NationStates Jolt Archive

*the electoral college is not representative of reality-its time to democratize presidential races

NY TImes Calls For End to Electoral College System
And in election news, the New York Times has come out calling for the abolishment of the electoral college as a means to select the nation's president. The Times wrote in editorial, "It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president."

In the 2000 election, Al Gore won the popular vote by a margin of 500,000 but lost the election. President Bush won the electoral vote after the Supreme Court ruled in his favor of stopping the Florida recount.
www.democracynow.org

"It thwarts the will of the majority... so we need direct elections"

Obviously someone dosen't understand what direct elections can produce... ;)

Removing the electoral college may sound like a good idea, but it actually isn't.

If the elections were based on popular vote alone and anyone could run, then we'd have Presidents elected with a majority vote of less than 20%, likely even less than 10%.

And you thought it was screwed up when Gore lost?

"It thwarts the will of the majority... so we need direct elections"

Obviously someone dosen't understand what direct elections can produce... ;)
popularly elected presidents and letting the votes of people in definate party states be heard?

Removing the electoral college may sound like a good idea, but it actually isn't.

If the elections were based on popular vote alone and anyone could run, then we'd have Presidents elected with a majority vote of less than 20%, likely even less than 10%.

And you thought it was screwed up when Gore lost?
or we could have presidents elected with a majority vote of -20%, and if you realise thats the minority, good job.

popularly elected presidents and letting the votes of people in definate party states be heard?
See Kerubia's post. Direct elections do not automatically result in elections in which the candidate elected is supported by the majority of the people, and could easily go to someone who has less support than either Bush or Gore had.

It sounds like a good way to start a Civil War. Some states would have no say in who gets elected. California, NY, Illinois and PA would pick all the presidents.

or we could have presidents elected with a majority vote of -20%, and if you realise thats the minority, good job.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to tell me. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the President elected would have popular support of less than 20%.

Or are you teasing me about saying a President could have a majority vote of less than 20%? (impossible; majority must be more than half).

7-28-04
Are all men really equal?

To steal a line from George Orwell's "Animal Farm," some must be more equal than others--at least in the voting power they have when it comes to choosing the President of the United States of America. Now, in case you are wondering how Gore had half a million more votes than Bush but still lost the 2000 election, the stats in the chart below I feel do a pretty good job of explaining it. By winning the votes that are worth more, such as Wyoming, The District of Columbia, North Dakota, etcetera, Bush gets the majority of the votes in the Electoral College without getting the majority of the votes in the general election.

I am not going to put too much more bias or spin from my side onto this issue because I believe the numbers can speak for themselves. I would actually like to see any disagreers post in the politics board on the forum here at http://life.short.be and the rest of this discussion can pan out there. The only other thing I will add is just something to think about--a hypothetical situation. Candidate A gets 49% of the vote in every state, including the District of Columbia, but he gets 100% of California (remember, this is hypothetical). There is no third party so Candidate C get 0% (hypothetical). However, Candidate B gets 51% percent of the vote in the 49 states as well as the Disctrict of Columbia, but gets 0% in California. In this hypothetical situation, Candidate A has been awarded 56% of the popular vote, but what is the real outcome of the election? The electors from California award Candidate A their 55 votes (which is about 10% of the total Electoral College, and 20% or so of the votes needed to win the majority, that's not very much) and the electors from the other 49 states and the District of Columbia all award all of their electoral college votes to Candidate B because he won the majority of their votes. A candidate who only got 44% of the general election can win the electoral college with 90%. The thing is, this hypothetical situation is not the worst possible. I think that a candidate can win up to 65-70%, maybe even more, of the general election, but still lose the Electoral College. So, these are the facts and the numbers. Present any dissenting opinions in the politics board on the forum and we'll see what happens there.

-Nick Griffith

State EC* Population** Vote Value***
Alabama 9 4,500,752 1.999665 (1.08)
Alaska 3 648,818 4.623793 (2.50)
Arizona 10 5,580,811 1.791854 (0.96)
Arkansas 6 2,725,714 2.201258 (1.19)
California 55 35,484,453 1.549975 (0.84)
Colorado 9 4,550,688 1.977723 (1.07)
Connecticut 7 3,483,372 2.009547 (1.09)
Delaware 3 817,491 3.669765 (1.98)
District of Columbia 3 563,384 5.324965 (2.88)
Florida 27 17,019,068 1.586456 (0.86)
Georgia 15 8,684,715 1.727172 (0.93)
Hawaii 4 1,257,608 3.180641 (1.72)
Idaho 4 1,366,332 2.927546 (1.58)
Illinois 21 12,653,544 1.659614 (0.90)
Indiana 11 6,195,643 1.775441 (0.96)
Iowa 7 2,944,062 2.377667 (1.29)
Kansas 6 2,723,507 2.203042 (1.19)
Kentucky 8 4,117,827 1.942772 (1.05)
Louisiana 9 4,496,334 2.001631 (1.08)
Maine 4 1,305,728 3.063425 (1.66)
Maryland 10 5,508,909 1.815241 (0.98)
Massachusetts 12 6,433,422 1.865259 (1.01)
Michigan 17 10,079,985 1.686510 (0.91)
Minnesota 10 5,059,375 1.976529 (1.07)
Mississippi 6 2,881,281 2.082407 (1.13)
Missouri 11 5,704,484 1.928308 (1.04)
Montana 3 917,621 3.269324 (1.77)
Nebraska 5 1,739,291 2.874735 (1.55)
Nevada 5 2,241,154 2.230993 (1.21)
New Hampshire 4 1,287,687 3.106345 (1.68)
New Jersey 15 8,638,396 1.736433 (0.94)
New Mexico 5 1,874,614 2.667216 (1.44)
New York 31 19,190,115 1.615415 (0.87)
North Carolina 15 8,407,248 1.784175 (0.96)
North Dakota 3 633,837 4.733078 (2.56)
Ohio 20 11,435,798 1.748894 (0.95)
Oklahoma 7 3,511,532 1.993432 (1.08)
Oregon 7 3,559,596 1.966515 (1.06)
Pennsylvania 21 12,365,455 1.698280 (0.92)
Rhode Island 4 1,076,164 1.373406 (0.74)
South Carolina 8 4,147,152 1.929035 (1.04)
South Dakota 3 764,309 3.925114 (2.12)
Tennessee 11 5,841,748 1.882998 (1.02)
Texas 34 22,118,509 1.537174 (0.83)
Utah 5 2,351,467 2.126332 (1.15)
Vermont 3 619,107 4.845689 (2.62)
Virginia 13 7,386,330 1.760008 (0.95)
Washington 11 6,131,445 1.794031 (0.97)
West Virginia 5 1,810,354 2.761891 (1.49)
Wisconsin 10 5,472,299 1.827386 (0.99)
Wyoming 3 501,242 5.985133 (3.24)
Total 538 290,809,777 1.850007 (1.00)

* Source: http://www.archives.gov/

http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/2004/allocation.html

** Source: Based on 2003 Estimates. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/

*** Source: Electoral College Votes divided by State Population then multiplied by 10^6 (to avoid lots of zeros) then rounded to the millionth (to avoid excessively long numbers). The number in parenthesis represents the value of that state divided by the national value (rounded to the hundredth).

Source (http://life.short.be/).

That's a total rejection of the republican principles our nation was founded on, and I do mean that with a lowercase r. It disenfranchises the smaller states.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to tell me. It sounds like you're agreeing with me that the President elected would have popular support of less than 20%.

Or are you teasing me about saying a President could have a majority vote of less than 20%? (impossible; majority must be more than half).
im mocking you because you said a president could win with a majority of 10% or less, and im saying a president could win with a negative majority percentage with the electoral college, also known as a minority

im mocking you because you said a president could win with a majority of 10% or less, and im saying a president could win with a negative majority percentage with the electoral college, also known as a minority

Yeah, went brain dead there. Something funny to laugh at, though.

That's a total rejection of the republican principles our nation was founded on, and I do mean that with a lowercase r. It disenfranchises the smaller states.
and that was when the biggest states had at most 5 or 6 more electoral votes than the smallest states, now we have states with 18-20+ electoral votes than the smaller states

You guys should read the article I quoted in here.

Napoleon was popularly voted into consul, consul for life, and eventually EMPEROR. each vote was completely legal and was over 80 percent for Napoleon. He turned out to be one of the worst dictators man-kind has ever known.

The truth is that democracy taken too far turns into anarchy, and the electoral college is there to protect the populace from itself. The electoral college was created by our great Founding Fathers because although people deserve a say in government, mob rule is unstable and stupid.

Plain and simple. People as a whole are not smart enough and not well-informed enough to make the popular vote work. The electors are intelligent, well-studied and well-informed people that represent the people that voted for them.

Mob rule is insanity.
Representative rule may not sound pretty, but it works.

That's a total rejection of the republican principles our nation was founded on, and I do mean that with a lowercase r. It disenfranchises the smaller states.

Exactly. Candidates will spend practically all of their time campaigning in states like California, Texas, and New York because that's where the votes are. The Electoral College isn't perfect, but abolishing it would have roughly the same effect as restructuring the Senate to have population-based representation. The latter would effectively take the small states out of the legislative branch, the former would take them out of the executive branch.

"It thwarts the will of the majority... so we need direct elections"

Obviously someone dosen't understand what direct elections can produce... ;)
I have noticed that most of the conservatives here vehemently support the EC system. I can think of only one reason for this. The EC system gives the residents of small states a bigger say than the residents of large states. Small states tend to be conservative. Thus, conservative politicians have a better chance of winning elections. This is why conservatives support the Electoral College system.

Removing the electoral college may sound like a good idea, but it actually isn't.

If the elections were based on popular vote alone and anyone could run, then we'd have Presidents elected with a majority vote of less than 20%, likely even less than 10%.
Yes, but the candidate with the biggest percentage of the vote (even if it's something like 20%) will still have more support than any other candidate.

The controversy in 2000 was caused by the fact that George Bush did not have more support than any other candidate.

Napoleon was popularly voted into consul, consul for life, and eventually EMPEROR. each vote was completely legal and was over 80 percent for Napoleon. He turned out to be one of the worst dictators man-kind has ever known.

The truth is that democracy taken too far turns into anarchy, and the electoral college is there to protect the populace from itself. The electoral college was created by our great Founding Fathers because although people deserve a say in government, mob rule is unstable and stupid.

Plain and simple. People as a whole are not smart enough and not well-informed enough to make the popular vote work. The electors are intelligent, well-studied and well-informed people that represent the people that voted for them.

Mob rule is insanity.
Representative rule may not sound pretty, but it works.
This argument is flawed in that electors, by law, must vote for who ever won the majority in that particular state (a couple states split votes, but it's still according to whoever the people actually voted for). The only thing the electoral college does is disproportion the votes.

EDIT: In other words, if France had the EC in place at the time (in the same fashion it is in place here and now), Napoleon would have still been elected. He would have about 80% of the popular vote, but probably somewhere like 65-75% of the EC.

If the elections were based on popular vote alone and anyone could run, then we'd have Presidents elected with a majority vote of less than 20%, likely even less than 10%.


Yeah, because that happens in Europe all the time! And everybody knows if only they have Electorial Colleges as well that the world would be a better place.

:rolleyes

Now let's talk about reality instead of fantasy.

The following a list of official results of the Oct. 2003 California Governors Race. There were 128 people that ran for the office:

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2003_special/ssov/gov_sum.xls

Here is a summary of the top vote getters:

1. Arnold Schwarznegger (Republican): 48.6% (4,206,284)
2. Cruz Bustamante (Democrat): 31.5%
3. Tom McClintock (Republican): 13.5%
4. Peter Camejo (Green): 2.8%
5. Ariana Huffington (Independent): 0.6%
6. Peter Uberroth (Republican): 0.3%

Sub-Total: 97.3%

Simply put, your theory on how Americans would vote didn't come true in the most populist state in the United States. Not even close. In fact, if you add up the two top Republican vote getters, Californians pretty much said they wanted the Democrats out of the state capital for the next 3-years.

But let's just look at this in more detail ... how many *raw* votes did Gray Davis get in Nov. 2002 when he ran for governor?

The answer:
Gray Davis (Democrat): 47.3% (3,533,490)

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/sov/2002_general/ssov/gov_sum.pdf

Interesting, isn't it. In 2002 __6__ people ran for governor of the United States state with the highest population, and yet it was a year later when 128 people ran for the same office that the Governor got more votes (700,000) more *and* also captured a higher precentage of the total.

The New York Times is right. American voters are more than capable of handling a direct election of the US President. And the idea that "too many choices" is bad, is disproven by nearly every election in the world, including the California recall. To suggest that a two-party system is the best way to do things ignores the success of most European and the Canadian process, and even ignores how individual US states run things.

Mikitivity's argument is just as good (maybe even better than) the article I posted...but please, read and respond to both of these arguments and explain why the EC should still stay in place.

I have noticed that most of the conservatives here vehemently support the EC system. I can think of only one reason for this. The EC system gives the residents of small states a bigger say than the residents of large states. Small states tend to be conservative. Thus, conservative politicians have a better chance of winning elections. This is why conservatives support the Electoral College system.
The EC ends up negating large amount of conservatives because the bigger states which tend to go democratic and the winner-takes-all system.

The EC ends up negating large amount of conservatives because the bigger states which tend to go democratic and the winner-takes-all system.
Yet fewer people decide a proportionally larger amount of votes in the smaller states. Look at the chart in the article I posted if this doesn't make sense (and if you still don't understand, ask).

This argument is flawed in that electors, by law, must vote for who ever won the majority in that particular state (a couple states split votes, but it's still according to whoever the people actually voted for). The only thing the electoral college does is disproportion the votes.

EDIT: In other words, if France had the EC in place at the time (in the same fashion it is in place here and now), Napoleon would have still been elected. He would have about 80% of the popular vote, but probably somewhere like 65-75% of the EC.
a republican doesnt have to vote republican. anyways, without the electoral college- states like rhode island and iowa would be screwed over by states like NY and California and Texas. so Presidents would only campaign in the big states and small state votes wouldnt really matter.

The New York Times is right. American voters are more than capable of handling a direct election of the US President. And the idea that "too many choices" is bad, is disproven by nearly every election in the world, including the California recall. To suggest that a two-party system is the best way to do things ignores the success of most European and the Canadian process, and even ignores how individual US states run things.
No, look at France's last general election. They ended up with two right-wing candidates to chose from while the entire left's closest candidate was Chirac, because there were too many parties.

Yet fewer people decide a proportionally larger amount of votes in the smaller states. Look at the chart in the article I posted if this doesn't make sense (and if you still don't understand, ask).
They do. The EC does not only favor conservatives, though.

a republican doesnt have to vote republican. anyways, without the electoral college- states like rhode island and iowa would be screwed over by states like NY and California and Texas. so Presidents would only campaign in the big states and small state votes wouldnt really matter.
A democrat doesn't have to vote democrat.
Without the EC a candidate would have to campaign every where because 1 person = 1 vote means you have to win a majority of the votes, not a majority of the EC. You can get (if you read the article) 49% in every state (your opponent getting 51%) and get 100% of California (hypothetical, etc) and win %56 of the popular vote and still not be elected because you only got 54 EC votes...

They do. The EC does not only favor conservatives, though.
Where did I say anything about conservatives? The EC favors states with a high percent of electors as compared to population.

Where did I say anything about conservatives? The EC favors states with a high percent of electors as compared to population.
Well you were responding to my response where Siljhouettes claimed that the EC favored conservatives.

Any theoreticallyy speaking, no democracy form at all can ever be perfect, there will always be a situation in which it will not work like it supposed to (Condorcet's Voting Paradox).

Well you were responding to my response where Siljhouettes claimed that the EC favored conservatives.
I was correcting your statement. To win a large state, you typically have to win over not only a lot more people, but also a proportionately higher number of people for those EC votes. You said it is easier to win over the large states, but in reality, it isn't. If North Dakota had the same number of EC votes as California, and their population was increased, but stayed the same (proportionately) when compared to their EC votes, you would have to win over a whole lot less voters to get those North Dakota votes.

The electoral college is definately without meaning in an age where communication is near instant, all the people are educated to a degree in public schools, and states are nearly unimportant. The EC just allows for more prejudice in where money for campaigns are spent. Cities are unimportant now, and the reasoning for it is gone. I'd like my vote to matter thank you very much.

May the Lord's hand be in all of this,

-R. S. of UC

Removing the electoral college may sound like a good idea, but it actually isn't.

If the elections were based on popular vote alone and anyone could run, then we'd have Presidents elected with a majority vote of less than 20%, likely even less than 10%.

And you thought it was screwed up when Gore lost?Under the electoral college, you could win with less votes than the other guy. How is that better?

All the electoral college does is insure that a tiny minority of swing states are the only grounds for any real campaigning.

I agree with the above dude.

-R. S. of UC

I was correcting your statement. To win a large state, you typically have to win over not only a lot more people, but also a proportionately higher number of people for those EC votes. You said it is easier to win over the large states, but in reality, it isn't. If North Dakota had the same number of EC votes as California, and their population was increased, but stayed the same (proportionately) when compared to their EC votes, you would have to win over a whole lot less voters to get those North Dakota votes.
I didn't say it was easier to win over large states. I was just saying that in the electoral college, while smaller states tend to be "givens" for Conservatives/Republicans, larger states tend to be the same for Democrats - California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and to a lesser extent Pennsylvania. That means that while, yes, voters in smaller states get more 'power' than they would in a nationwide general election w/o the electoral college, the Liberals/Democrats get the advantage of being able to not worry about the minority Republicans in the listed states - they don't have to worry about their vote counting for anything as it would be in a plurality.

Under the electoral college, you could win with less votes than the other guy. How is that better?
One of these days I'll figure up the exact highest percentage of the popular vote you could get and still lose the EC decision. I know that it is well over 56%, but the article I pasted here proves that it is at least 56%.

I didn't say it was easier to win over large states. I was just saying that in the electoral college, while smaller states tend to be "givens" for Conservatives/Republicans, larger states tend to be the same for Democrats - California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and to a lesser extent Pennsylvania. That means that while, yes, voters in smaller states get more 'power' than they would in a nationwide general election w/o the electoral college, the Liberals/Democrats get the advantage of being able to not worry about the minority Republicans in the listed states - they don't have to worry about their vote counting for anything as it would be in a plurality.
The point is, shouldn't we worry about people's votes? If I vote, I'd like it to mean something, otherwise, seeing how Arkansas isn't much of a swing state, I might as well just not vote at all, right?

----"im mocking you because you said a president could win with a majority of 10% or less, and im saying a president could win with a negative majority percentage with the electoral college, also known as a minority"

But what your missing is that America does not have any basis on majority's, unless your talking about the 2/3 it would take to abolish the electoral college, Or to ammend the constitution in the way that some of the people in here wishes could be done (like to allow communism to happen, try to get 33 states to give away states rights) Obviously this will never happen, can you ever see 33 states or more voting to give away thier chance at a level playing field? Probably not, since you would be hard pressed to even find one for either or. I prefer being a realist, dont you?

The point is, shouldn't we worry about people's votes? If I vote, I'd like it to mean something, otherwise, seeing how Arkansas isn't much of a swing state, I might as well just not vote at all, right?
Yep, basically. The problem is finding a suitable replacement for the EC.

Yep, basically. The problem is finding a suitable replacement for the EC.
Either direct vote (which isn't a bad idea...), readjust the HoR a little, or give each state 1 elector per 500,000 citizens.

Either direct vote (which isn't a bad idea...), readjust the HoR a little, or give each state 1 elector per 500,000 citizens.
Again - every form of election has flaws in the system. Simply making everyone's voting power equal would not change the biggest flaw in the electoral college, that many, many people's votes don't really matter because of the state they live in. So the question is, are we willing to give up one system and its flaws for another? Despite what happened in 2000, in reality there's only been a few elections in the history of the US - four - in which there was a problem.

We don't vote directly for President. Our votes go toward our own state's electorate. When a candidate wins a state, that state's electoral votes go to that candidate. Since states with larger populations get more electoral votes than smaller states, it is fair right now.

Again - every form of election has flaws in the system. Simply making everyone's voting power equal would not change the biggest flaw in the electoral college, that many, many people's votes don't really matter because of the state they live in. So the question is, are we willing to give up one system and its flaws for another? Despite what happened in 2000, in reality there's only been a few elections in the history of the US - four - in which there was a problem.
Uhm, no? In reality, if there was a direct vote, what state you lived in would make no difference.

We don't vote directly for President. Our votes go toward our own state's electorate. When a candidate wins a state, that state's electoral votes go to that candidate. Since states with larger populations get more electoral votes than smaller states, it is fair right now.
No one is debating this, but thanks.

Uhm, no? In reality, if there was a direct vote, what state you lived in would make no difference.
That problem wouldn't be there. You'd end up with the same problem France, Yugoslavia, other countries with a seperate election for an executive branch (rather than the parlimentary system) have, which is its often difficult to find a candidate which has the backing of the majority, so while the majority of the people may not want that candidate in office, he gets in anyway - because he was the biggest minority. In example terms, Candidate A gets 40% of the vote, where Candidates B and C each get 30%. The difference is, though, that supporters for B and C would rather have the other candidate in office (Their 2nd-place candidate, so to speak) rather than Candidate A, but because of the system, Candidate A gets into office even though the majority of the people would have been happier with someone else in office.

That problem wouldn't be there. You'd end up with the same problem France, Yugoslavia, other countries with a seperate election for an executive branch (rather than the parlimentary system) have, which is its often difficult to find a candidate which has the backing of the majority, so while the majority of the people may not want that candidate in office, he gets in anyway - because he was the biggest minority. In example terms, Candidate A gets 40% of the vote, where Candidates B and C each get 30%. The difference is, though, that supporters for B and C would rather have the other candidate in office (Their 2nd-place candidate, so to speak) rather than Candidate A, but because of the system, Candidate A gets into office even though the majority of the people would have been happier with someone else in office.
Eh...same thing happens in America, even with the EC...the difference is that say, in 2000, Bush got 500,000 fewer popular votes than Gore, so in reality, even more people voted FOR Gore than FOR Bush, and even more (when you add in Nader) voted AGAINST Bush (because Nader voters would more likely voted Dem than Rep), so your argument doesn't hold much water.

Opal Isle, Direct quote from the NYT "a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president."

So I thought fairness was the issue. But I guess I was wrong. Ok, debate away. Have a nice evening!

Opal Isle, Direct quote from the NYT "a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president."

So I thought fairness was the issue. But I guess I was wrong. Ok, debate away. Have a nice evening!
I don't understand what you're saying...

Eh...same thing happens in America, even with the EC...the difference is that say, in 2000, Bush got 500,000 fewer popular votes than Gore, so in reality, even more people voted FOR Gore than FOR Bush, and even more (when you add in Nader) voted AGAINST Bush (because Nader voters would more likely voted Dem than Rep), so your argument doesn't hold much water.
I believe this flaw would become exacerbated under a direct election system. How many times has it occured in the USA? 4 in history, 1 in the last 100 years, no?

I dont have a broblem with the electoral college, but some persons have
sugested a proportional electoral college system based on the popular vote,
since I like math and statistics I will study it and post some ideas later.
One point I think we all can agree on now its lets get rid of the so-called
electors, and once the election results have been certified, the winner its
assigned the electoral votes. While we are on this subject the European Union should consider an electoral college system to elect a european leader
perhaps with a proportional system.

I believe this flaw would become exacerbated under a direct election system. How many times has it occured in the USA? 4 in history, 1 in the last 100 years, no?
In Direct election, the person with the most votes (even if a majority voted against him) would win the White House 100% of the time, however, with the EC, you can win the White House even if you don't get the most votes, which, in my opinion, makes the EC worse.

I dont have a broblem with the electoral college, but some persons have
sugested a proportional electoral college system based on the popular vote,
since I like math and statistics I will study it and post some ideas later.
One point I think we all can agree on now its lets get rid of the so-called
electors, and once the election results have been certified, the winner its
assigned the electoral votes. While we are on this subject the European Union should consider an electoral college system to elect a european leader
perhaps with a proportional system.
Santa- nita, if you look at the article I quoted onto the first page, there is a chart with some of the math already done for you...

In Direct election, the person with the most votes (even if a majority voted against him) would win the White House 100% of the time, however, with the EC, you can win the White House even if you don't get the most votes, which, in my opinion, makes the EC worse.
Then we have a disagreement in opinion.

Then we have a disagreement in opinion.
Okay...

EC
You can win if a majority of people vote against you.
You can win even if you don't have more votes than your opponents.


DV
You can win if a majority of people vote against you.
You cannot win if you don't have more votes than your opponents.



I think that's pretty clear cut...

Okay...

EC
You can win if a majority of people vote against you.
You can win even if you don't have more votes than your opponents.


DV
You can win if a majority of people vote against you.
You cannot win if you don't have more votes than your opponents.



I think that's pretty clear cut...
But in both systems, in my opinion DV more so than the electoral college, there exists the possibility the first flaw you highlighted, "You can win if a majority of people vote against you." I don't think its any better to have someone win with 25% of the vote, provided its the biggest amount, than to have someone win with 49% of the vote but their opponent got 51%.

But in both systems, in my opinion DV more so than the electoral college, there exists the possibility the first flaw you highlighted, "You can win if a majority of people vote against you." I don't think its any better to have someone win with 25% of the vote, provided its the biggest amount, than to have someone win with 49% of the vote but their opponent got 51%.
As soon as someone takes those numbers and figures them out, I think that you'll find with the EC in place, you could possibly get 70ish% of the vote and still lose. (In other words, someone else won by only getting 30ish%) So...whatever, it works out about the same.

a republican doesnt have to vote republican. anyways, without the electoral college- states like rhode island and iowa would be screwed over by states like NY and California and Texas.

So what is the problem with that?

States with a fraction of the population of other states should expect to be "screwed" over.

Besides, the President is not supposed to have law making powers. Theoretically, an international treaty that is good for Texas, Florida, Colorado, New York, or California should be good for Wyoming, Iowa, Maine, and Kansas as well.

We aren't talking about electing a Senate, which already favours smaller states. We are talking about a single individual that is supposed to represent a CHECK on Congress and represent the entire United States.

As soon as someone takes those numbers and figures them out, I think that you'll find with the EC in place, you could possibly get 70ish% of the vote and still lose. (In other words, someone else won by only getting 30ish%) So...whatever, it works out about the same.
Additionally, you can only win with less than 50% of the vote in DV if there are more than two candidates, however, with the EC, you can win with less than 50% of the vote no matter how many candidates there are (as long as there are at least two). I think you will find that if there were multiple popular candidates running for president under the current EC system, the winner would have less than 40% of the vote.

Something some of us are not grasping is the fact that we have 50 seperate states inside of this thing we call a country. Each state has the right to have a vote through its populace and foward the results seperately. There is no strong central government platform within our Constitution or federalist papers without regards to our National Security. Look at it as 50 differnet countries with the one missing link that we gave up in order to ratify our Constitution is the ability to wage or declare war upon each other or another country. We are unified only as much as the 50 states allow it to be from that point on. That is why you can have texas and california as polar oppisites when it comes to laws and regulations within each respective state. We the people obtain our individual status through our individual states, that is why our founding fathers were so damn brilliant, they knew that with requiring to maintain states rights unless they chose to give it up through the required 2/3's that there was no way to take it away from ourselves unless it was ourselves that decide upon it. I see these debates as complete fictional and without any probablity or possibility of obtaining, without finding your 2/3 of states to follow your lead and give up thier own leadership abilitys in the process. Good luck!

But in both systems, in my opinion DV more so than the electoral college, there exists the possibility the first flaw you highlighted, "You can win if a majority of people vote against you." I don't think its any better to have someone win with 25% of the vote, provided its the biggest amount, than to have someone win with 49% of the vote but their opponent got 51%.

That's what happens when you argue about which of two ridiculously awful systems is slightly less ridiculously awful.

What's needed is something like the Condorcet system, which takes into account not just peoples first choice, and allows a true multi-party system without forcing people to make compromise votes (IOW you could vote 1. Nader, 2. Kerry, 3.Bush, and be assured that even if your first choice of Nader didn't get in, your preference for Kerry over Bush would be taken into account). It would also allow the elimination of the ridiculous primary system, so the Democrats wouldn't be stuck with only Kerry.

That's what happens when you argue about which of two ridiculously awful systems is slightly less ridiculously awful.

What's needed is something like the Condorcet system, which takes into account not just peoples first choice, and allows a true multi-party system without forcing people to make compromise votes (IOW you could vote 1. Nader, 2. Kerry, 3.Bush, and be assured that even if your first choice of Nader didn't get in, your preference for Kerry over Bush would be taken into account). It would also allow the elimination of the ridiculous primary system, so the Democrats wouldn't be stuck with only Kerry.
In ranking systems there's still the problem of someone who the majority dosen't want in office. For example :


Voter 1 Voter 2 Voter 3
1 Bush Kerry Nader
2 Kerry Nader Bush
3 Nader Bush Kerry

No matter what happens, there will always be a 2/3 of the people who prefer Bush to Kerry, Kerry to Nader, and Nader to Bush.

Your still thinking in terms of states!

What makes one state more deserving than another? Nothing! And those who say that a true majority rule has its problems: why would we then take random people and give them more authority? To what end?

We have the constitution to limit what our elected can do--our ONLY defense angainst autocracy. I don't see how distorting elections will change that.

In ranking systems there's still the problem of someone who the majority dosen't want in office. For example :


Voter 1 Voter 2 Voter 3
1 Bush Kerry Nader
2 Kerry Nader Bush
3 Nader Bush Kerry

No matter what happens, there will always be a 2/3 of the people who prefer Bush to Kerry, Kerry to Nader, and Nader to Bush.
Uh, I didn't know 1/3rd of the population is a likely Nader voter...I though he was like 2%, which would mean 49ish% are:
Bush Kerry Nader
-or-
Bush Nader Kerry

Another 49ish% are:
Kerry Bush Nader
Kerry Nader Bush

The final 2% are:
Nader Bush Kerry
Nader Kerry Bush

Consider slot one to be a positive vote, slot two a neutral vote, and slot three a negative vote. If 49% vote Kerry and 49% vote Bush, then the deciding factor would be based off which of those two candidate got the least negative votes. For example, if more Kerry/Nader voters put Bush in the third position than Bush voters to put Kerry 3rd, Kerry would win, and vice versa, etcetera.

Uh, I didn't know 1/3rd of the population is a likely Nader voter...I though he was like 2%, which would mean 49ish% are:
Bush Kerry Nader
-or-
Bush Nader Kerry

Another 49ish% are:
Kerry Bush Nader
Kerry Nader Bush

The final 2% are:
Nader Bush Kerry
Nader Kerry Bush

Consider slot one to be a positive vote, slot two a neutral vote, and slot three a negative vote. If 49% vote Kerry and 49% vote Bush, then the deciding factor would be based off which of those two candidate got the least negative votes. For example, if more Kerry/Nader voters put Bush in the third position than Bush voters to put Kerry 3rd, Kerry would win, and vice versa, etcetera.
Thats assuming politics stays static from the the previous electoral college system. Plus, I was just showing how this system could be just as bad as any other ones - no system, as I said, is going to solve all the problems.

Great! Now all the NYT has to do is convince 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify that amendment to the Constitution.

Keep on dreamin', brothah... :p

no system, as I said, is going to solve all the problems

I would argue that the above mentioned scenario is not even a problem.

a. It's a very unlikely scenario.

b. If it does happen, it represents a truly confused and indecisive electorate, so an electoral system which cannot determine a winner in such a situation is hardly flawed.

Removing the electoral college may sound like a good idea, but it actually isn't.

If the elections were based on popular vote alone and anyone could run, then we'd have Presidents elected with a majority vote of less than 20%, likely even less than 10%.

And you thought it was screwed up when Gore lost?


This can be easily overcome. All you have to do is go on a point system. If you consider the 2000 election. You had Gore, Bush, and Nader. If you let people give 3 points to their top choice, 2 to their second choice, and 1 to their third choice and then tally up the votes, you get a picture of exactly what people would want.

For the ultra liberal: Nader 3, Gore 2, Bush 1
For the liberal democrat: Gore 3, Nader 2, Bush 1
For the moderate democrat: Gore 3, Bush 2, Nader 1
For the moderate (or conservative) republican: Bush 3, Gore 2, Nader 1

The nice thing is that this would work for any number of candidates. You could have 10 or 20 different candidates and you would simply rank them in the order of your preference (with higher numbers being better). This would take care of both the ridiculous electoral college and would eliminate the strangle-hold of the two party system.

I would argue that the above mentioned scenario is not even a problem.

a. It's a very unlikely scenario.

b. If it does happen, it represents a truly confused and indecisive electorate, so an electoral system which cannot determine a winner in such a situation is hardly flawed.
A situation in which one state votes 100% for one candidate, and then every other state goes 51-49 is not exactly likely, either. The electoral college has had its problem where the person who gets the popular vote but loses the electoral vote four times in its history, and once in the last 100 years.

This can be easily overcome. All you have to do is go on a point system. If you consider the 2000 election. You had Gore, Bush, and Nader. If you let people give 3 points to their top choice, 2 to their second choice, and 1 to their third choice and then tally up the votes, you get a picture of exactly what people would want.

For the ultra liberal: Nader 3, Gore 2, Bush 1
For the liberal democrat: Gore 3, Nader 2, Bush 1
For the moderate democrat: Gore 3, Bush 2, Nader 1
For the moderate (or conservative) republican: Bush 3, Gore 2, Nader 1

The nice thing is that this would work for any number of candidates. You could have 10 or 20 different candidates and you would simply rank them in the order of your preference (with higher numbers being better). This would take care of both the ridiculous electoral college and would eliminate the strangle-hold of the two party system.

You realize since most voters don't consider a Nader win a possiblity, they'll put him as #2 just to get their opponet as far down as possible, even if they hate Ralph more.

I have noticed that most of the conservatives here vehemently support the EC system. I can think of only one reason for this. The EC system gives the residents of small states a bigger say than the residents of large states. Small states tend to be conservative. Thus, conservative politicians have a better chance of winning elections. This is why conservatives support the Electoral College system.


Yes, but the candidate with the biggest percentage of the vote (even if it's something like 20%) will still have more support than any other candidate.

The controversy in 2000 was caused by the fact that George Bush did not have more support than any other candidate.

While I agree with Direct election is good.
Your statement sounds good:
Premise: Most conservatives vehemently support the EC system.
The EC system gives the residents of small states a bigger say than the residents of large states.
Small states tend to be conservative.
Thus, conservative politicians have a better chance of winning elections;
this is why conservatives support the Electoral College system.

Only you are using a descriptive statement not a normative one. So I guess you don't have to prove this since its descriptive. But it'd be better to go with normative I think.
Finding how accurate this is would be cool.

But hey why not a direct vote? Ever vote counts all the more.
Most voters feel: there vote counts for nothing so some didn't vote in past.
But A DV systems makes them feel empowered and vote more and more often.

In ranking systems there's still the problem of someone who the majority dosen't want in office. For example :


Voter 1 Voter 2 Voter 3
1 Bush Kerry Nader
2 Kerry Nader Bush
3 Nader Bush Kerry

No matter what happens, there will always be a 2/3 of the people who prefer Bush to Kerry, Kerry to Nader, and Nader to Bush.

So why not have run-off elections, where there is a minimum number of votes to qualify for the second ballot, and then take the top two, leaving a final ballot with only two candidates?

But hey why not a direct vote? Ever vote counts all the more.
Most voters feel: there vote counts for nothing so some didn't vote in past.
But A DV systems makes them feel empowered and vote more and more often.

I agree. Let's say you're a Democrat, and you live in Texas. You know that all your neighbours are voting Republican, and therefore your state is going to send however many Republicans to the Electoral College, and zero Democrats, leaving your vote COMPLETELY UNACCOUNTED FOR ON THE NATIONAL SCALE. This is ridiculous when the President is supposed to represent the will of the people on the national scale, as opposed to the regional scale, which is better represented by the Congress. At the very least, the Electoral College needs reform -- maybe it would be more fair if each state sent X members for party 1, Y members for party 2, Z members for party 3, and so on, in proportion to the popular vote of that state, as opposed to being flat-out won by one party.

So why not have run-off elections, where there is a minimum number of votes to qualify for the second ballot, and then take the top two, leaving a final ballot with only two candidates?
That dosen't guarantee the happieness of the majority, either. France's last Presidential election, you had Chirac, who is (relatively moderately) right-wing, and LePen, who was even more right-wing who ended up in the final round. Why? Because the left was too fractured into many parties, so they had no one to vote for in the final election.

That dosen't guarantee the happieness of the majority, either. France's last Presidential election, you had Chirac, who is (relatively moderately) right-wing, and LePen, who was even more right-wing who ended up in the final round. Why? Because the left was too fractured into many parties, so they had no one to vote for in the final election.
This has happened in the American elections with the electoral college. Remember the Bull Moose party? Etcetera. The only reason that this doesn't happen with the electoral college often is because we're essentially choosing between only two people. If there were 4-5 liberal candidates in the end all running against Bush, Bush would win easy electoral college or not.

New York Times? Since when does THAT debunked rag garner any real respect for it's opinion?

New York Times? Since when does THAT debunked rag garner any real respect for it's opinion?
^- my problem with righties.

^- my problem with righties.


Who hired that Jason guy to be a reporter? Oh thats right....the New York Times.

Who hired that Jason guy to be a reporter? Oh thats right....the New York Times.
I don't know what Jason guy you are talking about, nor do I know a ton about the New York Times. However, I do know that everyone has an opinion and if you expected yours to be respected, you should respect other people's opinion (even if you don't agree with them).

I don't know what Jason guy you are talking about, nor do I know a ton about the New York Times. However, I do know that everyone has an opinion and if you expected yours to be respected, you should respect other people's opinion (even if you don't agree with them).

I cannot remember his last name, but he was a reporter hired by the New York Times who later admitted that he MADE UP the interviews he attributed to others. He was sent out on stories and just went home and made stuff up...for quite awhile. He lambasted the Times as a left leaning enterprise that only hired and promoted him because he was black. He further stated that none of his stories were ever checked out for accuracy. THAT calls into question every story in the New York Times.

Edit: Blair is his last name....

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=855&id=767912003

http://slate.msn.com/id/2082741/

I cannot remember his last name, but he was a reporter hired by the New York Times who later admitted that he MADE UP the interviews he attributed to others. He was sent out on stories and just went home and made stuff up...for quite awhile. He lambasted the Times as a left leaning enterprise that only hired and promoted him because he was black. He further stated that none of his stories were ever checked out for accuracy. THAT calls into question every story in the New York Times.
I does call every story into question.
What it does not do however, is automatically nullify every story. I can gaurantee you that you can find something wrong or false or make-believe just about anywhere you look (which would call everything about that into question), but that does not automatically mean everything that comes from that place is inaccurate...this speaks more negatively about this Jason guy than it does the New York Times. It's called honesty and integrity.

Let's set something straight. A "20% majority" is impossible, since by definition a majority is more than half. The proper term is "plurality"

That what it means by a new york times democracy

I does call every story into question.
What it does not do however, is automatically nullify every story. I can gaurantee you that you can find something wrong or false or make-believe just about anywhere you look (which would call everything about that into question), but that does not automatically mean everything that comes from that place is inaccurate...this speaks more negatively about this Jason guy than it does the New York Times. It's called honesty and integrity.

On the one hand you are correct.....on the other we have to ask if every story coming from the Times has now been verified and then who verified that? Once a paper has lost it's credibility, it is very difficult to ever get it back again.

It sounds like a good way to start a Civil War. Some states would have no say in who gets elected. California, NY, Illinois and PA would pick all the presidents.

Why should they? Not all people in those states votes the same. In fact, the current system gives them more power because the winner in those states gets ALL the electoral college votes. Direct elections would mean just a portion of those votes.

Plus, who cares if a winner wins with only 30% of the vote? If it's really that important, some countries have a second vote in case no candidate wins a majority. In the second vote only the first two contend.

The system would be more useful, however, when it comes to Congress.

On the one hand you are correct.....on the other we have to ask if every story coming from the Times has now been verified and then who verified that? Once a paper has lost it's credibility, it is very difficult to ever get it back again.
MEH. Even if you don't think the NYT are credible (not debating that point), it should have no bearing on whether or not their opinion of the Electoral College. There are other (more credible) sources that have similar opinions on the EC. Discrediting the NYT does not discredit this opinion of the EC.

Obviously several of you know nothing about democracy, republicanism or both. A republic is only prudent when it is impossible to get the ideas and votes of the populous. Therefore, groups send someone they feel will tell their ideas to a national body. While America is not, and will probably never will be, ready for a total democracy, and total everythings rarely work. The problem with complete democracy is that you do get the mob rule and no appriciation for minorities as the majority can always crush them. Pure republicanism also leads to what we have now...a rather large body of idiots that the voting population settles upon as opposed for looking for good ones.

The electorial college just hurts us at this point. There is no concern of a Philidelphia holding 3/4 of the population. Yeah, NY and LA would get hit a lot, but they would be forced to go to more places than just 4 freaking swing states. That's a miserable set of circumstances that we made the electoral college to avoid. The time for it has passed, I want rid of it.

-Fury

Some people still don't get it. To those who scream states rights are protected by the EC, small states still have fewer electorial votes than the larger ones, Duh, the number is based on population. So minority voters are just as disenfranchised, probably more so.

Zep, the answer is not two elections but a system that is called Instant Run-off Election. It is in use in some parts of the world and the US, it was actually first introduced by an american over a century ago. The system requires you to vote for your choice and then a second, third and sometimes fourth choice. First count of first choices only, lowest vote reciever is eliminated and his votes are redistributed to the voters second choice, you continue until one candidate has a simple majority. This system works well with multiple party systems, makes alternative candidates viable and not spoilers and is possible on a nation wide scale thanks to modern technology. It takes a lot of dirty tricks out of the game, so of course the major players don't want it.

----"MEH. Even if you don't think the NYT are credible (not debating that point), it should have no bearing on whether or not their opinion of the Electoral College. There are other (more credible) sources that have similar opinions on the EC. Discrediting the NYT does not discredit this opinion of the EC. "

How do you discredit an opinion if it is not a fact and merely an opinion. We are all alowed to have false opinions along with the NY times or any other, it just doesn't make it anymore of a fact is all.

This is the same kind of thinking that people use to try to discredit the entire US military when they had just a few dumbasses 'torturing some poor souls'. I guess it is the entire military and they should lose credit for these measly acts. Or the eco-terrorists cause the discredit to every single environmentalist, or a bad gun owner discredits every gun owner.... these are just people that prefer to over generalize everything into one group because they are not smart enough to figure it out (see that was a generalization)

How do you discredit an opinion if it is not a fact and merely an opinion. We are all alowed to have false opinions along with the NY times or any other, it just doesn't make it anymore of a fact is all.
I was just suggesting that Biff's attack on the NYT was meaningless. Just because he discredit's the NYTs doesn't mean abolishing the EC is a bad idea, although he posts comments like "Since when has the NYT had an opinion worth respecting?"

Hybrid solution to solve the whole multi party deal...

Abolish the EC AND Revert back to the way the Veep was originally selected during the presidential election process

"The person with the most votes would be President; the one finishing second in the balloting would be Vice President."

full article: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/presidency/electoral.html

Hybrid solution to solve the whole multi party deal...

Abolish the EC AND Revert back to the way the Veep was originally selected during the presidential election process

"The person with the most votes would be President; the one finishing second in the balloting would be Vice President."

full article: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/presidency/electoral.html
You do know why that was changed, right?

----"Since when has the NYT had an opinion worth respecting?"

This again is a opinion that thier opinion is not worth respecting. Then you come back with an opinion that there are others worth more respect.

I always get a headache when I debate people about thier beliefs (opinions).
That is a fact. Probably because I know that I am no more right in my eyes as you are with yours.

Don't we all just want to get along? :confused:

You do know why that was changed, right?

Sure, but I think it would make things pretty entertaining

In ranking systems there's still the problem of someone who the majority dosen't want in office. For example :


Hey! That gave me an idea! What if instead of voting for who we want in office, we vote for those we don't want in office. And the one with the least votes wins?

That dosen't guarantee the happieness of the majority, either. France's last Presidential election, you had Chirac, who is (relatively moderately) right-wing, and LePen, who was even more right-wing who ended up in the final round. Why? Because the left was too fractured into many parties, so they had no one to vote for in the final election.

Well, electoral systems aren't about making the majority happy, but making everybody equally pissed off.