Electoral College Reform Ideas?

[DistressedAmerican]

This has probably been discussed extensively on this site. However, I was not privy to those discussions. Pardon any repetition.

What I'm looking for are some proposals on reforming the antiquated electoral college system. My gut reaction is scrap it all together for a direct national popular vote (or at lease state by state) popular vote count. Alternately I'd settle for each state dolling out their delegates based on the percentages of the popular vote gained by each candidate running in the state. At least it would bring it closer into line with the will of the electorate.

In my opinion the worst feature of the system is the "winner takes all" delegate distribution. When a close second gets you nothing, it seems to me like those people voting for the second place guy get screwed. The red state/blue state thing grows right out of this problem. We are all shades of purple (well our states anyway)!

My secret wish in 2004 was for Kerry to win on delegates and loose the popular vote. Would have been fun giving Bush a taste of his own medicine and it may have created bipartisan support for reform.

Comments, Suggestions, criticisms?

DA
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/main.htm

I recently started a similar sting on reforming the primary system and the discussion really helped me clarify the issues. if interested CHECK OUT:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1412726&mesg_id=1412726

OR SEE A SUMMARY ON MY WEBSITE AT:
http://www.seedsofdoubt.com/distressedamerican/reform.htm

[eaprez]

1. Leave it the way it is!

Fix indivudual balloting then worry about the electoral college.

[DistressedAmerican]

4. These two issues are not mutually exclusive

That's the same thinking that results in all of the discussions around that go about like this:

"We lost because Kerry didn't want it."
"No, we lost because we nominated the wrong guy."
"No, the election was stolen, Jesus himself couldn't have made it."
"No, It was the fear mongering!"
"No, The 527's!"
etc., etc., etc.

We are capable of working on more than one of the issues that plague us at the same time. I'd say that we lost for all of those reasons and more.

[eaprez]

6. I guess my larger point was that I don't have a problem with

the electoral college. Without it - only the largely populated areas would have a voice.

[eaprez]

7. I guess my larger point was that I don't have a problem with

the electoral college. Without it - only the largely populated areas would have a voice.

[Truman01]

2. Be careful what you wish for..............

With all the talk of voter fraud you may be surprised to hear that one of the chief reasons for the electoral college is that it makes voting fraud more difficult. Also, it evens out the popular vote effect.

Let's take this time for example:

1. Would you rather we be trying to explain away 3.5 million votes or 113,000? If we went to a direct popular vote what would prevent Georgia and Alabama from manufacturing an extra 100,000 votes? Right now there are states that are conceded by one side or the other, and they really don't matter in the overall scheme of things because the popular vote total isn't the winning margin. If you change that, you have more problem with fraud instead of less.

2. You would diminish the voting strength of what we have already built if you went to a popular vote or a weighted average of EC votes. For example, in California we won by 5% or so. Would you like to split California's votes with the Repukes by 55/45 and then split places like GA 60/40? We would lose in the overall transaction.

3. There isn't much difference between just going with the popular vote or going with a proration of Electoral votes.

Also, in each case we would have still lost this election. The electoral college isn't the problem, in my opinion. I want us to present a unified truly democratic front free from the Repuke lite tainting. Don't you agree?

TC

[DistressedAmerican]

3. These are good points

I have heard the argument that a national popular vote would created a nationwide recount in the event of a close election. However, I see that point as the major advantage to splitting the delegates. In a split delegate scenario, recounts would still hinge on close states only.

I guess as long as the large population states stay Democratic this side loses. However, I am not shooting to rewrite things to assure us a victory as these are proposals that would need bipartisan support to pass anyway.

My concern in this and the other string I have about the primaries is that we should be striving for the democratic ideal of having each vote count as much as any other. Isn't that what we should be pushing rather than just looking for a way to give ourselves a numerical advantage? That's the way THEY operate. On the other hand, they keep winning...

Besides, these reforms would have given us Gore. I'm not sure how a proportional breakdown would have played out.

Does anyone know where I can find an analysis of how the vote would have broken down based on proportional representation? Seems like it should be easy enough to do.

BTW - Strom Thurmond Filibustered the last reform effort to death single handedly despite all indications that the ammendment had the 2/3 support to pass. Apparently this idea has been popular in the past.

[Truman01]

26. I don't see how proportional representation is any different than

just going to a popular vote. Besides, what is wrong with the system we have? What are we trying to fix?

TC

[DistressedAmerican]

28. The system we have has REAL problems

if one man one vote is your definition of democratic.

See post #15 for a full list. It sums up the problems quite well.

How do you feel about a president winning in the EC and losing the popular vote. That not a problem for you? That just isn't democracy to me. the EC was a layer placed into the system to protect slavery and take the direct power out of the hands of the electorate because the founding fathers didn't think we were well enough informed to make the call ourselves. They wanted a select group of rich white guys to cast the votes that count! Sounds like its rigged to protect their privileged status in society.

[Truman01]

34. the EC has NOTHING to do with protecting slavery.

"the EC was a layer placed into the system to protect slavery and take the direct power out of the hands of the electorate because the founding fathers didn't think we were well enough informed to make the call ourselves."
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<,,,


Whatever else you say that I agree with, this statement discredits your arguement. Few if any of the Founding Fathers cared to protect slavery. Besides, the EC would do nothing of the sort.

As far as the popular vote being more important than the EC, I don't know. It depends on the amount of fraud in the popular vote. I think you will find that any monkeying with the system will cause more problems than it solves. As I said in my first post, be careful what you wish for, you might get it.

TC

[Yupster]

5. How's about we go back to the original constitution

before the Twelfth Amendment?

State Legislatures choose electors.

Electors vote for two people they think would make a good president.

House of Reps elects the presid end from oneof the top five electoral finishers.

No more rigging votes because no more popular elections.

[greenohio]

9. Except for the rigging of the vote for the state legislature.

That probably happens more often now anyway because people don't put it under a microscrope.

[DistressedAmerican]

10. Sounds fairly parliamentary to me...

Just pick the party and they will pick the president. Guess it would increase turnout for state elections.

Not very Federal though. Its a state's rights fiesta. I tend to be a Federalist by nature. Otherwise, why the hell did we bother keeping the south. If you ask me we should impose MORE control on the region not give them more autonomy. Where's reconstruction when you need it (to be ready semi-sarcastically).

[Yupster]

42. The original idea

assumed no political parties.

Electors would just be learned men who would look around and name people they thought would make a good president. Kind of a nominating process for the House. Once political parties developed, the plan was unworkable.

[blackangrydem]

8. It ain't broke. Don't fix it.

[DistressedAmerican]

11. Please elaborate...

How exactly do you think the current system serves the best interests of the voter? Maybe we should start there.

[blackangrydem]

13. The constitution as it is written allows each State to have a voice.

If we want to be more of an "America" vs "United States of America", then yes, let's change it.

[DistressedAmerican]

20. I don't know...

I don't refer to myself as a New Yorker. I think of myself as an American. States right had far more point pre civil war. In modern times, it is a joke. We are far too mobile, and connected to think of ones self as a citizen of their state before their country. How about you? American or Home Stater?

[blackangrydem]

21. American...

...but to be an American is to respect statehood.

[DistressedAmerican]

22. In 1776 maybe...

Today, what American should be about is equality for all citizens. If that means everyone giving up some of their regional autonomy, that's fine with me. It is for the greater good.

Most of of states rights language adopted under pressure form Southern slaveholders who were afraid that national equality would result in their losing their "right" to hold slaves. Since them it's greatest use has been attempts to undermine Federal Civil Rights legislation. Should the south have been able to retain Jim Crowe based on state's rights? Right now it's being use to justify continuing discrimination against gays. Can you point out a single positive instance of its use?

Has it ever been used to defend the weak or improve life for anyone?

I've lived in 6 states in my life. Where should my loyalties lie?

[DistressedAmerican]

23. Does keeping the college and splitting the votes...

based on a state by state vote popular vote count? It is a compromise I can work with and Doesn't interfere with state's rights. As I see it the biggest problem is the "Winner takes all" system? Is there some middle ground here?

[liberalpragmatist]

32. No, it's not a bad compromise

Like I said below, I much prefer a simple nationwide popular vote. Frankly, the only real downside that I can find is that it would make election nights a hell of a lot less fun (Watching the states come in is like a sports match. Who the hell wants to sit around just waiting for the results to come in?).

But if it had to be a proportional split, that's fine with me.

Even better would be to abolish live electors and award electoral votes automatically to the nearest tenth of a percent. And establish a 40% threshold in the EC so that it won't always go to the House. If nobody gets at least 40% of the EV, then there would be a national runoff between just the top two candidates.

[ernstbass]

12. Since I live in a red state my vote never counts

I'd like to see the electoral college votes split based on percentages within the states.

[liberalpragmatist]

14. That wouldn't be bad, but it wouldn't take turnout into account

Abolishing the EC would give a state a real incentive to turn out all the votes to maximize influence. Giving states a pre-assigned apportionment means that if only 2 people voted in California, the result would be the same as if 20,000,000 voted.

I'm for a simple national popular vote.

[DistressedAmerican]

16. That's a good point...

We should be working for a larger voting electorate.

Where do you stand on the critique that it would make nationwide recounts a reality. Any ideas on that?

[liberalpragmatist]

17. If we set nationwide standards for a recount, it's fine

Uniform national voting system, perhaps electronic with a paper trail, with agreed upon standards for manual recounts. The government would keep a "recount fund" that would have plenty of money to dispense to states to conduct their manual recounts. The key is uniform standards with clearly delineated rules for counting and recounting (i.e. what kind of mark counts, what doesn't, etc.)

No, it wouldn't be easy, but I would much rather have an expensive and somewhat annoying national hand-recount if it meant that every person's vote counts everywhere, regardless of where they live.

[DistressedAmerican]

19. It is worth the cost to me too...

How much is legal/political equality worth? I defy anyone to put a fair price on that commodity!

[liberalpragmatist]

15. The electoral college is against one-man-one-vote

Why should one citizen's vote count more than another's? Why should people's opinion be suppressed if their viewpoint is not the viewpoint of the majority of their state?

Has anybody considered how much the electoral college hurts African-American votes for instance? A HUGE percentage of African-American voters live in the South and in red states. Their votes almost never affect the outcome.

The Electoral College effectively turns the overwhelming majority of Americans into mere spectators. Frankly, this disturbs me more than simply the fact that the popular vote winner could lose the electoral count. When all the matters are 10 or so swing states, everybody else is excluded.

And the argument that abolishing the EC would favor big states only is not totally true. As it stands right now, only a handful of swing states really affect the outcome. ALL the attention is focused on them. And when was the last time a candidate campaigned in a small state? Did you see Bush or Kerry in DC, Vermont, Wyoming, or Montana? They're completely ignored as is, esp. b/c most small states are homogenous and thus overwhelmingly one party. Abolishing the EC would actually make their votes count more.

Abolishing the EC would make the race for President -- a national office - a national race. The vote of a citizen in Billings, Montana would count just as much as a vote in Columbus, OH. It would create incentives for candidates to shore up their support EVERYWHERE. One reason the Democratic Party is somewhat sclerotic is b/c there are more red states than blue states. As a result, huge portions of the country are written off. If the EC were abolished, that wouldn't be the case. The Democratic Party would have an incentive to build a strong party structure in Mississippi, for instance.

And as for the argument that candidates would only focus on the urban areas, look at plenty of losing Democratic campaigns. We won the most populated areas and still lost, this year, and in 1988. Winning big in the cities and most populated areas does not guarantee victory - you have to create a broad national coalition that includes rural areas as well.

Besides, if the EC is such a great system, why don't big diverse states like New York, Texas, and California use electoral colleges to elect governors?

[DistressedAmerican]

18. Great post

You make lots of great points. I am sick of the swing state think myself. If it was up to me we wouldn't let Florida or Ohio vote for the next twenty years to pay for the damage they've caused. OK, to be fair to the voters of those states, it's not their fault that they are the margin for victory. It is the flawed system.

I think it would generally be healthier for our policy making to reflect reelection pressure from the nation as a whole. It would end the endless drive to buy potential swing states off for 4 years at a shot. However, I fear that the new swing states will be those with the largest, densest populations, shutting smaller states out of much of a say.

The urban centers issue I put more credence into. The problem being that the urban areas are overwhelmingly Democratic (nor a practical problem for me but, a theoretical one). The Republicans virtually ignore them entirely. In a popular vote system, both parties would be working to get their hands on those large pockets of population. That's probably better for the cities themselves. It is tough for rural areas (that's why we have this dysfunctional system to start with).

On the other hand, everyone's vote will count as one vote in the final casting. I think that should be the overriding principle.

[liberalpragmatist]

24. About rural areas

Bush beat Kerry by 2.5 points in the national popular vote - a margin of about 3 million votes. He did that even with getting crushed in urban areas.

Simply put, if the race were national, the Republicans couldn't ignore urban votes, but Democrats couldn't avoid rural votes either. We're getting crushed in rural votes and it would hurt us even if it were a national popular vote. So there would be an incentive for both parties to campaign in all the areas.

I guarantee that Democrats would be far more interested in doing well in rural areas if they had to compete in rural areas throughout the country, not just in swing states.

[DistressedAmerican]

25. Hadn't thought of it that way...

in an age where we are left debating if we can win without the south (personally I don't think so. Wes where are you!), something that refocuses our attention there would be a big plus. However, with finite money there is a good chance that the rural areas will be ignored by both sides that would likely duke it out for the largest, easily reached states. That WOULD be bad.

Probably worse for us, as the rural areas left completely alone would trend Republican. However, as I have said, it is not about rigging the system for Democratic victory (would be nice, though). It is about my vote counting as much as your and vice versa.

Just throwing this out...

Suppose we did away with population all together and went for an electoral college setup where each state has the same number of delegates, like Senators. Far sake of argument call it 20 delegates per state divided based on popular vote within the state.

That would remove the "winner takes all" focus on a few swing states, keep the issues of rural populations from being swamped by the large urban areas and retain states rights. Those are the big complaints as I read it.

That would make a vote cast in a low population state more powerful than one from a populous state but, everyone within the state would count equally when compared with others from their state.

Anyone? Thoughts?

[liberalpragmatist]

30. Actually, your proposal is sort of similar to the Humphrey Proposal

In the 1950s and especially in the 1960s, the Electoral College was nearly abolished - it was all part of the whole movement that led to the Civil Rights Act the Voting Rights Act and various campaign finance reforms, along with one-person-one-vote. In fact, a constitutional amendment to abolish the electoral college passed the House of Representatives overwhelmingly in 1968 and polls of state legislatures showed it would have been ratified. But it was killed in the Senate by a Southern filibuster, even though some other Southern Senators like Howard Baker were vigorous supporters of the bill. Incidentally, the provisions of the bill would have called for a runoff if no candidate got at least 40%.

But your proposal of each state having the same number of votes is similar to the Humphrey Proposal, which is either my second or third favorite choice after a simple nationwide popular-vote election.

The Humphrey Proposal, proposed by Hubert Humphrey, called for the following:

1) Abolishing live electors - award votes automatically. The total number of EV would still be equal to the size of Congress (House + Senate) and 3 for DC.

2) Award EACH state TWO electors and give them to the plurality-winning candidate, winner-takes-all. (102 EV total)

3) Take the remaining 436 EV and distribute them in proportion to the national popular vote to the nearest tenth of a percent. My own change to this (added on update) would be to perhaps establish a threshold of between 3% and 5% in order to receive any electoral college votes.

Obviously, there are some things that would still have to be addressed. For instance, what if there's no electoral majority? There would probably have to be a plurality threshold of 40% or so.

It's not a bad idea. I like it much better than the current system. But we also should face the fact that if enacted, from a partisan point of view, it would give the Republicans an even bigger natural advantage in close races than they do right now. The reason? There are more Republican states than Democratic ones, so a Democrat would have to win fairly comfortable in the popular vote in order to be elected. That, or they'd have to win at least 25 states. Otherwise, even a narrow popular vote win would be overturned by the Republicans natural advantage in the states.

For instance, Al Gore would still have lost to Bush under this system, with or without Florida. And Kerry would have lost similarly to how he did eventually do.

But the idea of having each state have the same number of votes is similar to your idea. And it gives the national popular vote a major role as well. So it was seen as a compromise proposal that addressed the issue of a nationwide vote while addressing federalism and the role of the states as well.

[DistressedAmerican]

31. There's the middle ground I was looking for...

I like these provisions. Most importantly they took the best ideas from each of the two options. This is really good info. Thanks a lot. I knew I could pick some brains here. I'll do some following up on this plan. I am particularly interested in the mix of winner takes all and proportional representation. I am totally in favor of having a run-off in the event of a unachieved plurality. It guarantees that no one can get the job with far less than a majority. I think that probably well represents how most of us feel. Who wants a guy that only pulled 35%? Not me.

How do you feel about a 'None of the Above" ballot option. I think it would be popular and again would reflect the true feelings of voters that didn't feel good voting for either guy. For now they just stay home.

Everyone else? How about the details in this plan. Working for ya?

[liberalpragmatist]

33. I'm very much against a "none of the above" ballot option

I think it's alright for some local races and whatnot, but I think it could be disastrous in a national race. I believe maybe we can change our candidate selection process, but ultimately, if you allow people to reject two candidates, I fear they will do it far too much, at great cost.

We can't have leadership that's in limbo, and we cant' run each race with the possibility hanging over it that none of the above gets enough to rerun the race with new candidates. I doubt it would be as disastrous as the doomsday scenario, but it would still be quite chaotic.

And I think people are sometimes too cynical, to be quite honest. Way too many people, often swing-voters, complain that candidates are never good. But while I think there were clearly races in which there were two unappetizing candidates (i.e. 1988 - Dukakis was a good guy but didn't strike people as presidential material), most races I think have decent choices. You're never gonna get a perfect candidate, and you'll never be able to tell how good a President someone will be until they're actually President. People are generally cynical about politics, I realize that. But had that attitude been there in 1932, I'd bet plenty of people would be griping that FDR "wasn't a good candidate" or in 1960 that "Kennedy wasn't a good candidate" or, hell, Lincoln in 1860 "wasn't a good candidate."

It's a comforting allusion that reinforces people's inability to make up their minds. Instead of making a rational choice based on the viable options, they instead declare a "pox-on-both-your-houses" and proclaim themselves disgusted with both candidates. They always say there's someone better out there and they're always waiting for that mythical ideal candidate - who doesn't exist. Politicians are human beings and human beings aren't perfect.

If we're disatisfied with the candidates we're choosing (and frankly, I was quite satisfied with Kerry, but you may differ) then the correct thing is to change the candidate selection process. Change the primary process. But I fear that a "none-of-the-above" option would just reinforce so many Americans' inability to make up their minds.

[liberalpragmatist]

35. Also, the runoff idea is mine, not Humphrey's

At least not that I'm aware. Of course, the plurality-runoff idea is one that most advocates of electoral-college abolision embrace, simply b/c so many close races would have gone to a runoff - was there really a need for a Kennedy-Nixon runoff or a Bush-Gore runoff b/c they didn't get 50%?

I added that to the Humphrey Proposal as my own add-on. I don't want the House deciding all elections.

Of course, what I really like is IRV. However, there are two problems. Number 1, I'm not sure it's ready for use in national elections. And I see no reason why it couldn't be implemented once the technology and vote-counting process is perfected.

Secondly, I worry that it would encourage way too many symbolic splinter candidacies - in other words, fragment the electorate and divide the electorate into even more interest groups to which candidates would have to pander in order to get their second-choice votes. I think in local or state races, IRV wouldn't have the same prominence and wouldn't have the same problem, but in a national race, with national attention, symbolic splinter candidacies are more likely. And I worry about the effect of that.

So frankly, a 40% runoff idea doesn't sound bad to me. It sounds like a nice, effective compromise, and it would give viable third-party supporters a decent shot. Still a longshot, but conceivable. For instance, John McCain (who friends say would have loved to run a third-party or independent candidacy either this year or in 2000 but chose not too simply b/c of the huge odds) could conceivably win a 3-way race with a 40% runoff. He'd have to hold the other candidates to less than 40% and beat at least one of them to advance to a runoff.

[DistressedAmerican]

36. Humphrey is a bit before my time

However, he was clearly my kind of guy. I've never heard anything about his politics that didn't sit well with me.

I still like the run off. Maybe we set the threshold lower than 40% so that you'd have to have some real dogs before it went that way. I think I am less worried about the splinter factor. Like you said it is the rare individual that chooses to take on the odds. Which I expect is more of a reflection of the dominance of two parties than the EC. Any third party candidate pulling that number of votes away from the big boys deserves any chance he or she can get. I'm not sure that IRV would change that. I'd err on the side of making it easier for those folks if given my choice.

As far as it being ready for national elections, or current system clearly isn't up to the task right now. Is it likely to be that much worse?

[liberalpragmatist]

38. Oh, he's well before my time

I'm 19. But I enjoy history and over the last couple years I've really gotten interested in proposals for electoral reform, even if it's almost entirely an academic not political debate. I hope we sometime in the next few years have a new Progressive era where we really reevaluate our voting systems and our elections and update them, like we did at the turn of the last century.

To be honest, I'd like to read more about Humphrey. I stumbled across the Humphrey Proposal when reading about different proposals for electoral reform.

From what I know of Humphrey he seems like he would have made an excellent President. It's too bad he couldnt' come out against the Vietnam War much earlier - he wanted to but felt constrained by his ties to the Johnson administration - sort of similar to Kerry, who clearly wanted to speak out strongly against the Iraq War but worried about the flip-flopper image and was said by friends to be personally worried about offending the troops. Kerry came out strongly against the war in September. Almost exactly when Humphrey came out against the Vietnam War. If both had spoken up even a few weeks earlier, maybe history would have been different.

By the way, check out this link for a great 1968 campaign ad were HHH talks about civil rights - it's the fifth one down on the second column "Democrat".

http://livingroomcandidate.movingimage.us/election/index.php?nav_action=election&nav_subaction=overview&campaign_id=169

[DistressedAmerican]

41. Great site,

Very fun. I expect Americans would have had a hard tine voting for a Humphrey/Muskie ticket. Imagine it. President Humphrey. I don't think it would fly.

Being a college prof,I can tell you from first hand experience that most folks your age have never heard of Humphrey much less be able to talk intelligently his proposals. I applaud your literacy.

It really IS an interesting parallel between the two campaigns. War is always a tough issue for the Dems. The Republicans can safely come out for it. Not so much a Democrat. His vote for the war was my biggest problem in supporting him. In the end, I figured a guy that voted to give Bush the authority to launch it was better than the guy that actually launched it. Personally I have been against it from the start. However, I question that an antiwar candidate can get elected in our current climate. 4 more years of it grinding on and we may be able to run one.

I was a Clark guy myself because he promised to wrap it up and come home (among many other reasons). I think that was as close to a marketable position we had. Kerry, couldn't play that game. Too many votes behind him that were spun to make him look weak on defense. He was left with "I can kill terrorists better than you can." as a position.

[XemaSab]

40. Rural areas

Democrats aren't just eating the South, we're eating everything from the Mississippi river to the narrow band of coastal counties in Oregon, Washington, and California. I live in the sierra foothills, and it's very conservative out here. It's all private property rights, water rights, and farm issues.

Never mind the fact that the big ag subsidy programs and water projects are New Deal remnants, we've given the farmers, timber workers, and ranchers up to the Republicans. I think part of it is the gun issue, but also people here are very distrusting of environmental laws which they see as "takings." They think the San Francisco environmentalists are out-of-touch elitists, and to some extent they're right, but a lot of people in rural areas are older, and weren't raised with a lot of environmental ideas and concepts, like ecosystems and nutrient cycling.

The rural areas should be on our side, but we haven't learned to talk to them about things that matter to them.

[andino]

27. 1 person 1 vote

Discard the electoral process.

[DistressedAmerican]

29. or at least the politicians...

[SoiledEarthLink]

37. each state dolling out delegates based on the Pct of the popular vote

How would that work out if CA, IL and NY gave about half of their electoral votes over to repubs? Would us getting about half of the red state electorals take us over the top?

[DistressedAmerican]

39. As noted this is not about engineering Democratic wins,

its about making the system more democratic with a proposal that is marketable and takes into account the criticisms.

If the republicans can beat us fairly, it is OK with me as long as that is the TRUE will of the nation. Unfortunately their current grip on power doesn't rely on the will of the nation. At best it relies on the voters in a few swing states. At worst it relies of Deibold.

Realistically I think it would break down along rural/urban lines. Voting goes that way right now. It just isn't reflected because of "winner takes all" apportionment of the delegates.

The exact numbers I can't provide. I think it likely that it would play well for the Democrats as the votes lost in blue states will be low density rural voters. We'd gain significantly in the cities in the red states.

That's my guess. But it's not all about that.