is it time to dump the electoral college?

[Syrinx]

I think that time is here.

All this talk of "red states" and "blue states" states promotes regionalism and national disunity.

Most of the states lie on a continuum somewhere between the 60-40% range in one direction or the other. It's true that the difference between 60 and 40 is twenty, but if in a 60-40 state, only ten percent of voters (plus one) changed their minds, the election would swing the other way. Ten percent isn't that big.

In even the most conservative states, there is a sizable liberal population. And vice-versa.

If we went to a purely popular vote, I think turnout could skyrocket.

Even considering the huge turnout we had last week, there are multitudes of voters that don't turn out to cast ballots. And there are even more people eligible to vote, that never even bother to register, only because they are a liberal in Mississippi or Utah, or a conservative in Vermont or Illinois, and assume, with some justification, that their vote won't count.

Let's make everyone's vote count, and end the nonsense where maps with states painted in gaudy tints of red and blue make conservatives curse the "People's Republic Of Vermont," and prod ordinarily compassionate liberals to proclaim "fuck the South."

Let's end the Electoral College, and bring the country together as one.

And yes, I admit, I wish my vote for Barack Obama in Alabama had counted for something tangible.

[Cid_B]

1. Jon Stewart said it best...

when he said a 6% difference means double the electoral votes.

[Auggie]

2. Yes. It's ridiculous.

[Berry Cool]

3. As a resident of a state everyone hated in 2004 and loves this year,

I say Amen.

It got real old real fast being blamed for being one of the knuckledraggers who forced four more years of Bush on the rest of the country when I did no such thing myself.

[Syrinx]

6. thanks!

For some reason, I thought you lived in New York.

:hi:

[Libertyfirst]

4. No, it is not..

(1)The electoral college gives some of the smallest states a greater weight in the out come of the election, but no study demonstrates that it has ever influenced an election. (2) There is no evidence that it would increase turnout. In fact, the excuse " one vote doesn't count" would resonate even stronger. Why does one want to increase voter turnout of the least interested and informed? By the way it was not a huge turnout last week, but disappointing according to predictions. We have had larger. (3) In the absence of the electoral college there would be less structure to the campaign and those areas with scattered or little population would receive even less attention as the campaign would center around nothing but "media markets." (4)The electoral college does not divide the country except it is based on states. Are you going to do away with them. I think not. (5) Red and Blue states are simply a short hand for Republican and Democratic leaning states. This is a media creation, but an accurate description reflecting the past and present. How does changing the names of things bring the nation together. (5) Ever consider the necessity of a national recount? (6) While far from perfect, it usually provides a clear winner quickly. Remember please, that of this date there are several million votes out there that still have not be reported.

If you dislike gaudy colors get a black and white monitor.

This post sounds as if it were written by Sarah Palin.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Well yes it is

1. territorial regions are amply represented in the Senate. The conditions that motivated the creation of the electoral college system, a shaky federation of 13 independent republics, disappeared a long time ago, we are one nation not a federation of 50. The current system results in a vote in Wyoming having 3 times the power of a vote in California. Why exactly should that be the case?

2. the issue is not "one vote doesn't count" the issue is that if you are a minority party voter in a state with a huge disparity between majority party and minority party votes, e.g. a Democrat in Utah, your vote really doesn't count.

3. the areas with 'scattered or little population' don't get any attention in any system. The electoral college system does not result in frequent campaign stops in Vermont or Wyoming, it results in election campaigns that focus on Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania, none of which are these mythical small states. Once again, why should empty space count for more than actual citizens?

4. who said any thing about doing away with states? States, by the way, and since 1865, are simply administrative regions of a single Republic, not independent nations.

5. You simply missed the point. Red and Blue states are a fiction indeed - they are composed of a mix of voters for both parties. The current stupid system creates a Blue state by having one more Republican voter than Democratic. All of the electoral votes (except in Nebraska and Maine) go to the plurality winner. A partial reform would at least award votes within a state in proportion to vote count.

5a. Other nations seem to be able to handle national elections. Are we exceptionally stupid?

6. What? See Florida in 2000. Several times in our history the current system has seriously malfunctioned and produced manifestly corrupt results.


What exactly is wrong with 'one person one vote' and with all of the citizens of our nation directly electing the president?

[Warren Stupidity]

5. Of course

the choice between "one territorial region one vote" and "one person one vote" is obvious. The authors of the constitution simply got this part wrong.

[many a good man]

8. Electoral college obscures election fraud and abuse

The electoral college normally amplifies the winning margin of a candidate compared to the popular vote (except in extremely close races) and thus leads to greater acceptance of the outcome.

More significantly, it serves to limit scrutiny of a state's poorly run elections, voter suppression, abuse and fraud. In a close election, only the swing states will be scrutinized while many others are ignored.

Case in point: Florida in 2000. If every state was subject to the same amount of scrutiny I'm sure you find many, if not all states, would be embarrassed by how poorly elections are run in the US.

Moving to the popular vote for the presidential election would result in contested elections in dozens of states in each cycle. Our country would be made the laughingstock of the world. This might be a good thing if it led to fair elections.