NationStates Jolt Archive

Recently the EU completed its draft constitution, and one consideration that it made was the election of the President. When considering this matter myself I looked at the arguments had by the writers of the American constitution and was impressed by the Electoral College system.

I noticed recently however that there are many Americans on this forum who disagree with my observation of the elegance of their system, and I expect there are many of my fellow Europeans also, possibly for different reasons.

I would like therefore to present my argument in favour of the Electoral College, and why America should keep it. I would also propose a few reforms to the system, but not being American I must leave it to them to instigate any such changes.

Firstly it should be noted why the idea of a directly elected president was rejected in America:
“Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favourite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones.”*

This is clearly no longer the case in the USA, the advertising budgets for presidential elections is huge and everyone speaks the same language. In Europe however this is not the case, and an election could occur where the French vote for the French guy, the Germans for the German guy and the Brits for a British guy. No one would have any clear majority, and the German would get most votes every time, as Germany has the largest population.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic, so the system is in fact of European origin, and Italian to boot, so will be more acceptable to the old guard Europe. You would be surprised how many people would reject a system just because it was devised in America.

As I see it, there are two chief objections to in America to the Electoral College system:
1. The possibility of electing a president with a minority vote.
2. The failure to represent the national popular will.

The first concern is certainly well founded; there are two different ways in which this could happen.

1. If one candidate wins by a large majority in some states but loses by a whisker in others, so that the candidate winning many marginal states wins the election, despite the other candidate having more votes. This has only happened once, in 1888.
2. The votes could be split by a third party, taking votes from one or both major parties there is a possibility that no party receives more than 50% of the votes cast. This is a fairly frequent occurrence, but has only been controversial once: in 1824 when four candidates each got a similar share of the vote, the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams, despite Andrew Jackson having the most votes. It occurred that in 1912, 1916, 1948, 1960, 1968 and a further ten times in the 19th century, the president was elected with less than 50% of the vote, but in all these cases the winner was clear and the House had no trouble in deciding the outcome.

Part two of this problem can be dismissed at present (but will be returned to) as a directly elected president would face the same problem, and this is not a flaw in the Electoral College.

The occasion where the popular vote differs from the result of the Electoral College (as in 1888) we must consider the purpose of the Electoral College at a more fundamental level, which leads us logically to problem number two, the failure to represent the national popular will.

The Electoral College fails to represent the national popular will in two respects:
1. The weighting of votes favours the inhabitants of the least populous states. (example: the seven least populous states (Alaska, Delaware, DC, N.Dakota, S.Dakota Vermont and Wyoming) have a population of 3M, and has the same number of votes in the electoral college as Florida, population 9½M.)
2. The winner takes all policy (used by all states except Maine and Nebraska) that virtually eliminates any chance of third parties or independents winning an election. (example: a candidate has 25% of the popular vote spread evenly over the country, so wins no states and gets no votes in the electoral college.)

These issues are ones which must be addressed, but before I expound my reforms for the Electoral College, let me first outline why it should be kept.

The Electoral College succeeds in two major respects:
1. Creates greater cohesion in the country by requiring a distribution of votes over the nation.
2. Maintains a federal style of government.

I turn to William C. Kimberling, to expand upon these two points in greater fullness.

Firstly:
“Recognizing the strong regional interests and loyalties which have played so great a role in American history, proponents argue that the Electoral College system contributes to the cohesiveness of the country be requiring a distribution of popular support to be elected president, without such a mechanism, they point out, president would be selected either through the domination of one populous region over the others or through the domination of large metropolitan areas over the rural ones. Indeed, it is principally because of the Electoral College that presidential nominees are inclined to select vice presidential running mates from a region other than their own.
For as things stand now, no one region contains the absolute majority
(270) of electoral votes required to elect a president. Thus, there is an incentive for presidential candidates to pull together coalitions of States and regions rather than to exacerbate regional differences. Such a unifying mechanism seems especially prudent in view of the severe regional problems that have typically plagued geographically large nations such as China, India, the Soviet Union, and even, in its time, the Roman Empire.”*

On an even larger scale, the European Union

“This unifying mechanism does not however, come without a small price. The price is that in very close popular elections, it is possible that the candidate who wins a slight majority of popular votes may not be the one elected president - depending (as in 1888) on whether his popularity is concentrated in a few States or whether it is more evenly distributed across the States.”*

Only once in US history has this happened (not counting 2000 here, because this essay is long enough without that kind of argument), and in practical terms the difference in popular support is not significant enough to prevent either candidate governing effectively.

To address the second point:
“To abolish the Electoral College in favour of a nationwide popular election for president would strike at the very heart of the federal structure laid out in our Constitution and would lead to the nationalization of our central government - to the detriment of the States.”*

In the European context, it is vitally important to many citizens that their national identity be protected. The French will never stop being French, nor the Portuguese Portuguese, and to abolish the nations to which they belong is abhorrent to them. It can never happen, and will never happen. Europe will not form a unitary state, but must be a federation or confederation, and a system which protects this is not only desirable, but necessary, or there can be no system at all.

Now, hopefully this is sufficient reason to keep the college, but we must now address the important issue of popular representation. The system as it stands has two major flaws; the over representation of the inhabitants of some states, and the two party system.

The first problem is one that is inherent to the system. In order for the distribution of votes to be taken into account there must be some weighting of votes. In addition the original effect intend by the founding fathers is maintained today; the federal system is protected, as the interests of the smaller states must be taken into account.

As a side issue, I have never heard any call for the senate to be abolished, and the senate is far more biased in favour of the smaller states than the Electoral College. A truly “representative” congress would consist of a single house, elected from the entire population, using a proportional system. If the popular vote is ideologically so important, then surely the senate should be the first of the institutions to attack?

The issue of third parties is a controversial one in both the USA and the UK. It is my belief that a multi-party system best represents the views of the populace, and in an ideal system there would be no political parties, as every politician would represent a different point of view. Many disagree, and I respect their opinions, I have heard many good cases in favour of two or one party systems but my views remain unchanged. See my other thread “Party Politics”, to have that debate.

In order to give third parties a fair chance, there are a number of changes to the voting system which can be made.

1. Keeping the ‘winner takes all’ system, an ‘alternative vote system’ (AVS) can be used, which allows voter to give a preference to their vote. An American example of how this might work: A liberal is considering who to vote for. She can vote for Ralph Nader, who closely reflect her point of view, but she is afraid that George Bush may win in her state. Under the current system, in order to prevent Bush winning in her state she votes for John Kerry, who she doesn’t really like either, but considers better than Bush. Under and AVS system, she would place Nader first choice, and Kerry second. All the first choice votes are counted, and if it is a close run thing in this particular state, then the candidates who have no chance of winning are eliminated, and the second choice from their ballot is counted. In this system Nader does not split the Democrat vote, and our liberal gets to vote for who she wants. Such a system works for similar parties at the political right, and the system allows votes to show who they really want to elect without prejudice.
2. A state-wide proportional representation system, in which the electors are allocated from the party lists in proportion to their share of the vote. An American example: Democrats get 60% of the vote Republicans get 35% and Libertarians get 5%. If we are in California, under the current system the Democrats get 55 votes in the Electoral College. In a proportional system however: Democrats get 33, Republicans 19 and Libertarians 3 votes in the Electoral College. This then encourages third parties, while forcing the major parties to campaign in “safe” states. Whereas under the current system the Democrats needn’t bother campaigning in California, and the Republicans see it as a lost cause, under a proportional system the major parties would campaign as even a five per cent swing in California makes the same difference as winning or losing small state.

In the USA, either of these changes can be implemented by the state legislature, without a federal constitutional amendment. Democrats in California would want to implement option 1, whereas Republicans would prefer to switch to option 2. Either option would make elections fairer and more interesting.

With either these amendments I would support the adoption of the Electoral College as a means of electing a European President.

Now, if you have the attention span to have read all that, then you are probably smart enough to comment on it. I want to know what you think, so go ahead and post!

*Quotes from a paper published byWilliam C. Kimberling deputy director of FEC National Clearinghouse at time of writing. Views expressed are those of the individual writer, and not of the FEC.

Wow, thats quite a post. I think that you will find that those who really dislike the EC are those who voted for Gore in 2000. Sadly, many Americans still believe that our president is elected by popular vote. We take many things for granted here and our electoral system in particular. 2000 was a bad election, it was so close and that caused problems that are usually there anyway to be highlighted. One thing that I personally find is a problem is the speed that everyone expects the results to be known. Why we do not take a day or two to ensure the count is correct is beyond me, especially when it is a close election.

The EC is élitist and unacceptable. Then again, so is the whole concept of government.

People who like the EC have no brain.

People who like the EC have no brain.

Constructive. Thanks for taking the time to read the post. Try just reading the last paragraph (not the reference)

I do like the Ec and for several of points hit on by the orginal post,well posted by the way:)

I do like the Ec and for several of points hit on by the orginal post,well posted by the way:)

Thank you. I trust that you are American. What did you think of my adjustments to the system?

I have a problem with the EC, but only as it is currently implemented. I understand, to a point - although I don't necessarily think it is a good idea in electing the president - that in order to maintain a true republic, the states need to have a say, rather than just general popular vote. However, I do believe that the main purpose of the EC was because of the inability of the entire public to know enough about the election. This is no longer a problem.

However, the "winner takes all" system in most states (including mine) means that up to half of the population's votes can be basically wiped clean. If I vote Republican in my state, no problem - I can feel like I made a contribution. However, if I vote for any other party, my vote means absolutely squat in the overall election. Thus, while I refuse to vote for Bush under any circumstances this election - it won't matter, because only Republicans' votes for president count for anything in my state. If we moved to more of a percentage electoral college vote, I would be much more satisfied.

Constructive. Thanks for taking the time to read the post. Try just reading the last paragraph (not the reference)

Well, it's true.

I did extensive research on this subject myself around 1999, pre-the 2000 disaster. The EC is a good system for the very reason that it does favor less populous states (without it, my state personally would be neglected, and currently it is one of the biggest attractions during campaigns). This isn't pure democracy, but imho it works better to give the minority a voice.

However... the EC is screwed up. Look at all those democrats in Texas and republicans in California who never have a chance of getting a voice. It fosters the belief that "my vote doesn't matter", therefore "why should I bother voting?" A system that isn't 'winner-take-all' wouldn't be all that satisfactory either; firstly, it still isn't perfect (electoral voters have no obligation to cast their vote according to their electorate, even in Maine and Nebraska), and secondly, with elections as close as they are, they'd just end up in the House of Reps. I don't know about you all, but I don't trust my rep to cast her vote in accordance with the wishes of my district (even though we did elect her, having that indirect a system dillutes democracy even further).

5 times in our nation's history (including Bush), presidents have been elected by the EC without winning the popular vote. We're seeing the consequences of this first hand right now; a president without majority support fucks up and ends up leading a divided country. (I'm not saying that everyone would have been delighted with Gore, but I think we'd be far more delighted with Bush if we had chosen him rather than his brother's supreme court.)

Anyway, that's my opinion. It has its advantages, but for a democratic country to be truly of by and for the people, it needs to go. If we can count the votes correctly, the popular vote should suffice.

George W. lost the popular vote btw.

A system that isn't 'winner-take-all' wouldn't be all that satisfactory either; firstly, it still isn't perfect (electoral voters have no obligation to cast their vote according to their electorate, even in Maine and Nebraska),

Actually, some states do have the laws written so that an electoral voter that doesn't cast their vote according to their electorate faces penalties.

George W. lost the popular vote btw.

Lost yea but won the EC vote by 1 vote! He needed 270 and he got 271!

Dalradia, I appreciate your post! You have highlighted the major pros and the major cons and have offered up 2 great options. The state I live in is a major battleground state. Both sides are hammering away here! I don't know who will win my state so technically every vote is crucial here. However, the winner here will wipe out the votes for the other party.

The EC does need to change with the current times. I think your 2nd option would be the best option IMHO! However, it also opens up for the possiblity of the House Deciding a presidential election that has only happened twice previous, 1800 and 1824! Option 1 will still technically benefit the 2 major parties but that too has merits! But again, some voters will have their votes not count because their party didn't win unless I misunderstood it.

Option 2 is about the best option that you put forward. Every state would be just as important as the next! Maybe I should right my state legislative representative about this as well as both US Senators as well as my US House representative.

You have given me food for thought and for that, I think you!

It is not clear what different electoral systems you are comparing. Actually you have not really compared the election of a president via an Electoral College system with any other system except maybe first-past-the-post.

You bring up regional tensions in the form of Brittan vs. France vs. Germany but from the other side of the Atlantic, more likely divisions seem to be the old 15 versus the new 10, or ‘have/rich’ (north and west) versus ‘have-not/poor’ (south and east) or even Brittan, France and Germany versus the rest

Proportional allocation of Electoral College votes works for a big state like California or Germany but does not work for tiny ones like Rhode Island or Malta. In the USA, RI has 4 Electoral College votes I believe; how do you divide them up in your 60%, 35%, 5% case? Well a simple solution I guess would be to allow fractional votes at the EC level giving 2.4, 1.4, and 0.2 respectively. But then this is the same thing as direct first-past-the-post election with a minor distortion of votes from smaller states.

You bring up the idea of ‘alternative vote system’ (AVS) also know as ‘single transferable vote’ (STV) as the method of determining who gets the state votes when the winner takes all. At this point I wondered why not just have direct national elections for president using an AVS/STV system? There are minorities on each side of the 4 possible regional divisions mentioned above (or any others) that would support the other side; thus (hypothetical example) the votes of the poor in rich and poor countries could outnumber the votes of the rich in rich and poor countries electing a president running on an anti-poverty ticket, whereas the rich majorities in the larger rich countries would elect a pro-business president under an EC system applied to the same voting results.

A state-wide proportional representation system, in which the electors are allocated from the party lists in proportion to their share of the vote. An American example: Democrats get 60% of the vote Republicans get 35% and Libertarians get 5%. If we are in California, under the current system the Democrats get 55 votes in the Electoral College. In a proportional system however: Democrats get 33, Republicans 19 and Libertarians 3 votes in the Electoral College. This then encourages third parties, while forcing the major parties to campaign in “safe” states. Whereas under the current system the Democrats needn’t bother campaigning in California, and the Republicans see it as a lost cause, under a proportional system the major parties would campaign as even a five per cent swing in California makes the same difference as winning or losing small state.
This would have precisely the same effect as a straight national vote. The only difference would be that it gives way more representation to small states. Now answser me, WHY do small states need extra representation? You say it's to protect their interests from large states. But there's no real reason that these states are small. And California is not one big voting bloc; try getting Orange County and San Fran to agree on something. Imagine what would happen if wyoming were split into ten states. Considered together they'd be about the same as before, but they'd have far more voting power, for no reason. Also, how many of the major issues in the election are state issues? If Vermont has less influence, is California going to rape its women? The big issues in this election, such as the war, terrorism, the economy, healthcare, taxes, and even gay marriage are all national issues.

The preferential voting system is something I support, but it's not connected to the electoral college.

I have a problem with the EC... blah... I understand... blah... the states need to have a say

Blah... my vote means absolutely squat in the overall election... blah... only Republicans' votes for president count for anything in my state.

If we moved to more of a percentage electoral college vote, I would be much more satisfied.

You obviously got bored before you had read my entire post. Did you read the options I proposed?

...(electoral voters have no obligation to cast their vote according to their electorate, even in Maine and Nebraska), ... I don't know about you all, but I don't trust my rep to cast her vote in accordance with the wishes of my district (even though we did elect her, having that indirect a system dillutes democracy even further).


Actual electors would not be used if the system were implemented now. It is simply a case of counting the votes and doing the maths. Unfortunately for America a constitutional ammendment is required to change the system. That's a lot of work given that as far as I know, a rogue elector has never altered the outcome of an election.

...5 times in our nation's history (including Bush), presidents have been elected by the EC without winning the popular vote. We're seeing the consequences of this first hand right now; a president without majority support fucks up and ends up leading a divided country. (I'm not saying that everyone would have been delighted with Gore, but I think we'd be far more delighted with Bush if we had chosen him rather than his brother's supreme court.)


Yes, I think that is true.

Dalradia, I appreciate your post! You have highlighted the major pros and the major cons and have offered up 2 great options. The state I live in is a major battleground state. Both sides are hammering away here! I don't know who will win my state so technically every vote is crucial here. However, the winner here will wipe out the votes for the other party.

The EC does need to change with the current times. I think your 2nd option would be the best option IMHO! However, it also opens up for the possiblity of the House Deciding a presidential election that has only happened twice previous, 1800 and 1824! Option 1 will still technically benefit the 2 major parties but that too has merits! But again, some voters will have their votes not count because their party didn't win unless I misunderstood it.

Option 2 is about the best option that you put forward. Every state would be just as important as the next! Maybe I should right my state legislative representative about this as well as both US Senators as well as my US House representative.

You have given me food for thought and for that, I thank you!

Thank you.

I believe you understood proposal number one perfectly. The effect of such a change is certainly far less dramatic than that of option two, but this may make it easier to implement; the major parties may be convinced to support it, while the second proposal is unlikely to be popular, as it means more work for them. The AVS system would aleviate the feeling that a vote is wasted, though not eliminate it entirely.

When writing to a politician, you will probably have to write a number of times. Initially they will try to fob you off with a standard response, because then they don't have to work for their salary. Try to ask specific questions, and demand clear answers. Try to find out their ideological or philisophical position. If they don't give it, then it probably means they think it will disadvantage their party. The problem with any change like this is usually that the sitting parties have a vested interest in the system that elected them. On the otehrhand you may have an enthusiastic representative, especially as you are in a swing state. Write to local papers, they should publish your letter (they certainly do here in Britain) and this puts pressure on politicians. They don't like controversial things going into papers, especially not in an election year.

It is not clear what different electoral systems you are comparing. Actually you have not really compared the election of a president via an Electoral College system with any other system except maybe first-past-the-post.

This was not a high school compare and contrast essay. There are few countries that America can be compared to. On asimilar scale are India, who don't have a president and so don't have to worry about how to elect them. China, who don't bother with elections at all. Brazil could perhaps provid a comparison, but I know nothing of South American politics. The closest political region to the USA is the EU, who don't yet elect their president. No comparisons are therefore possible with the US presidential election.

Most people who wish to abolish teh Electoral College wish to replace it with a direct election, early in my essay I cite reasons against this, and again highlight the advantage of the Electoral College of such a method. No one has proposed to me that any part of the congress should choose the president, and that is the only other alternative that I am aware of. (This is the system currently being used by the EU)

You bring up regional tensions in the form of Brittan vs. France vs. Germany but from the other side of the Atlantic, more likely divisions seem to be the old 15 versus the new 10, or ‘have/rich’ (north and west) versus ‘have-not/poor’ (south and east) or even Brittan, France and Germany versus the rest

Unfortunately you have misunderstood european relations. While these are possible blocs, they are unlikely. What does America think Portugal and Poland have to do with Britain? Well they are our closest political allies on the continent. That seems to surprise many Americans.

Proportional allocation of Electoral College votes works for a big state like California or Germany but does not work for tiny ones like Rhode Island or Malta. In the USA, RI has 4 Electoral College votes I believe; how do you divide them up in your 60%, 35%, 5% case? Well a simple solution I guess would be to allow fractional votes at the EC level giving 2.4, 1.4, and 0.2 respectively. But then this is the same thing as direct first-past-the-post election with a minor distortion of votes from smaller states.

Yes, this is true. I admit it is one of the weaknesses in the plan, how do you divide the votes up, it is a real problem for states with under 12 votes, which is a lot of states. Rounding to a whole number is very problematic, to a decimal place less so, but where should the line be drawn? I wouldn't dismiss the idea simply because of this small hitch.

You bring up the idea of ‘alternative vote system’ (AVS) also know as ‘single transferable vote’ (STV) as the method of determining who gets the state votes when the winner takes all. At this point I wondered why not just have direct national elections for president using an AVS/STV system? There are minorities on each side of the 4 possible regional divisions mentioned above (or any others) that would support the other side; thus (hypothetical example) the votes of the poor in rich and poor countries could outnumber the votes of the rich in rich and poor countries electing a president running on an anti-poverty ticket, whereas the rich majorities in the larger rich countries would elect a pro-business president under an EC system applied to the same voting results.

You are confusing STV and AVS, a dangerous mistake to make. AVS is used to elect a single candidate (such as the president). AVS is not a form of proportional representation. STV however is, and like all proportional systems is used to elect a larger number of candidates, sucha s a block of electors. If you read my proposals carefully you will see that option one uses AVS, while option two could use STV, though I do not explicitly state STV, as party list system (PLS) is more appropriate to the United States.

This would have precisely the same effect as a straight national vote. The only difference would be that it gives way more representation to small states. Now answser me, WHY do small states need extra representation? You say it's to protect their interests from large states. But there's no real reason that these states are small. And California is not one big voting bloc; try getting Orange County and San Fran to agree on something. Imagine what would happen if wyoming were split into ten states. Considered together they'd be about the same as before, but they'd have far more voting power, for no reason. Also, how many of the major issues in the election are state issues? If Vermont has less influence, is California going to rape its women? The big issues in this election, such as the war, terrorism, the economy, healthcare, taxes, and even gay marriage are all national issues.

The preferential voting system is something I support, but it's not connected to the electoral college.

It isn't hard to see that you come from a large, disgruntled state. Here in the United Kingdom, we are a Nation, made up, oddly enough of a number of kingdoms, united together. At the union, no provision was made for protecting the identity of the individual kingdoms, and the largest kingdom, England dominated. This leads to many Brits getting annoyed when others refer to the England, and not Britain. The smaller Celtic kingdoms are each one tenth of the size of England, and so English policy has dominated British policy. Attempts are only nowbeing made, 300 years after the union of parliaments (in 1707) to redress this balance, but the compromise is not yet complete and much tension has been created between England and the three celtic countries, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Heard of the IRA by any chance? That's a left over of a civil war / war of independence, when the Republic of Ireland broke from the UK.

These tensions are hundreds of years old. The Scots are far from being oppressed by the English, they don't rape our women or eat our babies, but still there is a hatred that remains. It would be most unfortunate if such stresses were to occur in the USA.

You obviously got bored before you had read my entire post. Did you read the options I proposed?

Obviously, you are paranoid. Yes, I read the options, and unless I am crazy, I just agreed with one of them.

Obviously, you are paranoid. Yes, I read the options, and unless I am crazy, I just agreed with one of them.

Good now which one is it and why?

The title of this thread should be "Why I support giving some Americans a more valued vote than others"

Good now which one is it and why?

Did you even read the thread before replying? Go back to my previous post and your question will be answered.

I agree, the electoral college system is fantastic, however it isn't perfect. It could be improved if the electoral votes were split up into congressional district and then the 2 left over in each state would go to whoever wins the state over-all. I think that would give an electorial college result that reflects the wishes of the american people much more closely. But I grant you that would take quite a bit of work.

Both the Electoral college and popular vote are fucked up. Because with the popular vote, sometimes the majority is screwed up in the head whereas in the electoral vote, some votes count more than others (California over Wyoming).

Both the Electoral college and popular vote are fucked up. Because with the popular vote, sometimes the majority is screwed up in the head whereas in the electoral vote, some votes count more than others (California over Wyoming).

Actually not, the electorial college actually increases the say of wyoming by increasing their percentage of say in the outcome 3/538 is a larger percentage than 800,000/270,000,000. same with every smaller state, it hurts big states and rewards small states.

Actually not, the electorial college actually increases the say of wyoming by increasing their percentage of say in the outcome 3/538 is a larger percentage than 800,000/270,000,000. same with every smaller state, it hurts big states and rewards small states.
Uh...
Well, the state with the lowest valued vote is Rhode Island, not California...and while Wyoming, a small state, is the highest valued, Washington DC, the country's 21st largest city has the 2nd highest valued vote and isn't very far behind Wyoming.

Uh...
Well, the state with the lowest valued vote is Rhode Island, not California...and while Wyoming, a small state, is the highest valued, Washington DC, the country's 21st largest city has the 2nd highest valued vote and isn't very far behind Wyoming.

Rhode Island is one of the few exceptions, but you got the just of what I meant.

jist*?

And Washington DC would be an exception too wouldn't it?

I agree, the electoral college system is fantastic, however it isn't perfect. It could be improved if the electoral votes were split up into congressional district and then the 2 left over in each state would go to whoever wins the state over-all. I think that would give an electorial college result that reflects the wishes of the american people much more closely. But I grant you that would take quite a bit of work.

Yes, possibly. Did you read the two options for change that I made in my origional post?

I only skimmed through this thread, so if I write anything that has already been said, my appologies in advance.

One of the biggest things I've seen is the so called "popular vote" verses the "electoral college vote." Gore made a big point of this in 2000, and I think it's going to have a strange impact in 2004, but not in an obvious way.

There are a lot of states that are significantly weighed towards a given party X. Assuming the general trend of the state, that state almost always votes X, and so all the votes go to X. Voters of party Y, seeing that the party would go to X anyway, tend to be less excited and fail to vote. However had they voted those votes might have made a big impact on the "popular vote" bragging rights.

As a Republican living in the mostly Democratic New York I am certanly convinced that the state will go for Kerry. However that won't prevent me from trying to get as many votes for Bush in New York as possible, something that wouldn't have been done with as much vigor before the so called "popular vote" was used to express discontent with the electoral college winner. I think this might work in both directions, and who can say what the results will be except that they will be better, because more people will be voting what they believe in.

I think that given the various tweaks proposed the EC could be made better. I don't think we should eliminate the EC, (just as we still have political concentions elect nominees to the party) but we need to update the system to better reflect the new realities of modern technology.

Part two of this problem can be dismissed at present (but will be returned to) as a directly elected president would face the same problem, and this is not a flaw in the Electoral College.

nope, its a flaw in the entire concept of having a huge and diverse population 'represented' by a single person.

I agree, the electoral college system is fantastic, however it isn't perfect. It could be improved if the electoral votes were split up into congressional district and then the 2 left over in each state would go to whoever wins the state over-all.

This is actually how Maine does it. 2 EVs are based on the votes for the districts, and 2 go to whoever wins the state.

Someone wrote:>

"I have a problem with the EC, but only as it is currently implemented. I understand, to a point - although I don't necessarily think it is a good idea in electing the president - that in order to maintain a true republic, the states need to have a say, rather than just general popular vote. However, I do believe that the main purpose of the EC was because of the inability of the entire public to know enough about the election. This is no longer a problem.
However, the "winner takes all" system in most states (including mine) means that up to half of the population's votes can be basically wiped clean. If I vote Republican in my state, no problem - I can feel like I made a contribution. However, if I vote for any other party, my vote means absolutely squat in the overall election. Thus, while I refuse to vote for Bush under any circumstances this election - it won't matter, because only Republicans' votes for president count for anything in my state. If we moved to more of a percentage electoral college vote, I would be much more satisfied."

But the same can be said in the democratic states such as california and new york, the republican vote then doesn't really mean sqaut, so it is a give take relationship for both sides in the electoral college. The fact is, is that we let the states decide upon a majority then utilize the electoral college through the point system it has enveloped between each of the 50 states, thus allowing the smaller states a much more equal say. The whole idea of the electoral college is to allow the states to be represented through its own people of that state, in place of the general population as a whole. This way it keeps a balance between the rural states and the more populated big city states. Sounds fair to me, otherwise we would have a central government that could dictate more than just national security issues to each state. Creating a monarchy of such that our forefathers wanted no part of.

This is actually how Maine does it. 2 EVs are based on the votes for the districts, and 2 go to whoever wins the state.

major problem there - the congressional districts are drawn up by congress to make them uncompetitive to the greatest extent possible. doing that only gives them further excuse to jerrymander things. and essentially means that whichever party controls the redistricting holds a lot of power over congressional elections and presidential elections. which will tend to leave them in power to do the redistricting next time around.

Actually not, the electorial college actually increases the say of wyoming by increasing their percentage of say in the outcome 3/538 is a larger percentage than 800,000/270,000,000. same with every smaller state, it hurts big states and rewards small states.

It really isn't that simple. It would only increase it like that if the EV's were given as a proportion of the popular vote. What it does do is give the potential for small groups of people(in certain states) to have a large amount of power in elections.

Florida in 2000 is a great example of that. It's a large state, and therefore a vote in Florida should mean less than one is Wyoming, but that was not the case.

Wyoming is a polarized state. There was no question that it was going to go for Bush, so the chances that your vote there, or the vote of a group there having a significant impact on the national level is slim.

Florida was much more balanced. And small swings in the vote counts could (and did) have a huge effect at the national level.

This is why the candidates are focusing on certain battleground states. It's their votes that are worth more, and have the potential of deciding the election.

Not saying that this is a good thing or a bad thing...

It's funny how everybody is so gunho lately over changing the EC but nobody is really bitching too much about the Senate, which follows on the same principle...2 votes for every state, if you have 10 people or 100 million, you still get two votes.

major problem there - the congressional districts are drawn up by congress to make them uncompetitive to the greatest extent possible. doing that only gives them further excuse to jerrymander things. and essentially means that whichever party controls the redistricting holds a lot of power over congressional elections and presidential elections. which will tend to leave them in power to do the redistricting next time around.

Districting is always interesting to watch. Long term it rarely has the effect that was expected. If you like the electoral college (and I do), there are going to be some issues with most options.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the current winner takes all used by most states.

Someone wrote:>
"It's funny how everybody is so gunho lately over changing the EC but nobody is really bitching too much about the Senate, which follows on the same principle...2 votes for every state, if you have 10 people or 100 million, you still get two votes."

Yep, the only things that negates this is the fact that states are proportoinatly represented through the house, therefore without both congressional bodies in agreeance over an issue, it becomes moot. Leaving an equal say for the rural states to the big city states, since we all know that feelings and beleifs do not carry through people the same way, we all carry differnet beleifs through our upbringing, and there is no more right or wrong answer to someone elses beliefs, only what is right or wrong for yourself. That is why we dont have teh people in the city telling the country folk how to live and the country folk doing the same to the city folk, it has been left up to the community or state to decide

I have discussed the idea of electoral college reforms a few different times, and while this sort of thing would be difficult to pull off, I can make suggestions for how to amend the U.S. electoral college that does not involve a straight popular vote or the electoral college as it is today. Also, a few ideas for Europe's system.

FOR THE AMERICANS:

--The simplest reform would involve an amendment stating that whoever gets the most votes in a state receives the electoral votes for that state, plain and simple. No more of this business about electors being able to vote against the will of the state; I realize that states probably largely have those rules already, but it's not enough.

--Another idea is to have all 50 states go by the same rules as Maine and Nebraska. Two bonus votes for winning the state, plus a vote per congressional district. Of course, as a Democrat, I don't like the idea that it's probably going to help out the GOP a lot.

--A PR by state system. Of course, this may require a constitutional amendment increasing the number of reps in the House or something, which may not be entirely bad, and a PR system for the House, which, again, may not be entirely bad, but hard to pull off. The idea is that the Denate remains as-is but the House goes PR. Plus the EC goes entirely PR as well.

--Another crazy, wacked-out idea: a split vote. If one candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College and the other a majority in the popular vote, a week later there is a runoff vote between the two candidates. If that again comes up split, it goes to the House. Also with this idea is that if neither candidate gets a majority one way but one gains a majority the other, that candidate wins, plain and simple. If there's no majority either way, there would be a runoff a week later between the top two. After that it can go to the House.

FOR THE EUROPEANS:

--It is unclear to me if the Europeans want to have the Parliament as a PR system, a winner-take-all system, a mix of those, or let the natiosn decide how they want to pick their reps. Of course, if it's a parliament, so that implies a prime minister as the head, or something to that effect. Therefore, the whole EC argument seems a little unnecessary, since the PM would likely be chosen by the parliament, not by the people.