thread is the very undemocratic addition of the two extra votes per state having nothing to do with population.

For example, Alaska gets 1 EC vote representing its population, and another two just for being a state. California get about 50+ for population, and two for being a state.

Thus, every Alaskan citizen's vote counts almost three times as much as mine in California.

If that one feature alone did not exist, Al Gore would be president

[SeanQ]

19. I'd like to see many voting reforms. I also hope people in places

like Texa still vote regardless. If it's close or a tie in the electoral college, a huge win in the popular vote will help immensly in the courts and the media when fighting against B* in the courts and arguing for voter reforms in the future.

I live in Mass. and will still be voting.

As for modifying the electoral college, I'm sort of partial to Maine's model. As I understand it, whoever wins the popular vote within a congressional district earn that districts electoral vote. Whoever wins the popular vote in the state overall gets the two electoral votes from the senate. In Mass, this would likely mean 10 or so EV for Kerry and 2 for B*. Everyones vote counts a lot more, but we still preserve some aspects of the electoral college. It may be able to even be madated federally (or _strongly_ encouraged for states to adopt - like the 21 year old drinking age) without the need for a constitutional amendment.

I'd also like to see serious discusion on run-off voting (or other modern improvements). That would open up better competition from parties besides the main two.

[factcheck]

22. Even though...

You are wrong philosophically and mathematically.

Oh well, some people actually study a problem and get all of the information and some simply go with the flow because it 'sounds like a good idea'.

[SeanQ]

29. Even though I am wrong how?

Very nice to toss out a vague insult without raising any specific points. :P

I may very well be wrong. But from the little bit of research and discussing this I have done, that is my opinion for a possible workable solution.

[factcheck]

33. Easy

"the little bit of research"

Do more. My specific points are outlined in my other posts.

Start here: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

No insult intended. I believe in open discussion, but it is frustrating when I end up 'discussing' this with people who have done so little research.

[SeanQ]

84. Ah, apparently I made the mistake of disagreeing with you.

Philosophically wrong indeed! :eyes:

And since I proposed no mathematically analysis of the country's voting behavior, I'm not sure how I'm mathematically wrong as well. But no worries - it's obvious you didn't mean to be insulting. lol

Now, since you did get my ire up a bit, and I do find this an interesting topic of discussion, I went ahead and read the article you pointed out. Frankly, I don't see how this disagrees with my points in any significant way.

I did not suggest throwing out the electoral college. I'm looking for workable compromises within that structure that moves some more direct representation to the voters and enhances competition from additional political parties. I also feel my suggestion would greatly enhance involvement in politics at a local level, where it is most starved.

My suggestion is to alter how electors are assigned nationally to match the current methodology used by Maine and Nebraska. The popular vote in each Congressional district wins that districts electoral vote. The popular vote for the state overall gets the two electoral votes representing the senators. This is not suggesting simple proportional voting, which seems to be all you discussed above (granted I am at work and am writing this among some distractions ;) )

I see this as having a number of advantages. It increases the effect of voting at a local level. Democrats in a democratic district in Texas have a reason to go vote - they can win their districts EV. This also might finally (and thankfully IMHO!) break the concepts of 'Red and Blue states', since most states are a bit of both. By keeping the two EV/state tied to the total popular vote, you maintain some of the electoral colleges insulation requiring a distribution of popular support. 100 EV's are still determined on a by state basis, and the disproportional distribution of congressional representation still further helps to prevent rural states from being completely ignored.

The one point in my argument the author of the document you referred me to does seem to disagree with is that maintaining a two party system is best for the stability of our government. I am certainly not convinced of that argument. Not that I would want to see, do to voting across a huge number of small political parties, radical parties controlling the government (which the neocons almost have done anyway!). But a way for a wider set of political opinions to be heard would, I think, be an improvement over our current situation. I strongly doubt the changes I suggest above would lead to a third party president anytime in the foreseeable future - I'm not even sure a completely popular vote would. However my proposed enhancement could allow a third party to gain some small count of electoral votes. While this is unlikely to affect who becomes president, it could give more clout to third parties, increasing their ability to gain representation in the congress, where I think they could have the most positive impact on our government.

And speaking of third parties, reading the authors description of the forming of the electoral college, it would seem to me the our countries founders initial preference to not have the government be controlled by political parties would lend a constitutional credence to moving toward some form of runoff elections. It would be another way for people to express their will to our government while still allowing a stable electoral process. Indeed, to quote:

'In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's second favorite choice'

Which is basically what, as I understand it, runoff elections allow. Millions of people could vote for their favorite third party candidate as their first choice, and Kerry or B* as their second. Almost certainly one of the two main party candidates would still win. But looking at the initial votes would also let our government know what other things the citizens really value.

Anywho, that's my opinion. Yes, it's a topic of discussion because of the last election. But I'm not suggesting this point because I thought it would have helped us last time. Frankly, I have no idea what impact adopting the Maine and Nebraska models nationally would have had on the last election (though if someone can point me to election results by Congressional district I'd be happy to figure it out). It's just an idea (well two counting the addition of run-offs, but that's ancillary to this thread) I have for improving voter involvement and representation, without throwing out an existing system, which I agree still has some merit.

[factcheck]

95. No, you made the mistake of....

not doing your homework at first. :)

Do you see, how, when armed with information, a discussion like this can begin to be fruitful rather than an "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of thing? :)

You make some good points, but I am still against absolute proportional voting. However, some sort of modification of the EC could certainly be called for.

As someone else mentioned, we should not trade one set of problems for a new set. That is true. I believe that proportional voting presents a whole new set of problems. What we need is something that will keep the majority of the EC in place while fixing the problems inherent to the EC (which occur primarily in a 2 party system).

[SeanQ]

103. OMG!

"Do you see, how, when armed with information, a discussion like this can begin to be fruitful rather than an "I'm right, you're wrong" sort of thing? :)"

Wow, how foolish of me.
...
Oh yeah, wait. YOU were the one who replied to my post telling me I was wrong. I had done my homework. I'll continue to do more. The article you referenced did not change my position at all, indeed, I found arguments their supporting my opinion. My first post was not intended as an in depth discussion - I was just throwing out an idea I have for consideration.

I'm glad my more detailed arguments have you at least considering it as a possible alternative. Might I suggest you take your own advice, and engage in discourse before jumping of the cliff against someones opinion or insulting them?

[factcheck]

107. Oh boy...

"My first post was not intended as an in depth discussion - I was just throwing out an idea I have for consideration."

Therein lies the entire problem. People just throwing out ideas before they have really thought them through.

Sorry, I really did not mean any insult. Believe me, if I wanted to insult you, there would be no doubt as to whether it were an insult or not.

I think it is great you read that article and will do more more research. That is awesome! Because, then, when you do form an opinion or just throw out an idea, it will be an informed one and you will be able to make cognitive arguments.

I welcome a good intellectual discussion on the subject. For the most part, I am still awaiting it as well. :) Few have actually supported their opinions with any solid reasoning or fact.

Now, of course, WE are not going to decide this issue, but do you think that, if Congress took up this debate, that the argument of: 'well, direct voting sounds like a good idea' is going to fly?

Don't be so sensitive. Toes get stepped on in a debate. Just say ouch and move on.
:)

[pmbryant]

36. Whatever we do, we should avoid Maine and Nebraska's model

Maine and Nebraska's model of awarding electors based on congressional districts is far worse than the winner-take-all model of other states.

First of all, it allows gerrymandering to affect Presidential elections. It is bad enough that this sleazy practice affects congressional elections.

Second of all, people's votes do not count more in that model. In the whole country, thanks to partisan gerrymandering, there are probably only 30-40 swing congressional districts. That's less than 10% of the country. In the other 400 some districts, no individual would have much incentive to vote for President, as their vote would be inconsequential.

--Peter

[SeanQ]

99. Really?

I've been searching off and on unsucesfully for a while now for polling records organised by Congressional district. I'd expect the number of swing districts closer to 100, and distributed across a wide numebr of states. If I ever find records for a few cycles of presidential elections by district I'll finally have a better idea of how this would impact things.

[ProfessorPlum]

135. Do they really pool based on congressional districts

or do the apportion their ECs based on statewide proportions?

That's really bad if it is based on state congressional districts, I'm not sure what that would mean.

Nebraska only has 3 federal congressional districts.

[SeanQ]

145. Yes they do

Every state gets one electoral vote per Congresional district and ONe per Senator. So if Nebraska has 3 districts it has a total of 5 EV's.
(And indeed that's the case checking an EV map)

[ProfessorPlum]

155. I know how EC votes are apportioned to states

My question was how does Nebraska divide them? I thought it was based on statewide proportions, nothing to do with winning individual congressional districts (that would be stupid, imho).

Also, the original poster mentioned 30-40 congressional districts in play, did he mean within NE (implying state congressional districts) or in the country as a whole?

[pmbryant]

170. They indeed base it on who wins the congressional districts

2 EVs go to the statewide winner. Another single EV to the winner of each congressional district.

Maine and Nebraska definitely do not divide the EVs proportionally based on vote totals. Otherwise both would have split their EVs in recent elections, but neither has (as it turns out the winner of the whole state also has won each congressional district, so far).

--Peter

[IIgnoreNobody]

24. Screw the pundits, vote Kerry no matter how 'red' they say your state is.

[Debi]

28. If the electoral college is abolished and popular vote rules

People in smaller states, like here in Iowa, would be ignored by candidates seeking the popular vote. We'd be lucky if we even saw a tarmack glimps of the candidate rather than town hall meetings and rallies.

California, Texas, New York and Florida would be the only places candidates ran for office.

[siliconefreak]

40. give us a break

That argument doesn't cut it. The states that get attention are the states that are "in play". I don't see anyone going to the smallest states in the U.S. - Vermont and Wyoming. On the other side, Florida is getting a LOT of attention - do you think that's a small state?

The three largest states, California, New York, and Texas are getting no attention at all. I believe that about 1/4 of the country lives in these 3 states. Is it good for democracy to ignore 1/4 of the country?

The Electoral College is a relic whose time has passed.

[factcheck]

44. Cite numbers and proof please....

... and not only as it applies today. You must be able to defend a system across all reasonable possible scenarios.

Or simply admit that your opinion comes from 'gut instinct' and nothing more.

[ProfessorPlum]

74. I think that the observation

that in this race, it is states which are "in play" and not states which are small in population, are the ones getting the attention. That is fairly self-evident, don't you think?

[factcheck]

81. Evident

in THIS race that we could have another 2000 which makes people believe the EC is flawed (and I don't claim it is perfect).

However, one cannot simply change our system of government just because the 'sun is in your eyes' right now.

I believe the numbers and the philosophy show that both proportional and direct voting are far more flawed if applied over a myriad of scenarios.

The EC has less flaws, but is still not perfect.

[Debi]

56. I thought this thread was about if the college were abolished.

If we went solely to a popular vote only "target rich" environments would be 'in play' Iowa has apporx. 2.8 million people - 1/4 of the people in New York, would Iowa ever see a candidate again?

I agree that California, New York and Texas are being ignored now because they are considered 'wrapped up' for a specific candidate. That may change with only the popular vote counting. However, the large states would be the ONLY states that would get the attention of the candidates..so, to court 1/4 of the people in the country the candidates may very well ignore 3/4 of the people.

[factcheck]

72. Right...

Colorado has been largely ignored, well not totally, in the past. This election year the candidates have been here so much people started thinking they lived here. :)

Things change. California might not be 'wrapped up' tomorrow.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

73. This "small states" argument is bogus

First of all, small states have nothing in common but their size.

Rhode Island is more like New York than it is like Wyoming. Hawaii is more like California than it is like North Dakota.

As things stand, California, Texas, New York, and Florida ARE the only places where candidates run for office. At least that's where they put most of their time and money. Hardly anyone campaigns in Alaska or Hawaii.

What you fail to see is that under a popular vote system, no state is all D or all R. A candidate couldn't win with just the large states unless they were nearly 100% one party --and the same party at that.

Without the EC, every vote in every state would count. Each candidate would have to work hard for every vote in every state. He would need 50.1% of the total popular vote, and that total could come from any and every state in the union. A vote from Vermont would count as much as a vote from Pennsylvania. A vote from Alaska would count as much as a vote from Florida.

It would be like a governor's race, where every vote from every corner of the state counts, no matter whether it comes from a populous county or a sparesely populated county.

The principle is "one person one vote," not "one acre one vote."

[Debi]

101. Yes, every vote in the state would count,

but a state with the population of New York would 'cancel' the votes of Iowa, Wisconsin, North and South Dakota (not scientific here, just a guess). Even if every vote in Iowa was a Democrat vote (I can dream can't I?) Texas Republican votes would take Iowa out. No reason for a candidate to waste their time here.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

164. Yes, just a guess, and one that ignores the reality

that there are Democrats and Republicans in every state of the Union, and they should each have their chance to express their preference.

States don't vote, people do. It doesn't matter which states have more power as long as each individual within each state (and no state is made up entirely of like-minded people) gets to have a voice.

Under the current winner-take-all system, the EC votes of NY DO cancel out the votes of the smaller states. With a direct popular election, "winning" New York would mean as little as 50.1% of the population, probably not enough to drown out many other states. But by the same token, the 10% that the D candidate got in Utah would also count toward his total instead of being totally disregarded.

[factcheck]

165. States don't vote, people do

Whenever I hear this from someone I realize I am listening to someone who actually thinks they live in a Democracy.

If you want to live in a Democracy you will have to go elsewhere. Not sure where because England is out and I think Australia too. Maybe Canada? :)

Here in the United States of America the states do, indeed, vote. The people express their will by voting, but the states actually cast the votes. This is a Democratic Republic of United States and not a Democracy. The majority of states make the decisions and not a majority of the people.

Like it or not, this is how it has been for more than 200 years.

Are you saying that you want to change our entire system of government?

[fujiyama]

184. The states you listed may have the largest populations

but in a national popular vote election, the candidates would not be campaigning by state as they do now, but more by region, class, and racial lines. Each candidate would try maximizing their vote total among those groups they feel will vote for them.

For example, take Georgia, Alabama or Mississippi. All three of these states have large African American populations that are virtually being ignored. Their votes for president are basically meaningless because no matter what, their state's EVs will go for the republican candidate. Some other examples would be say the Dakotas where there are large native American populations. These groups would vote democratic. Likewise, there are conservatives in rural areas of solid Dem states (like say upstate NY or southern IL), but right now Bush feels no need to court these voters because they really won't make a difference for him. The states are a lock.

Now if the EC were eliminated it's very likely democratic politicians would be there trying to earn the votes of hispanics in Texas, blacks in the deep south, and native Americans in the upper midwest.

I actually think we may see another one or two elections where the EC winner and the popular vote winner will differ. It may mostly be because of population and demographic shifts (larger hispanic population possibly trending more democratic but not centered in any particular location). While the overall picture for America may be one that favors democrats (Ruy Texiera in the Emerging Democratic Majority claims that in the long run it will favor democrats, hence the title), on a state by state basis, the census shows the shifts favor republicans in the short term (because they gain more EVs). This may be the case because the shifts may be occuring slower at the state level than the national level. Of course, I could be wrong here (I never read the book, so I may be missing the real premise)...but I also don't see why the next election or two won't be close.

Ultimately, if the EC were eliminated, my own guess would be that Democrats would be less likely to visit Iowa, but republicans would still. This is becauese Iowa is largely a rural state with the rural areas trending more republican. Perhaps Dems would visit say Des Moines (or any other city in IA), but it's unlikely they'd spend much time in the rural areas.

[bluedonkey]

32. This sound reasonable fool proof

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION VOTING SYSTEMS

Proportional representation voting (PR) is the main rival to plurality-majority voting. Among advanced western democracies it has become the predominant voting system. For instance, in Western Europe, 21 of 28 countries use proportional representation, including Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

The basic approach of proportional representation is simple: legislators are elected in multimember districts instead of single-member districts, and the number of seats that a party wins in an election is proportional to the amount of its support among voters. So if you have a 10-member district and the Republicans win 50% of the vote, they receive five of the ten seats. If the Democrats win 30% of the vote, they get three seats; and if a third party gets 20% of the vote, they win two seats. Electoral system designers have devised several ways to achieve these proportional results, and so there are three basic kinds of PR described below: party list, mixed-member, and single-transferable vote (also called choice voting).

These PR systems were devised to solve the many problems caused by plurality-majority voting systems. As a rule, PR voting systems provide more accurate representation of parties, better representation for political and racial minorities, fewer wasted votes, higher levels of voter turnout, better representation of women, greater likelihood of majority rule, and little opportunity for gerrymandering.

Party List

Mixed-Member Proportional

Single Transferable Vote (Choice Voting)


http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/BeginnningReading/PRsystems.htm

[EndElectoral]

43. Just imagine...no electoral college...no battleground state BS

Every vote would matter

[ProfessorPlum]

49. Yes, and then campaign promises and outlooks

could take the entire country into account.

Right now, I could be working my ass off and getting all my neighbors out and getting them to vote Dem. But my state is a Dem. lock. Why put all that effort into it if it won't bring JK ONE MORE ELECTORAL VOTE? There is no reason.

The EC breeds apathy in the very way it is set up.

[factcheck]

50. In a way it does...

but, some states change. Your efforts of today may be without reason, but what about tomorrow? Maybe your state is not as solid a Dem state in the future. Your efforts would not be wasted then, would they?

Debunking both popular voting and proportional voting is easy. And the mathematical fact is that each voter's vote is technically given FAR more weight in the EC system.

If anyone can rebut with numbers, facts, etc. let me know. And cite opinions that are not from organizations that are subject to change that very opinion if we run into another 2000 situation, but it goes in favor of the Democratic candidate.

And, tell me why the United States of America should use a purely Democratic system for electing a President when we are not a pure Democracy to begin with?

Edit: Here is an artical one the math: http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.htm

[ProfessorPlum]

58. That article makes a couple of interesting points

I read it before, years ago.

But it doesn't make any points that would argue against diving a state's electors proportionally according to their popular votes, which is what I would advocate.

Also, how can anyone possibly argue that it is better for some voters in populous states (CA) to have much less power than voters in very small states (like RI)? A voter in RI, DE, or MN has a huge influence over the election compared to someone in NY. Is that right?

[factcheck]

75. OK

So change the manner in which electoral votes are apportioned to the states. That is fine. But proportional voting has FAR more flaws than the current system.

What we need is a variation on the EC and proportional voting is NOT it. Unless we want more examples - aside from the ONE we have ever had - of Congress selecting our President after a tie.

[ProfessorPlum]

90. Name ONE flaw of proportional allocation compared to a winner take all

system.

Here's one benefit: when you have a state which is close, you can count every single vote, but that is (AT MOST) trying to allocate one single elector. If a state is roughly 50/50, you divide your electors in half and move on. You only have to fight the results and count every vote if your state has an odd number of electors, and then you are only fighting over one elector.

It would make minority voter disenfranchisement, a la Florida in 2000 and 2004, much less attractive, for example, because less would be at stake for the cheaters.

[factcheck]

100. No problem....

1. In 2000, 16 states would have had 0 difference in electoral votes being proportioned. 21 states would have had a difference of 1 electoral vote (and all 21 went SOLIDLY R or D).

That leaves 13 states with 2 or more (and only 5 with 3 or more) difference.

The people in the 16 states could have stayed home and just awarded half of their votes to each candidate. The same with the next 21 because their states were solidly one way or the other.

The 8 that had 2 vote differences had a minimum difference in percentage of R vs. D of 11%. I don't see any of those states going one way or the other, so those 2 votes are not really up for grabs.

The states with 3 or more vote differences are that way SOLELY because of the difference in percentages.

The only difference is that you MIGHT be able to win 1, or even 2 votes in more populous states, extra. But, does this then not completely rule out any campaigning in the less populous states once again??? Why would a candidate show up in a state where he could win 1 extra EV??? Wouldn't it make sense to only show up where the difference is high enough that he could win 3 or more extra EVs???

There is the most major flaw in proportional voting. It simply presents a whole new set of problems (and I believe even more problems than the EC).

[ProfessorPlum]

115. That's a dopey argument

What you are saying is that there are 21+13 = 34 "battleground" states in that scenario, with a total of at least 21+16+15 52 EC votes up for grabs. The battleground is spread out much more widely geographically, and essentially the whole country becomes the battleground (who knows? The minority party in those other 16 states might try to rally to win 1 vote from their state). The candidates have to make much broader appeals, travel more.

Yes, I think in this scenario, more populous areas will be visited more, as it will allow candidates to get in touch with more people in a shorter amount of time. But doesn't that make more sense than having the two most powerful people in the country spending months of their time in Buttfuck, Iowa? (My apologies to the residents of Buttfuck).

[factcheck]

119. And *I* am accused of being insulting? :)

No, I said that 21 were SOLIDLY one way or the other.

Yes, the states with a difference of 1 or 0 could be swayed one way or the other, but MOST of those are 1 or 0 because they had between 3 and 6 TOTAL EV's. Therefore, not really worth the candidate's effort to campaign to win 1 or 2 extra votes - possibly.

And it is Buttlick... and include my apologies to the residents of Buttlick. :)

Edit: was 'Buttfuck' in the spell checker?? :)

[ProfessorPlum]

127. Yeah, sorry about that

I see what you are saying, but think about the big picture.

Imagine that a broad swath of rural, midwestern states with small populations each had a single EC vote that was up for grabs. It would behoove the candidates to visit such regions, formulate policy that would appeal to such regions, even "pander" to such a region, in order to pick up those floating EVs.

At the same time, there would be votes all over the country that would need to be picked up. It would really open up the campaign, both nationally and locally.

And I meant to write "Bumblefuck".

[factcheck]

131. Don't worry...

about it.

These days when I get into this type of debate, there is usually money at stake and the people I debate with are far less intellectual. :) I have been actually called FAR worse in the 'boardroom' - damn, I hate using that term... It sounded a LOT better before the Apprentice. :)

I think we can agree that the current system is not 100% perfect and that we will never get to perfect, but that we CAN do better. But, I don't believe absolute proportional voting is the way to go because it introduces too many of the same flaws we have today, just changes the way they pop up and only addresses some of the existing flaws.

And direct voting definitely is not the way to go.

Some sort of modification of the EC with a change in the apportioning of the EV's to the states would be a start IMHO.

'Bumblefuck' isn't in the spell check either! :) Guess it beats: 'No Name, Colorado' :)

[ProfessorPlum]

137. Yes, I'm not sure that proportional allocation of ECs

would change much . . . EXCEPT I think it would really really energize and increase voter turnout. Everywhere. As for the other problems of the EC, proportional assignment wouldn't affect them.

I haven't been using the spellchecker. My guess would be . . . no.

[factcheck]

141. Do you really think

that it would increase voter turnout?

I mean, look at what we see now: absolutely abysmal turnouts. People literally squandering away their voting right.

Sure the proportional idea would certainly chop the percentages into more manageable bits, but I still believe that the typical fickle voter is going to say: so, what is 1 EV either way?

It would still be mainly those who truly care about voting who look at that 1 EV as a potential victory.

Sad, but true.

Maybe through further voter education, etc. But I think this country has a LONG way to go to get people to understand that they are giving up a right inherent in this country that other people have fought and died to obtain in their countries.

Can you move over a little, this soapbox is a little tough to get down from.... thanks. :)

[ProfessorPlum]

144. Voter apathy is a serious problem

I think it arises from many things. People feeling they are powerless. In some cases, people having a lot of control over their lives may feel that voting just isn't important (look how the very powerless in other countries flock to vote when they get a chance). Two very different sides of the coin.

I don't know what effect it would have on turnout, but it couldn't have the depressive effect that winner takes all schemes have on it now. For as little as your vote would matter, at least it would be more than it matters now (in a safe state).

[factcheck]

151. Do you think

that one of the most major reasons for voter apathy is just the general apathetic nature of most people to everything these days?

This could be a whole 'nother thread. :)

My opinion is: don't vote? don't complain!

[ProfessorPlum]

64. Here, for example, is a chart

that shows how much more people's vote counts if they live in small states: http://banzhaf.net/ec2000.html

My vote, here in DE, will count approximately 2.5 times that of a voter in CA.

Is that what we are aiming at here in the US?

[liberalpress]

57. My $.02

It seems your vote would actually count less without the electoral college. If a majority of the vote is all a person needs to be President, then campaigning would restrict itself to the heavily popuklaed eastern seaboard and California (maybe Florida, because of the sheer size of Miami). Get those votes you're in. What about people who live in Colorado, Montana, etc., states with losts of land but few citizens? In the immortal words of my old pappy, "Colorado's Ass!" Hear Mr.or Ms. Candidate say "Go away, call me when more people live there. Right now I don't need you, so I don't give a damn WHO you vote for, or even if you vote at all!" A close race like Y2K, three EV's could give you enough to eke out a win.

[ProfessorPlum]

59. Right now, those states, primarily RED states

have a disproportional sway on the EC. Which may explain some of the incredibly bad choices for president we've seen in the last four years. And may also explain why this election is even close.

[factcheck]

114. We made more than one choice for President

in the last four years? ;)

I have to wonder, though, would you be making the same arguments if the BLUE states held the same alleged "disporportional sway on the EC"?

[ProfessorPlum]

122. You picked up on my point

I don't know that it would trouble me as much, especially since blue states tend to pick leaders that have policy that makes sense to me. But there are real problems with having small, rural states with disproportionate power.

First of all, most small, rural states take much more in benefits from the government than large, urban states do. For every dollar of taxes they pay, they get more than that back in benefits. In large, urban states, the opposite is true. People from NY and CA are subsidizing people from AL and OK. Second, small rural states, for some reason, have a habit of voting for politicians who don't represent anyone's best interests except the filthy rich (see the book "What's the matter with Kansas" for more details). So these states are leeching off people in the city, they have way more than their proportional power in electing the president - I just think it would be sensible for people in more urban areas to get a little more control of presidential politics, seeing as how they are having to pay for it more disproportionately.

Urban areas are suffering from taxation without (proportional) representation in picking the president. That goes to point 1 above - nothing to do with proportional voting, which I see largely as a voter encouragement issue.

[Debi]

61. Agreed...

See my posts above.

The Electoral college may not be perfect, but it is more representative than an all out popular vote (I believe).

On the surface the proportional EV seems to be a good compromise, but reading some of the posts here since I haven't done the research I'm not entitled to an opinion.

[intheflow]

68. As a Colorado resident...

I think that even without the EC candidates would campaign here. We're simply too heavily populated by Xian evangelicals, military contractors, and military bases for either party to ignore our votes or demographics.

[factcheck]

116. As another Colorado resident...

I only cite the comparison between how much campaigning was done in 2000 vs. how much campaigning has gone on here this year.

Night and day difference.

That means our local politicians 'have the ear' of both candidates while they are visiting.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Bogus

No state is all D or all R. Most of them are close to 50/50, say 40/60 or thereabouts. Unless these large states miraculously turned all D or all R, no candidate could win with just them.

[Yunaleska]

92. One problem

Although it is true in states like Texas a democratic vote for president is a total waste *there are still OTHER RACES TO BE WON*.

It seems that we always seem to forget the congress and the courts. In Texas this year there are actually court seats and congressional seats WE CAN WIN IF WE TURN OUT THE VOTE! Kerry will need a democratic congress if he is to get anything done.

So you're right - going to the polls in Texas to vote for kerry is a waste of time - but it is NOT a waste of time to vote for other offices.

If you are in a red state PLEASE REMEMBER THIS! Your vote for president may not matter, but there are other races in which it very likely could. Please vote in those states!

[factcheck]

117. YES!!! n/m

[Blue_Tires]

111. I voted nader in 2000

i was living in kansas at the time, before the flames start...(bush carried the state by 30 points)...incidentally, not bush, gore, or nader so much as set foot in the state during the race...

i do agree that something needs to be done about the EC...antiquated and corrupt

[cynatnite]

121. How I understand it

I'm one of those that slept through half of US Govt. in college so excuse my simplistic view here.

After the 2000 election I hated the EC. Popular vote should pick the pres. That's what I thought. Pretty simple.

I discussed this with a very well-educated friend and this is how she explained it to me. If we were to get rid of the EC and use the popular vote only, then those states such as Montana, Alaska and others would be virtually ignored.

The election would be decided by places like Chicago, LA and New York. Places like Cherokee, OK & Kingsport, TN would be ignored. They would have no reason to go out and vote at all.

The system as it stands now is okay. Not perfect, but until something better comes along it's what we have.

I lived in Idaho and voting in the 2000 election wasn't exactly motivational. That state will go red every time. But nonetheless, I voted. At least maybe someone will see there are some dems.

My big gripe is in the 2000 election Gore got the popular vote and * got the EC votes. Well, stole, but you get my meaning. I'm of the mind that for a guy to run this country he should have the popular vote and the EC votes, too. Maybe I'm screwed in the head for thinking that, but like I said. I slept through a lot of US Govt.

[factcheck]

128. I think...

as another person who slept through American History (OK, honestly I didn't... I had a prof. who thought Richard Nixon was a god and if you opposed his view you wouldn't get better than a C and he "didn't give out A's... EVER!' wanna bet???)

sorry... I digress... I think you have a very good understanding.

[ProfessorPlum]

134. As is is now, Alaska still gets ignored

Here's the question: is it "better" that a group of people are ignored by presidential campaigns because they

A) live in a sparsely populated place

or

B) live in a place that is not divided about 50/50 for each party?

That is a judgement call. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer. (I have an opinion, but it's just my opinion - I think it is a little bit ridiculous for the most powerful people in the world to have to be standing in cornfields in Iowa (or any other state that is "in play"), but what can you do?).

Right now, they run around to states where the people can't decide whether they want to vote against their own interests or not, instead of states where they definitely do want to vote against their own interests (TX) or definitely don't (NY). I'm not sure that is a great criterion for campaign focus.

[factcheck]

136. Good question...

That is a good question, indeed.

I would posit that it seems more likely that B would be subject to change than A, so the potential for campaigning to occur in all places over time is also more likely with B than with A.

[ProfessorPlum]

138. Ok, I'll grant that

though some places are as entrenched as their population size.

Is there a third criteria that would make more sense, and how could it be implemented to be reflected in the way we elect our president? Right now, we are effectively disenfranchizing, to a small but definite degree, people who live in highly populated areas. Is that really fair?

[factcheck]

143. IQ?

I don't know.

It is a tough one.

It is so easy to dismiss the lesser populated areas of our country, but entire areas of policy directly affect them, and often only them.

Too often we forget their contribution to our country overall.

Sounds like I am running for office in Fargo, huh? :)

Seriously. I think the biggest problem here is the 2 EVs for each senator. That means that no state can have less than 3 EVs. Even in Wyoming where there are only about 600,000 people. That is less than 1/3 of Colorado's population, but we only have 9 EVs.

So, first, get rid of those 2 EVs per state. That gives Wyoming 1 and Colorado 7. 4.3 million in Colorado; that is much closer to what it should be.

I still like the winner take all idea of each state, though. Because of potential of a one party rule. Not in this day and age, but in the future, who knows?

So we take 2 EVs from each state. Each state gets 1 EV for each House rep.

That, to me, start to sound more fair.

Wonder how THAT would have looked in 2000? Be back after I find out. :)

[factcheck]

147. Bush 211, Gore 243

That, at least ties the EV a little closer to the popular vote. I don't think that the popular winner should necessarily be the winner in 100% of the cases, but if the EV reflected the popular vote a little more, I think people would understand it better.

I also believe that no one would harbor any resentment toward the less populated states either.

I think it would be a start.

Hang on, I will go notify Congress that we got this figured out. :)

[ProfessorPlum]

150. IQ?? LOL

If only. Doing what you suggest but keeping the winner takes all schemes doesn't make it less likely that we will have an EV winner/popular vote loser, but it does reduce the disproportionate power of voters in small states quite a bit.

[factcheck]

152. Like I said... a start... n/m

[hughee99]

142. An excellent question

As to the issue of NY or TX, since a campaign is essentially an argument, isn't going to the states where voters have already decided in your favor or against you like preaching to the choir or the enemy. If you already know who your going to vote for, do you really need your canidate to come and make his case to you? Wouldn't his time be better spent talking to those people who have not made up their mind? Sure I, in MA, would like to hear from them, but I understand, as I'm sure you do, that if I want my guy to win, he's going to have to convert the undecided or the enemy.

[ProfessorPlum]

148. Yes, but most states are purple

Check out the map in the middle of this link: http://www.makethemaccountable.com/misc/Maps.htm

Just because a state is "safe" doesn't mean it is monolithic by any means. Wouldn't it be great to give people in safe states a reason to get to the polls?


This link also has maps that speak to the "givers" and "takers" argument I was making above. I just found it with Google, but it is a pretty good visual argument.

[hughee99]

158. I agree that this would be great, but...

With a canidate's limited amount of time, I think it's more important to make sure you win as many states as possible, which means campaigning in the "battleground" states. It's definately a good idea to give the voters in safe states a reason to go to the polls, but if that ends up costing you a presidential election, because your opponent gave his supporters in the battleground states a reason to go to the polls while you gave your supporters in safe states the same incentive, then all your local gains will be balanced out nationally.

[factcheck]

153. Honestly

As far as the politics of the situation go, it is not about who shows up to listen to this or that candidate stumping around your state. It is more a matter of your state reps getting close to that candidate while he is visiting. As well as the appearance of *giving* your state to the winner. :)

That helps get some of your state's agendas passed.

[RichardRay]

157. Emotionally I like the idea of direct democracy, but

as a resident of a resource rich and population poor Western state I am a bit leery. I can fully support a direct popular election of the chief executive, and I could get behind inter-state districts for the House, but I think I want to keep the Senate the way it is.

It seems unfair on the face of it that we have two senators just like everybody else, but we think that it's what keeps the urban areas from deciding to strip mine the entire state of Wyoming, then suck every bit of gas out of what's left and then go on.

How about direct for president but keep state representation in Congress?

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[factcheck]

162. Almost agree

Take a look at both California and New York as a good example of this. I have family in both places.

Within each state, the bulk of the money goes to LA and NY cities. The decisions made within the state most benefit LA and NY cities.

There is certainly the potential for a similar mess to occur in our country if we supported an absolute direct democracy. Separation of state and state. :)

Big hellooooo! to JH!!! I am up there about once per year, sometimes skiing, sometimes camping and hiking, etc. Beautiful area!!!

[RichardRay]

163. Drop me a line if you come out to ski

I work at the ski area, I'm always looking for a 'guest' who needs me to go out and make some turns.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[factcheck]

167. Heh!

You have no idea! We were there 2 Christmas's ago. It was great! Blue skies, -18 degrees, no one on the mountain except locals because it was too cold! We had whole runs to ourselves. Started with 13 inches of fresh the first morning and had snow every day!

My toes are itching!

OK, anyway, if you had any idea, like I mentioned... :) I could arrange it so that they allowed you to 'guide' my wife and I for an entire week! :)

OOOH... stay on topic... ummmm... elections would be much less stressful if more people skied! :)

[rfrrfrrfr]

185. The EC actually increases the power

each individual voter has in this country. In fact the best way to improve things would be to increase the number of electoral votes and divide up the states into smaller districts with each district recieving its share of electoral votes.

There was a very very good article in scientific American a few years ago that went into the math behind it. The electoral college is analogus to the world series, where EV's equate to games won and votes equate to runs. The winner of the world series is won by the team that wins the most games not the one with the most runs and I have never heard anyone say that a team that is outscored but wins more games in a world series didn't deserve to win.

In a direct election your vote is 1 vote in anywhere from 100 to 150 million votes and is essentially meaningless unless the race is a virtual tie. Even in a race with a 1% differnce your vote in a direct election has no real meaning with that big of an electorate.

However in the EC The weight of your vote will vary by how many Ev's your state has and how many voters it has and in a close elction your vote is much more likely to mean something to the outcome especially if your in a close race thats 1 or 2 percentage points differnt. You can look at this in our last elelction where there were several states
where the only difference betweent who won and who lost was a few hundred votes compared to the just over 1/2 million votes that Gore won the popular vote with.


To sum up the EC forces candidates to run a campaign that will appeal to just more than the most voters they can get their hands on in the fewest stops. They have to talk to smaller groups of people and actually listen to them if they want to win the election. Something that I could gaurantee would not happen in a direct election as there would be no need for them to do so.

[secular_warrior]

166. Regardless of the Electoral College, the POPULAR VOTE still matters most

Everyone needs to vote no matter what state you're in because the goal should always be to win the popular vote, which does two things:

1. illegitimizes the opponent if he manages to win the EC and lose the popular vote. (like Shrub in 2000)

2. illegitimizes the electoral college system, which needs to be abolished.


In reality, the popular vote still matters more than any other number in the minds of the people.

[factcheck]

169. um no...

I agree that everyone should vote no matter what. However, not necessarily in the Presidential race.

I think it is appalling that people will not go to vote in the local races if they feel their vote in the Presidential race does not count. What a sad day in America it is if people do not care enough to vote unless it is for President!

But...

1. No it doesn't. Sorry. This system is one WE the people put in place. Therefore, I would argue that it does not "illegitimize" anyone just because they didn't win the popular vote! You don't have to respect the man, but if you were in my presence you damn well would respect the office! As I do.

Unless and until some pretender to the office gets there in some manner not afforded by our Constitution, I will respect the office even if I do not respect the man in it. If that unfortunate day should ever come to pass, then you better believe, I will be first in line at the gates to the White House to remove that person by force.

2. It doesn't and it shouldn't. That has been proven rather decisively already. Modified, maybe, abolished, no.