Who is in favor of abolishing the electoral college?

[clydefrand]

What's wrong or right with allowing the popular vote to decide the winner? I was just talking to my friend about feeling that my vote won't count in VA if most people vote for the village idiot. I don't like feeling that way. I want my vote to count!

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Abolish or

reform. http://www.geocities.com/greenpartyvoter/electionreform.htm

[Catch22Dem]

2. My Okla. vote doesn't count for shit...

I wouldn't even waste my time, but there are state & local races that are very important, so I vote in every election. It will be a long time before Okla swings blue.

I am in favor of abolishing. He or she who gets the most votes should win.

[Warpy]

26. Your vote will count toward an overall majority

After all, if the EC vote is a squeaker, we want to point to a huge majority of the popular vote instead of something within the statistical margin of error for most polls.

Abolishing the EC should be done in stages. The present, winner take all system is anti democratic. There is no other way to put it. Proportional EC voting will have to be done first, and Colorado is leading the way.

The only thing against abolishing the EC is the fear of rural states that they'll lose clout in presidential elections, that cadidates will be freed from campaigning for EVs and will concentrate on large population centers. Well, got a news flash: they only acknowledge you exist up to the election, then you're forgotten for four years. Better concentrate on sending Senators and Representatives who remember the folks back home instead of the clowns you send to piss off the city slickers.

The EC is an anachronism, at best, probably useful back in the days of horse and boat as the only methods of travel, and of slaves counting as 3/5 of a human being to boost population without boosting the number of voters who would be represented, but silly as hell in these days of electronic communication and universal suffrage.

[Catch22Dem]

68. Exactly (n/t)

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hecate77]

3. Definitely the thing that locks us into a two party system, along with...

Along with any form of winner takes all. What we need is direct popular vote for president and we need proportional voting in all the other races.

The minority parties will never be able to gain any influence under the current winner takes all House of Representative votes. In some states, they may never get anything, but in, say, California, it would not be unreasonable for the Greens to get 1 or 2 seats under such an arrangement.

However, barring that, the minority parties can still exert some influence besides getting the opposing side elected, as has happened so often in recent history (Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000). The solution is to bargin with the party that is closest in principle and work something out. How much better off would we have been with, say, Gore as president and Nader as Sec Int, or EPA, or someone from the Greens as Att. General?

Same this year. Why didn't the Greens try to work something out on a national level in exchange for local support and not running a national candidate?

Just my opinion, of course

[MADem]

29. The GREENS have some good ideas BUT.....

...and that BUT means there is some negative stuff coming!!!

They need to grow the fuck up, IMHO. All politics IS local. The way you grow a party is to start at the LOCAL level. They need to vigorously run people for LOCAL, VERY LOCAL elections...dogcatcher, county supervisor, state legislatures, etc.

The sense that I get from the Greens is that they saw how well the parties were doing in Europe, and felt that they could just hop in there at the national level and gain legitimacy without doing the hard, slogging, LONG TERM work of developing a well organized, well developed, well represented base at the local level.

Until they do that, they will be perceived by me as a bunch of impractical, lazy, idealistic whiners. And, before I get my head blown off, I happen to agree with MANY of their issues. But I do not think they should get a pass, like weecowboy, just "because." Weecowboy got his because of his daddy and a greedy, corporate GOP, and they think they can get theirs because of the purity of their ideas. Screw that shit--ideas do not feed a family. Show me how effective you can be in a small arena, then maybe I will trust you to do battle in the coliseum.

If they want to be represented, they need to represent. Ideas are grand, but practical works will give them clout. They need to get off their asses and do the hard work in the inglorious trenches, and their power will grow from there.

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. Actually, we do run at the _very_ local level. The press doesn't cover

those elections though, just the ones where we might "spoil" something.

Races we have run in: http://www.greens.org/elections/

[MADem]

52. I'm talking WAY LOCAL

The elections that are covered by the Schmuckville Weekly Reader, or rely completely on door knocking, yard signs, flyers, mailers, and hand shaking in front of the local super mart. The ones that get NO coverage, one way or the other, and NEVER make it to TV. Little towns and villages, small cities, places where the democratic ideal still exists.

I'm sorry, the Greens do not do this, either that, or the ones who run as Green switch parties when they get to the state level. The thing is, when people KNOW YOU AS A PERSON first, then SEE YOUR DEEDS, it is harder to disregard them because of a party label.

Of course, those crappy little town council jobs are just not glamorous, and they do not pay well. But they do give new candidates an opportunity to work in government at the most essential level, and to begin to network in their communities and within the state political structure.

[GreenPartyVoter]

54. Yes, we DO do that. Lots of water commissioners and town selectmen

and school board members.

Please check that link I gave you above. Granted lots of state legislature candidates on the list, but there are plenty of municipal level candidates too. :)

My guess is you must not live in an area where there are a lot of Greens running for office?

[MADem]

63. My home state, MASSACHUSETTS

...has a shitload of Green 'supporters,' but damn few Green candidates relative to the total population, and the opportunity that they SHOULD have in a cradle-of-democracy 'librul' state. I have many friends who describe themselves as Green, register as Green, but do not contribute to their party, assist their candidates, talk up their agenda, or do ANYTHING of any use to broaden their appeal. They'll put a sign in their yard, if SOMEONE ELSE goes to get it, and brings the stake and the hammer and does the work to get the sign up. IN MASSACHUSETTS!!!

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I get a strong sense of apathy, entitlement without appropriate contributory labor, resignation, and a complete lack of motivation from the so-called "supporters." It's like, JEEZ, I'll vote for them, what the hell more do they want? And WHY do WE have to do this corporate media bullshit, anyway...man?

They are cheap with their contributions, will complain if they can't get free air time, but won't get off their asses and put together a crew to do a free community access TV or radio program. It's all "vague" and irritatingly passive with them. They just do not have a clue as to how to sharpen the differences, motivate their base, or draw new people to their cause.

And they make little effort to develop and groom potential candidates--it's always that same sloppy, fat, unshaven guy wearing birkenstocks, or that lady who needs to pluck her chin hairs and comb her hair in the flowing paisley gown, at the podium for the Greens. I do NOT think it is 'selling out' to appeal to the masses--they are the VOTERS. A haircut, a shave, a nice outfit--all that means is that you are there to get serious and THROW DOWN. You show up in a bathrobe, you look like you are ready to take a bath.

Now, sure, ideas should MATTER. But the messenger makes the difference, especially in this media day and age. They need to get their grassroots act together, and do some voter outreach. It's almost as though they delight in being victimized underdogs, who can never get a fair shake. Bullshit, I say--it's because they don't TRY hard enough.

Don't bite my head off, as I said, I actually do support many Green Party aims. I just think they suck as a party in terms of their organization, their outreach, their candidate pool, their energy, and their elitist attitude. Too much ideological purity is toxic and off-putting. Practical effort reaps practical, tangible results. Until they read the rule book, and get in there and fight, they will always be marginalized.

IMHO....

[GreenPartyVoter]

71. Well, I am in Maine and we have managed to keep the Clean Elections

I think that is a major reason why the Greens are more active here. (Although, the conservatives frequently try to scrap the public funding. We have it, but it's a constant fight to keep it. x( )

[Robbie67]

78. Congrats!

Is that the full public financing of campaigns? I've heard people really like that. And they have a similar deal in AZ as well.

[GreenPartyVoter]

86. Yes, and no. It is full financing, but it is voluntary. So the effect is

that at the state legislature level on down we get a good variety of candidates. But the gubernatorial races are still full of $$ from donors and fundraisers. The candidates know that the person who spends the most money tends to win, so they very rarely run clean elections from fear that it will knock them out of the running. :(

I'd love for the full financing to be mandatory, but we have to have it ruled that political donations are not covered by free speech and therefore clean elections are not trampling on anyone's rights.

http://www.state.me.us/ethics/MCEA.htm

[GreenPartyVoter]

50. Why didn't we do a vote trade at the local/federal level

in the sense that the dems vote Green locally and the Greens vote DEM state and National? Same reason as with the big races. People are afraid they will split the vote and wind up with a repub. Which is what keeps happening in my state legislature district. We get a green going against a dem and wind up with the repub every time. Which is why I favor proportional representation and ranked voting, such as the borda method.

[Jade Fox]

4. I'm sick of the Red Welfare states in this country having power unequal...

to their population. They bitch about Big Government when they are the
recipients of the bulk of government programs, then go right down to
the voting both and elect idiots. I've just about lost all sympathy for the
red state conservatives.

At the very least, the Electoral College system should be reformed.

[Generic Other]

5. Abolish

Now

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Three Quick Points...

It sucks....


It ain't going anywhere....


It's a waste of time to get upset about it...

[Not Me]

12. It sucks, but if we go through another 2000, I predict it's gone.

I think a prolonged legal fight will evoke talk of a constitutional convention. Top on the list will be elimination of the electoral college. And I hope there is sentiment for a national voting system, as well as making election day a national holiday.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

17. It Will Never Get The Votes Of 3/4 Of Congress

and 2/3 of the state legislatures many of whom would be adversely affected by it's abolition...

[UrbScotty]

75. Actuallly, it's 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of state legislatures

Plus, an amendment was almost sent to the states - twice. In 1969 such an amendment passed a 2/3 vote in the House only to die in a Senate filibuster. It came a couple votes short of passing the Senate in 1979.

I don't expect it to happen anytime soon, but it might.

Of course, ratification is something else. Would 38 states really seek to ratify such an amendment?

I won't hold my breath.

[ciaobox]

7. Abolish.

And never mention it again.

[GreenPartyVoter]

8. A good article on the subject in the paper today.

Vote May Sway Future of Electoral College: http://apnews1.iwon.com/article/20041030/D861JEIG0.html

[blackcat77]

9. I'd love to but it ain't gonna happen.

It gives the small states inordiante power and they won't approve the amendment needed to get rid of it.

[LoZoccolo]

10. Believe it or not, not me.

And believe it or not, the Florida 2000 thing convinced me. It has the effect of containing areas where recounts are needed, at least.

[Orsino]

28. Nor I

Without the Electoral College it would be possible for a candidate to sit on nine states, promise them free puppies and backrubs, and completely ignore the rest of the country.

The prez should serve all fifty states, and the EC at least forces them to diversify. While far from a complete solution, I think its effect is to give us national rather than regional figures in office.

You think Bush's ignorance of world affairs is bad? Imagine future presidents who have never traveled west of the Mississippi, for example.

[Bill McBlueState]

56. sitting on nine states

it would be possible for a candidate to sit on nine states

Isn't that what's happening this year, with Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, etc.?

[American Tragedy]

65. Bullshit, it should have been abolished decades ago

The way the population and ideological leanings are distributed, it would be impossible to stick to one coast and win decisively. More importantly, no presidential candidate serves all fifty states, far from it. The overwhelming majority of small states and the three largest states receive virtually no attention from candidates, and that is absolutely proven. Actually, if you study presidential race speeches from the past decades, you find that references to specific regional issues are extremely rare even in the battlegrounds. That is reserved more for local and state races. For the most part, presidents address the issues that affect every single American.

Not to pick on the guy, cause I do like him, but one of the stupidest things that Howard Dean ever said was that he couldn't support eliminating the undemocratic electoral college because he lived in a small state and it would be removed from presidential politics. Hey, Dean, Vermont has gone Democrat by about fifteen points for some time now. When's the last time you remember a Democratic or Republican pres. candidate fighting hard to get Vermont?

I am so fucking sick of knowing that my vote doesn't count just because I happen to live in the same arbitrary designation as a majority of Republicans. In fact, even if I were Republican it wouldn't matter, since it makes no difference if the majority is one or one million or five million. Why should my vote be invalidated here, yet if I moved about two hundred miles to Ohio, all of a sudden my vote is critical?

I will vote because it is a civic duty. This time, at least. But realistically, I know it doesn't mean a goddamned thing.

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Among other problems, it's wrong that slate of electorate college reps

can vote independently, i.e., they can cast their vote against the majority of the popular vote. Jeb was ready to name a whole new panel of these folks if Florida had gone for Gore in 2000 and guess who would be the beneficiary of their votes?

[IndianaGreen]

13. Abolish outright with Constitutional Amendment, or....

we might be more successful by having our own States pass legislation that allocates the Electoral votes based on the popular vote. For a solid red state like Indiana that would mean that Kerry will get at least 3 Electoral votes instead of the zero votes he will get this year.

I am making this my top priority (second only to ending the Iraq War) this upcoming year.

Please be aware that both major parties will oppose our efforts to reform the electoral process. The Democratic and Republican establishments are quite happy with the way things are. Democrats want all of the Electoral votes they currently get in California and New York, Republicans want all of the Electoral votes they currently get in Texas and the old Dixie.

Then there are those small non-urban states with their inflated egos, such as Iowa and New Hampshire. They will oppose any effort that would dilute their disproportionate influence on the electoral process, the presidential primaries in particular.

Fighting for democracy is serious business and you will be amazed at the identity of people that will oppose your efforts to expand democracy. Hint: some of them call themselves liberal.

[darthmix]

82. The problem with getting states to allocate their electoral votes

is that whoever goes first basically screws themseves. If California were to split it's vote today it'd bury Kerry and put the white house much further out of reach for any future democrat who runs. And the red states know that splitting their vote would only help the democrats, so they don't have much political incentive to do it.

I think we need to abolish the college all at once or not at all; I don't think it's doable state-by-state.

[IndianaGreen]

91. If Bush and Kerry end on a tie, and the election ends up in the House

I hope that everyone here that wants to keep the undemocratic Electoral College will clamor for its outright repeal.

[flyingfysh]

14. there is one thing in its favor

If some state becomes totally corrupt in how it counts votes, then the damage it can do is limited to the number of electoral votes it has. Without the electoral college system, corruptly-case votes in one state could overwhelm fairly-case votes in many other states.

[republicansareevil]

15. I used to favor abolishing it altogether

But I heard a sensible argument that that would make it much harder to do recounts and such and that the entire country would suffer from the problems of Fla in 2000. I think Jimmy Carter had some alternate reform. I don't remember exactly but I think he wanted to have the votes awarded proportionally in all states. I can't remember if he also wanted to have the electors for each state correspond to the population of the state (right now each state has an elector for each congressman and senator, which means if state A and B each have a population of x and state C has a population of 2x, A and B might have four electoral votes each, whereas C would have 6 EVs -- in other words, less populous states have disproportionately more EVs and a vote from a resident of a less populous state is "worth more" than a vote from a resident of a more populous state). I could see them making the change gradually: say, in 2008 states would get one extra EV each instead of 2, and in 2012 they would get no extra EVs, just a population-based system.

[lakeguy]

16. 1 person, 1 vote.

[MADem]

18. I say start the paperwork!!!

It will take forever and a day, but it is past time to start the discussion in earnest. For those who say it is traditional, sure, it is, but that does not make it good. It was traditional to deny women the vote, to allow slavemasters additional votes based on the number of slaves they owned, to require tests before people were allowed to vote, to permit only property owners to vote....

Small states ALREADY have an advantage--they get TWO senators, same as every other state. They need to grow up, make their cases based on sound logic, and stop whining. If a small state is being unfairly screwed, our American sense of justice will bring allies to their cause.

Of course, it will require election reform as well. You can't have five guys running, and the winner taking a seat with 22 percent of the vote (well, you COULD, but IMHO that is a recipe for disaster). We'll need to have runoff elections.

But the nicest thing about AMERICA is our CAPACITY FOR CHANGE. Out with the buggy whips, in with the hybrid vehicles!

HOPE not FEAR!

[expatriate]

19. I've opposed the electoral college ever since I learned about it -

Particularly when it was mentioned that the electoral college made it possible for a President to be elected without the majority of votes.

When I pointed this out to the teacher presenting the information, he just chuckled indulgently and said "that will never happen, it's only in theory that it could happen".

It happened in 2000.

It's an outmoded, outdated, skewed system that needs to be completely reformed or abolished entirely. One man, one vote. Period.

But don't hold your breath - it's a sacred cow - and lots of Americans don't even know what it is. Ain't ignorance wunnerful?

[Ready4Change]

20. Long past time to abolish it.

.

[Longhorn]

21. I taught a lesson on the electoral college in college math classes

last week. Most of my students had NO IDEA that we selected our president this way and they were shocked and angry. Since it's a community college, many of these students are in their mid-twenties and older.

How many other Americans don't understand how this works and would support reform or abolishment if they knew?

Then again, I hate the two time changes each year and daylight savings time isn't going anywhere either. :(

[Nicholas_J]

22. Get rid of it as its initial purpose was to block the people

From doing anything that the would harm the power of the elite. Arguments FOR the electoral college were that the people might be swayed by some demagogue who would promise something like taking property away from the wealthy and dividing it among the citizenry.

In such a case, the eleite could use the college to oppose the results of the popular vote, and decide to select a candidate more suitable to them:

The Electoral College was created, most historians say, as a "check" against raw democracy. Some of the founding fathers, especially elitists like Hamilton, feared that majority rule (then a.k.a. "mob rule") would enable a popular but dangerous candidate--a demagogue--to win the presidency. They also questioned how the average citizen in one part of the country would know much about a candidate from another part. So they created the "Electoral College" to cast the official, determining votes. These electors are supposedly "eminent men" , educated and well-informed community leaders. They are not necessarily obligated to vote according to the majority popular vote of their state, but they almost always do. Based on nearly 200 years of tradition , it is safe to say that they "rubber stamp" the popular vote majority of their state. With a more educated and informed electorate (perhaps), some observers argue that the Electoral College has become obsolete.

http://www.vw.vccs.edu/vwhansd/HIS121/ElectoralCol.html

The problem with getting rid of it is that there is just not enough support to do so. In order to do so by constitutional amendment, they would need 3/4 of the voters to desire it, and only 2/3rd do.

I do think that if the results ofthis electionds go the way of 2000, states may decide for the kind of fix they are trying in Colorado.

Problem is that the electoral college favors the Republicans who do nmot have numerical superiority, so they would oppose such a fix, while Democrats in some states do not favor it, as in a close election in a traditionally REpublican state like Colorado, they could take the entire slate of electors, rather than part of them.

At first Dems supported the Colorado initiative, but now that the election is so close there, they are opposing it, as they could take the state. Same thing in Nevada. It went for Bush, but right now it looks like it could go for Kerry. In an election this close, every electoral vote counts.

[sofa king]

23. A reasonable-sounding suggestion.

A friend of mine suggests that the election should go to the candidate amassing 51% of the popular vote. Anything less than that goes to the electoral college and the other practices already in place.

As we have already seen this year through Republican support of Ralph Nader, and possibly in 2000 with Pat Buchannan singlehandedly killing the Reform Party, third parties can generally only serve in a spoiling capacity and really are the pawns of more powerful interests. The Founders seem to have gone out of their way to try to make political parties in general non-viable. Since political parties seem to be endemic to republican government, maybe we ought to concede that shutting out parties was an idea which never really worked.

[gulfcoastliberal]

24. It's totally outdated

and really fucked us over last time and possibly could this time, too. Why should the House get the last word? We need a new Amendment to address these glaring flaws.

[sangh0]

25. How about if we abolish the BFEE first?

And then follow it up with a plan to develop alternate and sustainable sources of energy? Maybe a health care plan or two thrown in for good measure?

[Chimpanzee]

27. I would if we could go to Instant Run-off Voting

http://www.instantrunoff.com/

[sangh0]

32. Not a bad idea

but do you think the BFEE is going to agree to self-destruction because it want IRV?

[Chimpanzee]

35. BFEE won't have a say in this - the concept will be selected or

not by INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING!!

[stevietheman]

30. Mend it, don't end it

The central purpose of the Electoral College was to give more weight to smaller states, like they have in the Senate, so that they won't go ignored during the campaigns and even during governance. It has the added benefit of keeping recount crises at the state level, rather than having the possible horror of a nationwide recount.

EC should be mended by going the way of Maine and Nebraska: One electoral vote for each Congressional District, and two EV's for at-large state winner.

This way, the EC will almost always reflect the popular vote, while accomplishing what the EC was meant to accomplish.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

33. That Would Make The Propblem Worse

because congressional districts are gerrymandered...


It has to be ended.... It can not be mended......



Or you might as well keep it as is...

[jacksonian]

37. no, that would lead gerrymandered electoral colleges

i think the whole debate about the EC is misleading. What we really need is a constutional amendment to give people the right to vote for President (within the EC system). Doing that would be a big help in deciding the voting abuse cases we saw example of in 2000, would stop state legislatures from appointing rogue electors, and would not be something smaller states would have objection to.

Do what you can.

[clydefrand]

38. I like this idea the best. To whom will you present it

when Kerry is elected next week?

[liberalpragmatist]

43. Under that system, Nixon would've beaten Kennedy

And Bush would've defeated Gore by an even larger margin. It actually skews the results even more, and while in theory it makes some sense, in practice gerrymandering would narrow the field EVEN MORE.

Now, I agree that if we ended gerrymandering, it might be somewhat better, but not by much. Most congressional districts would still lean one way or the other, and millions of people would still be casting votes that don't count.

[Bill McBlueState]

60. small states

Not to offend any Wyomingites out there :), but I don't see why we have to make such an effort to give more weight to the small states.

If Wyoming has 1/20th the population of Ohio, shouldn't Wyoming have 1/20th the influence of Ohio?

[marlakay]

31. I want to get rid of it, I think more people would vote

if they felt that their vote really counted not just as part of a state but part of the whole US. I had to beg my older daughter to vote because she said popular votes don't count anyway look at Gore.

[American Tragedy]

67. Obviously

This is my first time eligible to vote. I'm voting this time, but from now on, unless I'm registed in a state in which it is within about ten points, I doubt if I will bother. For what practical reason should I participate in this charade? The purpose of democracy is to instill government accountability to voters, and if I don't have that power, it's insulting to play along.

[Quixote1818]

34. Living in New Mexico, I am for it! Otherwise no one would care about us

[American Tragedy]

70. Well you're one of the lucky few

Cause nobody cares a bit about those of us who live in Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming, Alabama, California, Alaska, Connecticut, Arizona, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Idaho, Maine, Indiana, Maryland, Kansas, Massachusetts, Kentucky, Louisiana, New York, Oregon, Mississippi, Rhode Island, Montana, Vermont, Nebraska, Washington, North Carolina, D.C., or North Dakota.

I wasn't aware that New Mexico dealt with such drastically different issues than us other Americans.

[Selwynn]

36. There are times when we're 50 states and times when we're ONE NATION

A NATIONAL election for a NATIONAL leader is a time where we are ONE NATION - and a popular majority vote of all the citizens of this nation should elect the president, period.

My vote for John Kerry in Idaho should have as much meaning as a New Yorker's vote for John Kerry. And a vote for George Bush in Massachusetts should have as much meaning as a vote for Bush in Texas.

In a national election for a national leader it should be ONE PERSON, ONE VOTE, MAJORITY WINS - *****PERIOD*****

People who complain about "big" states electing presidents are full of shit. In a popular vote, you only lose if the majority of the NATION don't want the same NATIONAL leader you do. We all live in one country, and when we elect that one leader we ought to come together as one people. The argument that somehow New Mexico isn't fairly represent in a popular vote is fucking ridiculous. We're not 50 states in a national election. We are the PEOPLE of the UNITED states and if people in new Mexico want to be upset, they can be upset that the POPULAR MAJORITY OF ***THEIR*** NATION doesn't share the same opinion. That's tough. That's a democracy, representative or otherwise.

/end rant.

[Bill McBlueState]

61. nice rant

I've been trying to find a good way to say what you just did about a NATIONAL election for a NATIONAL leader.

[TheWebHead]

39. I am

or at least base it on congressional districts -- though with guys like DeLay in charge, I dunno if I could take that either. There should be something done about the unbalanced representation in the Senate as well.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

40. It Can't Be Reformed...

If you had this cute little congressional district idea in 00 Gore would have lost despite winning the pop vote...

[sendero]

41. The EC is an anachronism...

.... that has no real function in the age of national media coverage. It was designed to allow even the smaller states to have some influence, but it has morphed into letting a handful of states basically select a president.

I'd love to see it gone, but how likely is that? Wouldn't it require a constitutional amendment?

[milkyway]

42. It's a relic from the buggy and horse era.

[many a good man]

44. Keep it but add conditions

1) Electoral college winner MUST also be the popular vote winner OR ELSE have a run off dropping all candidates with less than x% of the first vote

2) Formalize the way electors have to cast their vote.

Right now there's no legal way to prevent a disloyal elector and no sane way to settle a complete breakdown of the electoral college system. Under present law, the president will be chosen by the House of Representatives! The lame duck House!!!

The Constitution doesn't even require that people vote in a presidential election. Initially, people were expected to vote only for their Representatives and state legislature. The state legislature would then elect two Senators and the President. That's where the idea of state by state voting comes from. Each state was a sovereign who agreed to enter into this "Union."

Your vote for Kerry DOES count. By increasing his popular vote lead it gives greater moral force to the argument in favor of his victory in the electoral college should some "dispute" develop...

[idiosyncratic]

45. I think it should be abolished.

Otherwise this cartoon is just too true . . . and, other than the local issues, the votes of those of us in already decided states don't really count.

[LVdem]

46. Junk it...popular vore wins...inact strict campaign finance laws

[skooooo]

47. I've got mixed feelings about it..

...I mean it was put in place for a reason. It may not work the way we want all the time, but I'm not sure we should monkey with it.

[Johnny 99]

48. Me me me

Completely undemocratic fform of government. It needs to be abolished, as does the 22nd amendment (governing term limits for the presidency). Madison never wanted the electoral college, but yielded it in order to get the Constitution ratified. Let's complete his dream.

[alarcojon]

51. Abolish it now!

and fuck the small states for putting their self-interest above that of the nation!

[Bill McBlueState]

53. I am!

There are a handful of arguments in favor of keeping it, but the principle of

one person, one vote

is too important to be overridden by the antiquated, anti-democratic system we use.

[Tatiana]

55. Proportional voting seems fair to me.

Instead of winner-takes-all, split the EC electors proportionally.

[goodwalt]

57. Not perfect-but what is

At least this way we can confine recounts to states. Can you imagine what a NATIONAL recount would look like?

[harpo]

58. IRV - Kucinich has a plan for this on his site

somewhere up on http://www.kucinich.us/

[barb162]

59. no need for the Electoral College. Zero. Nada. One person, one vote

[bones_7672]

62. I'm for keeping it

We people in flyover country would be ignored if there were no electoral college. Both coasts and the major cities would get attention and we'd be ignored. I kinda like the attention.

[GreenPartyVoter]

74. Here's the thing, though. When the EC was developed

we didn't have fast travel or mass media. So in essence the candidates can get their message out much more effectively than in the distant past.

The other trouble is that they focus on states that look like they will be close in EC votes. So even if you live in a small state with lots of votes, if you are considered a clinch for one candidate or another, they will still skip you.

I wouldn't mind seeing them reform the EC. Maybe do IRV there and proportional awarding of the votes. Still, we will have the problem of their just not being enough time for candidates to visit all areas AND do a good job in office (if they are incumbents.) This is one readon why I favor public financing. If they didn't have to hold fundraisers, they would have more time to get out there and visit different areas to find out what needs fixing, or get down to work in their offices.

[Abelman]

64. Electors

The fact we still have actual ELECTORS is idiotic. If they are going to hang onto the system, they need to get rid of the electors and just stick with the state votes, looking at the state as an entity.

What needs to be done is someway to bring the popular vote and the electoral vote closer together.

[DuaneBidoux]

66. ABOLISH

I'm in Texas and noone pays attention to us. Plus its BS that some little state has about 5 votes to 1 for a big state.

[kayell]

69. Me

:hi:

[BootinUp]

72. Doesn't matter

It would take an act of God to change it now.

[DaveinMD]

73. VA may be in play

your vote counts. I agree the EC should be abolished.

[UrbScotty]

76. Aye, aye.

I don't expect it to happen (who does), but we ought to try.

[Maiden England]

77. it would be nice to have a democracy pushing democracy

on the rest of the world.
Scrub it. It sucks. Right now it just means the only states that get any attention are the ones with a lot of EC votes or swing states. The rest of the country is screwed.

[Heath.Hunnicutt]

79. I want to keep the electoral college, someone talked me out of abolition

The reason that I was talked out of electoral abolition is:

Suppose one state has a really bad storm right before the election. Then, their popular vote turn-out might be unfairly under-represented.

The electoral college fixes the representation of large geographic areas in a way that it sort of 'evens out' strange changes caused by Acts of God and other obstacles to the election.

Something like Colorado's proposed change to divide the electors into proportional groups is appealing. It seems to 'even out' the current system more, but keep the last 220+ years of a system that was also designed to be fair.

We might want to avoid assigning individual electors to regions, because then there could be electoral gerrymandering.

[phish420]

80. Aye...abolish it!

[BubbaBigDogBear]

81. I think the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing

The EC helps the smaller states to have a say in federal policies. Without the EC then SF, NYC, LA etc would set the rules for all the rural people. That would be a very bad thing to happen. Best we keep things as they are and work for change from the rural areas and convince them that liberal rule is best for them.

[Poiuyt]

92. Bullshit

How much attention is paid to Montana or Wyoming right now?

[HR_Pufnstuf]

83. Yes, follow Colorado... and then...

... begin work for a National Primary Day too. The media is able to pick their candidate if the primary process is too drawn out.

[Sugarbleus]

84. Get the hell RID OF IT!! We don't need it anymore..*growl* eom

[rndmprsn]

85. abolish

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[0007]

89. Absolutely! No doubt about it

[Confident]

90. never happen

more than enough small states that benefit from EC, to ever permit abolishment - proportional representation (states allowed to split their EVs, based on Dem vs. Rep popular vote) more likely but looks like this initiative losing on CO ballot this year

** proportional rep is potentially dangereous to Dems - there are more Rep votes in trad Blue states like NY and CA (Arnie) than Dem votes in hard core Red states - as it is now, all or nothing rules give all of NY and CA EVs to Dems - if this changes, you could see Reps getting 40% of CA and NY EVs (in line with historic popular vote) - can't see that helping long term**