Elimination of the Electoral College: Yes or No

[Philosoraptor]

Should we eliminate the antiquated Electoral College, improve it, or what?

[whistle]

1. Yes end it

[fed_up_mother]

34. No. I believe there are sound reasons for living in a republic

and the electoral college expresses that.

I do think the votes should be apportioned in the individual state based on how the people voted.

[slackmaster]

50. Apportioning states' EC votes, in the present climate, could be disastrous

I have a feeling that in November we will be very glad that California has a winner-take-all system for EC votes.

[fed_up_mother]

58. True

[SoCalDem]

2. We should, but we never will

It requires an amendment, and we'd never get enough "small-population" states to go along..

[Captain Hilts]

3. Yes. End it. nt

[varelse]

4. Yes

It needs to go away.

[moose65]

5. My gut reaction is to dump it

There may have been good reasons for it in the beginning, but now I think it is the worst way to elect a president. I could live with proportional votes, I suppose, where the winner of a congressional district wins the vote, but I really think a better way is to go with the popular vote. That way, EVERYONE'S vote counts toward the total. I have voted in every presidential election since 1984, and NC has always been carried by the Republican, so my vote really hasn't mattered. Detractors say that if we went with the popular vote, then the candidates would spend all their time and money in California, Texas, New York, and Florida. Maybe, but in this day and age with the internet and instant communication, they could campaign anywhere and everywhere for every last vote.

[riverdale]

63. There has never been a good reason for it

Sole reason was to take power away from the common people and hand it to the elite

[misanthrope]

70. That same logic already applies...

...maybe more so now.

It makes no sense for Obama to campaign in states like Alabama because the Dem votes are so outnumbered. Without the EC, all those votes count.

[9119495]

6. Yes.

It allows the smaller rural populations to dominate the more populated urban states. Federal funds go to states that don't need the money...like all that 9-11 money Wyoming got, instead of going to the urban areas with crumbling infrastructure.

If we keep it, it may actually spell the end of our existence as more and more Ted Stevens types shift needed monies to projects that use scarce cash resources instead of to the most critical needs.

[terrya]

7. Yes

The candidate who wins the most popular votes should be elected President.

How simple can that be?

[TooBigaTent]

8. Absolutely! The tyranny of the small states over the majority of the citizenry is the worst thing

the founders foisted on the future, and we have been suffering the consequences ever since.

It will never happen because the small states will never give up their control.

The EC's continued destruction of our democracy is an argument for breaking up the US into smaller, more manageable, fairer entities.

[dansolo]

71. You act as if they had any choice in the matter

The fact is, without these sorts of compromises, the United States as we know it today wouldn't exist. The main problem I have with the Electoral College is the winner-take-all nature of it. I think that the votes should be apportioned, but statewide, NOT by Congressional districts. Apportioning them by Congressional districts is an even worse system than we have now, because then the problem of gerrymandering would be even worse. Remember Tom Delay's shenanigans with the Texas redistricting a few years ago?

[melm00se]

9. you can try

but, as indicated above, it will require a Constitutional Amendment and that will require 2/3 majority and that, in this case, will not happen.

The attempts by some states to bypass the electoral college via state statute will probably not pass a federal constitutional challenge on 2 grounds: 1) obviously the Constitutional provision for the Electoral College, and 2) previous precedent: in 1892 and again in 2000, the SCOTUS ruled that there is no Constitutional right to elect the president by popular vote.

[DemoRabbit]

10. I understand small states need to be represented

but somehow, I'm not sure each state should be an all or nothing win for each candidate.

[Dogtown]

35. Small states don't need representation, DemoRabbit

People do.

If each individual vote is counted, then every citizen is represented.

"Regional" politics needs to stay within the region.

[slackmaster]

40. I doubt that people in the small states would agree with you

(Says a guy in the biggest state.)

[Dogtown]

47. Not many people agree with me on a regular basis

:shrug:

Maybe I'm often wrong...

One citizen = one vote is pretty clear though.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

68. The "small" states have nothing in common with one another

although the "the small states would be disadvantaged" is a Republican talking point, as is, "The cities would decide who the president was."

That's the result of not getting one's mind entirely outside the EC model.

What do Hawaii and North Dakota have in common? Does the largest city in your state determine who the governor is? In Minnesota, it's been sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Furthermore, the current system disenfranchises people. If you're a Democrat in Utah, your vote for president literally doesn't count, because Utah always goes Republican.

The current system also leads to "winners" being declared before the people on the West Coast have voted.

In a close race, EVERYONE's vote would count. Candidates would have to pay attention to all states. We might not know who the new president was until Alaska and Hawaii had voted.

We would end the nonsense about red and blue states, since most states are actually purple.

The Electoral College was originally not tied to popular vote at all. The Founding Fathers' idea was that each state would APPOINT electors who would meet to cast their votes.

[Heather MC]

11. End it but, before we do we have to put in a place a voting system that

can't be hacked.

Why can't we vote from home on our Computers? And People who don't have computers can go to a library.

Treat it like was do Credit Cards, you get a voter card, with a Pin Number, you punch in that number and pin. You vote one time. You get an email Acknowledging your vote was recieved and who you voted for. that is you proof you voted.

Why is we trust the computer for things like entering our CC# to puchase things and such, but we can't trust it to creat a voting program

[a la izquierda]

12. I've suggested the same thing because I'm out of the...

country. Surprise, surprise, my absentee ballot is nowhere to be found though I requested it two months ago. If I get it next week, there will be no problem. If not, my husband will have to fedex a piece of paper...and I will have to fedex it back. The cost of sending a piece of paper, express mail, to and from Mexico, is going to cost upwards of $50!!
Why can't I just go online? If I can purchase stuff online without my information being stolen, I think I can vote without my information being compromised.

[Philosoraptor]

15. I agree with the online voting idea, but hackers do exist

There's always a way to cheat the system

[Heather MC]

21. Well as a Tax payer I would be willing to pay for a team of people who's job it is

to monitor possible hacks in the system. the problem and i know is if Repub are in charge the system would become corrupted.

so I say it has to be made up of a bipartian group, it has to be wide open to the public, no secret
closed door operation. It may have some gliches but I think it would be better than Diebold
If I were a computer programmer. I would create the system, then work my ass off to sell it to my government.

Our Government passes top secret information through the computer all day long. why can't we have a voting system online.
Or a phone in system, Hell Text message

[Philosoraptor]

22. I agree, computer voting will come about someday, I welcome it.

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. And how much identify theft, involving credit cards, is taking place in this country right now?

Internet voting sounds good on paper, but then, so did communism.

[bobbert]

33. Most identity theft is from giving your credit card to someone in person or over-the-phone

The internet-based fraud is actually a very small fraction of fraud. You shouldn't be worried about the security of a business (most online companies your cc# is never seen by a human), it's the waiter or salesman that's making minimum wage you need to worry about.

[texasleo]

13. end it

[Lost4words]

14. 86 it!

8643

[iamahaingttta]

16. No.

I like to be contrary.

[Philosoraptor]

17. I knew you'd be trouble.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

18. YES!!!!!

I'd bring proportional representation so more parties could have a chance.

[Romulox]

19. Hey! Let's try representative Democracy instead!

Nobody can justify giving North Dakotans 20x the voting power of Californians. It's indefensible.

[Dr. Strange]

24. Hmmm...

that must be why the candidates spend so much time in North Dakota and ignore California.

I think the larger states get plenty of attention from the parties. Do California, Texas, New York, and Florida really need more power?

[Romulox]

52. 1 man = 1 vote. nt

[PVnRT]

59. How does that work again?

California = 54 electoral votes
North Dakota = 3 electoral votes

3/54 != 20

[Dr. Strange]

74. I think it would be about 3.11, based on population per electoral vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

Which I think reflects the Banzhaf and Shapley-Shubik Power Indices pretty well.
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~livingst/Banzhaf/

But even with a ND vote being worth 3.11 times a CA vote, the politicians seem to focus a lot more on California.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

20. 100% in favor of ending it?

even the one who voted NO thus far was just being 'contrary'...proof that the members of this board have no desire for people in the smaller states to have any say in the leadership of this country...

just damn...

sP

[Alexander]

31. You can thank the smaller states for giving us Republicans every time.

The Electoral College is a great way to ensure that Democrats don't get elected.

[slackmaster]

44. Democrats have been elected before

Although it is interesting to note that in both 1888 and 2000, the two times the EC vote came out different than the popular vote, the Republican candidate won.

Maybe the problem is that Democratic policies don't address the needs and desires of people who live in the smaller states. It's always easy to blame the system or some other external cause for our losses; much better to take responsibility for our statements, policies, and actions.

[Bill McBlueState]

88. true, but

It's not very convincing to argue against the EC on partisan grounds. There are plenty of problems with it that should bother people regardless of their party affiliation.

[Philosoraptor]

23. .................

[RebelOne]

25. Yes, definitely.

Popular vote only. Let the people have the say.

[Sebastian Doyle]

26. Eliminate electronic "voting" machines first.

Then once you can expect a reasonably accurate popular vote count, eliminate the 18th century landowner relic called the "electoral college".

And forget the "small states" argument. If all the small red states giving us Chimpy isn't reason enough to kill that goddamn lie, I don't know what is.

[Naturyl]

27. Flush it.

The reasons it was created are inherently undemocratic and ideologically obsolete (one would hope).

[vanderBeth]

28. YES

[leftofthedial]

30. end it

parliamentary, proportional representation

[DumptyHumpty]

32. We need a new constitutional convention

Create a weaker Senate, like in other countries.

[Raskolnik]

36. Do you mean a weaker legislative branch in general? Or just a weaker Senate

in relation to the House?

If its the former, what in the last eight years has led you to believe that we would be better off with a more powerful executive branch?

[Sebastian Doyle]

39. Is the problem actually the Senate itself

Or elements within the Senate, such as a dozen or so DLC/BlueBalled senators who constantly vote against the party that elected them?

[trayfoot]

37. END IT!

[slackmaster]

38. There is no proper way to eliminate it without amending the Constitution

It takes just 13 state legislatures to stop an amendment.

It's not going to happen.

And no, I don't agree with the cockamamie "National Popular Vote" scheme.

The NPV people have been strangely quiet in recent weeks, especially at times when Obama has been behind in the projected popular vote but ahead in the projected EC vote.

I'll go way out on a limb here and say that if Obama gets fewer votes than McCain and wins because of the EC, the "dump it" people here won't have a lot to say.

[Celeborn Skywalker]

41. End it.

It is a system that is not truly democratic.

[bemildred]

42. Circumvent via state laws that give the Presidency to the national vote winner.

We have had any number of threads on the subject, and a number of states have already passed the laws. Ahnuld in California vetoed it. There is no need to change the Constitution, no need to address it at the Federal level at all.

[Greyhound]

49. Wouldn't it be easier to amend The Constitution? 33 states ratifies

an amendment, but all 50 would have to pass laws to eliminate it.

What am I missing?

[bemildred]

53. No, Mr Koza's plan is much simpler.

All you need is enough states to give a majority in the Electoral College, 273 or whatever it is. Those states have a law that gives all of their EC votes to the winner of the national popular vote, which then gives that person the Presidency. So it might take only 15 or 20 big states to do it, and the big states have the incentive because their influence is diminished by the EC.

[Greyhound]

56. Ah, thank you. Pretty clever, I like it. n/t

[dkofos]

43. Dump it. It's time has passed.

[ShortnFiery]

45. Yes

Darn auto-fill in keyboard function. :blush:

[jannyk]

46. Yes abolish it! n/t

[Dukkha]

48. Yes

a relic of an era where communications were slow and therefore not necessary in the modern information age

[Greyhound]

51. I don't see that it serves any purpose now, if it ever did. n/t

[Kaleko]

54. Yes. One person, one vote, like in European countries.

[codjh9]

55. Yes! Why the hell not! Gore won by what, 350,000 votes?!?

[dems_rightnow]

66. Closer to 550,000

But same difference....

[Philosoraptor]

57. ...........

[W_HAMILTON]

60. Yes.

I know the founding fathers didn't want the majority to trample the minority, which is why they put into place measures such as this. However, we already have the Senate, where big state or small state, you are equally represented. They wanted to give the minority a voice too, but in this day and age, the power of the minority has become too strong in our government.

[mainegreen]

61. Fix it, but do not dump it.

Perhaps expand the Congressional District Method of allocating electors?

Our federal government is not based on one person = one vote. Never has been and with good reason. Our country is a union of states, and special consideration must be given to protecting the rights of minority states.

[slackmaster]

64. That would be great if you could get the states to agree to it

The federal government has no authority to force them to.

[SOS]

62. Dump the Senate representation

Make the total 435 instead of 535.
218 to win.

[Taverner]

65. End it, replace it with national popular vote

There is no reason on earth where the vote of a redneck methlabber in the desert of Nevada is worth more than a city persons.

[Fla Dem]

67. Yes definitely. n/t

[tammywammy]

69. No

[defendandprotect]

72. YES ...

[Firespirit]

73. No -- but make the allocation of the electoral vote proportional

There are several problems with it. The electoral college does not just make the vote of an Alaskan more valuable, in raw mathematical terms, than that of a Californian. It totally disenfranchises anyone who does not live in a swing state because of the winner-take-all system. And in my perspective that is a far greater problem.

Congressional districts have been gerrymandered, so I don't think that's a good basis for splitting the votes. I say use a direct percentage allocation -- if your state goes 54/46 for the Republican and you have 10 EVs, split them down the middle. But I would favor this only if every single state did it the same way.

I can't support abolishing it altogether, though. One could very easily argue that the Senate is also an example of the tyranny of small states, and unless you support disbanding the Senate, it's a bit hypocritical to support disbanding the EC.

There are inherent advantages to living in a populous area, such as the wider range of community services, public transit, more businesses to choose from, and so forth. I have lived in both extremes -- a populous East Coast city, but also a rural lot. I have also worked on a large political campaign, and I can tell you, there is a reason why the vast majority of events are held in populated areas. It's just easier to get what you need and easier to draw a big crowd when that crowd does not have as far to go. Anyone who has lived in a small town (less than 6,000) or a rural area knows what I am talking about when I say that any substantial trip, even a grocery trip, requires significant planning when the nearest grocery that sells everything you need is 30 miles away and the nearest city that a national candidate might stop at is 100 miles away. Unless you can afford a possible overnight stay just to see the campaign event, you don't go. Only the urban people get to have that interaction.

Even at the state and local level this phenomenon occurs: State candidates go to the populated areas in a state, simply because it is easier and they can reach more people at once. Local candidates go to the county seat. Those who live outside these respective areas get left in the dust. They always have, for years and years, and in some areas it is a source of bitterness.

It may not have been the founders' intentions, but at this point, I think that the EC offers a handicap advantage to people who live in small communities. They sure don't have an advantage on anything else. If it were allocated proportionally, it would compensate somewhat for the inherent disadvantage that small-town and rural voters have when it comes to having a part in a national campaign.

[Dr. Strange]

75. I think you'd have to use fractions.

If ND goes 48% Dem, 47% Rep, 3% Green, and 2% Whacky party, how do they allocate their 3 electoral votes?
On the one hand, you could fix that by allowing fractions.
However, that's going to freak out a lot of people. (Ooh, ick, math.) Plus, it reintroduces an incentive for states like Texas to cheat for the Rep candidate.
It's a tricky call.

[RichardRay]

76. Not unless you're ready for the union to dissolve...

The State of Wyoming would be taking a hard look at the price of coal, gas, uranium and beef. I imagine other small population states would feel the same way. right now, the EC is the only defense we have against the tyranny of the majority. If you want to drop it then you need to replace it with something that can accomplish similar ends.

[Orsino]

77. No.

It's one of the states' few remaining hedges against federal power.

It sure as hell ain't perfect, but it forces candidates to travel beyond the few most populous cities.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

78. I say yes, eliminate it, but then I have weird views about things

For one, I think it would be appropriate to amend the Constitution and reduce the power of the states. I've never been a big champion of states' rights. I think it would be better to live under a uniform set of laws determined by a centralized federal government where the majority of Americans across the land determine the way things are. I also wish we had a parliamentarian style of government.

[YouandI]

79. Yes. All civilized countries go by the popular vote

This isn't the 19th century anymore. Change the system.

[racaulk]

80. Yes!

It long ago outlived its usefulness.

[Rage for Order]

81. Only if we eliminate the Senate as well

Both were established based on the same principal

[rug]

82. Replace it with 3,000 county caucuses.

[and-justice-for-all]

83. Yes!

If the Electoral College sole purpose was to CONFIRM and not to decide who wins presidential elections, then I have no issue with it.

If some one wins the popular vote, then that should be the deciding factor.

[Jack Rabbit]

84. Yes

The national ticket should be elected by direct popular vote.

[BigAnth]

85. It's not going to happen. There's no incentive for anyone to spend the millions that will be needed

to change the consititution. As good an idea as it may be, there's no real driving reason to motivate anyone to put the time, money and effort into changing it.

[marlakay]

86. Yes but at same time end electronic voting until it is hack proof

I think electoral college was done many many years ago and should be done away with in the modern world but we must make sure the vote is safe first.

[Bill McBlueState]

87. eliminate it

"One person, one vote" is an important principle in democratic elections. The Electoral College is completely out of line with this principle.

[raccoon]

89. Hell, yes, eliminate it. nt

[liberalpress]

90. Keep it

Without, candidates campaign in the NE corridor and California, letting the rest of us know we cango piss uyp a rope. The Northeast corridor and California SHOULD BE ENOUGH POPULAR VOTES TO WIN

[Bill McBlueState]

91. those regions contain about 8 states

Candidates already restrict their most serious campaigning to just a handful of states.

This aspect of our campaigns would probably be the same with either the electoral college or a popular vote.