NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey NSers. My Civics class is studying the Electoral College right now, and I was wondering what everone's views are, so maybe I could print it out and turn it in for some EC ;) . Here is my official stance:
I believe in the Electoral College, but I think it should be amended. I don't think it should be abolished because that would cause a complete power shift (relatively equal spread to big cities and big states only; California, Texas, and New York City would decide the elections), and considering I live in a relatively small state (North Carolina), that wouldn't represent us very well. It would also change our form of government from a federalist republic to a direct democracy (that's right, we are a republic)
My ideal system would be a district system, where each congressional district has an elector. Each county votes, and whichever candidate carries the most counties out of each district votes for that candidate. To keep the states involved, whichever candidate carries the majority of the districts in each states gets an added "bonus", the two "senate" votes. I realize this would take a bit too much power away from big cities, so the districts should be rezoned to make the cities a larger part of the district, possibly making huge cities into two or three districts.
I believe in this system because it gives much more power to the people without throwing it all to the major population centers, and it also gives third-party candidates a much better chance (not that I support one).

P.S. I had to write an essay on this today, which explains my acute views)

Please keep it clean, folks :)

Simply get rid of it!

The greatest national voting system ever made. It gurantees that every American has a voice. If it were just a popular votes, campaigns would focus only on cities, but this ensures that suburban and rural states are heard.

The greatest national voting system ever made. It gurantees that every American has a voice. If it were just a popular votes, campaigns would focus only on cities, but this ensures that suburban and rural states are heard.

Thank you, that's exactly the kind of discussion we need in the forums, not "l0l 3lect0r4l c0113g3 sux0rz!!!111" (yes im paraphrasing) Like I said, let's keep it clean, like this one.

I don't know why proponents of the EC talk about how great it is that rural voices get heard. The voices get heard, but at the expense of ten times as many urban voices. Ten voices are better than one.

The greatest national voting system ever made. It gurantees that every American has a voice. If it were just a popular votes, campaigns would focus only on cities, but this ensures that suburban and rural states are heard.
As opposed to how now the voting system concentrates on cities in 10 states.

I think the system need to be admendment to where we have the Popular Vote one day, and for whatever the Popluar Vote decides for that State, the E.C. should vote the same way. But thats just me.

Hey NSers. My Civics class is studying the Electoral College right now, and I was wondering what everone's views are, so maybe I could print it out and turn it in for some EC ;) . Here is my official stance:
I believe in the Electoral College, but I think it should be amended. I don't think it should be abolished because that would cause a complete power shift (relatively equal spread to big cities and big states only; California, Texas, and New York City would decide the elections), and considering I live in a relatively small state (North Carolina), that wouldn't represent us very well. It would also change our form of government from a federalist republic to a direct democracy (that's right, we are a republic)
My ideal system would be a district system, where each congressional district has an elector. Each county votes, and whichever candidate carries the most counties out of each district votes for that candidate. To keep the states involved, whichever candidate carries the majority of the districts in each states gets an added "bonus", the two "senate" votes. I realize this would take a bit too much power away from big cities, so the districts should be rezoned to make the cities a larger part of the district, possibly making huge cities into two or three districts.
I believe in this system because it gives much more power to the people without throwing it all to the major population centers, and it also gives third-party candidates a much better chance (not that I support one).

P.S. I had to write an essay on this today, which explains my acute views)

Please keep it clean, folks :)

Traversa, currently Maine splits its electoral votes on the basis of each Congressional district, as does Nebraska, with the two extras going to the overall winner of the state. Colorado proposed an amendment of similar sorts on the ballot this year, although it may not pass.

Second, North Carolina is a large state, tied for eigth largest electoral haul with Georgia at 15; Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and California have more electoral votes, but that leaves another 41 states with fewer votes. North Carolina is not campaigned in by presidential candidates as much because it is not generally considered a "swing state."

In general, I would prefer to severely alter the electoral system, particularly towards a proportioned (split EV) system if not a popular vote, and am distinctly in favor of increasing the number of Representatives in the House.

This has a number of desirable effects:

Districts would be smaller, and thus hopefully more compact. With small compact districts, we should see reasonable balance and reasonable minority representation. Gerrymandering the entire map becomes harder, and with fewer voters for each representative, each rep. becomes more accountable to their supporters. If you only represent 150,000 people of age to vote, it doesn't take much to swing support around. Personal contacts, local interests, all that become much more important.

The variability of the EV/population ratio declines. Thus, there is a more equal say in matters per population; without a winner-take-all EV system, but a split EV system of one sort or another, candidates would be encouraged to campaign around.

As opposed to how now the voting system concentrates on cities in 10 states.
Swing states don't remain swing states forever. Major political shifts have happened in the US before, and they will happen again.

Traversa, currently Maine splits its electoral votes on the basis of each Congressional district, as does Nebraska, with the two extras going to the overall winner of the state. Colorado proposed an amendment of similar sorts on the ballot this year, although it may not pass.

I knew that, I was just saying all states should do that.

Second, North Carolina is a large state, tied for eigth largest electoral haul with Georgia at 15; Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, and California have more electoral votes, but that leaves another 41 states with fewer votes. North Carolina is not campaigned in by presidential candidates as much because it is not generally considered a "swing state."

I said "relatively small", since I had just compared it with California (52 votes)

In general, I would prefer to severely alter the electoral system, particularly towards a proportioned (split EV) system if not a popular vote, and am distinctly in favor of increasing the number of Representatives in the House.

This has a number of desirable effects:

Districts would be smaller, and thus hopefully more compact. With small compact districts, we should see reasonable balance and reasonable minority representation. Gerrymandering the entire map becomes harder, and with fewer voters for each representative, each rep. becomes more accountable to their supporters. If you only represent 150,000 people of age to vote, it doesn't take much to swing support around. Personal contacts, local interests, all that become much more important.

The variability of the EV/population ratio declines. Thus, there is a more equal say in matters per population; without a winner-take-all EV system, but a split EV system of one sort or another, candidates would be encouraged to campaign around.

I actually think this is a good idea too. Thanks for the comment though, I'm glad people are responding.

Swing states don't remain swing states forever. Major political shifts have happened in the US before, and they will happen again.
They shift back and forth, yes, but it is always roughly the same number of states. Just how cities will change hands back and forth.

Before one can critisize the EC they first must know not only the history, but also how the votes are allocated. I suspect few people here know.

They shift back and forth, yes, but it is always roughly the same number of states. Just how cities will change hands back and forth.
However, these ten or so states are usually quite demographically and geographically diverse. One swing state, Iowa, is largely rural, while another, Pennsylvania, is a mix of the three. Some have even called it three states in one: Pittsburgh is considered part of the Midwest, Philidelphia is considered part of the urban northeast, and the center is really, really rural.

However, these ten or so states are usually quite demographically and geographically diverse. One swing state, Iowa, is largely rural, while another, Pennsylvania, is a mix of the three. Some have even called it three states in one: Pittsburgh is considered part of the Midwest, Philidelphia is considered part of the urban northeast, and the center is really, really rural.
But most of the campaigning occurs in the cities anyway.

I don't know why proponents of the EC talk about how great it is that rural voices get heard. The voices get heard, but at the expense of ten times as many urban voices. Ten voices are better than one.

actually, i don't know why proponents of the ec talk about how great it is that rural voices get heard when it is just isn't true. rural voices barely matter at all under the electoral college. they are actually disproportionately left out by it, due to the fact that whether the rural areas vote for you or not doesn't matter as long as you get enough votes in the cities to outvote them in that state (nearly every state has larger urban populations than rural ones).

as for giving the small states power, that ain't true neither. there are a huge number of way to win the presidency without any particular small state, but much fewer to do so without any particular big state. what this means is that a single person's vote in a small state has less power to affect the outcome of the national election than a single person's vote in a big state. in essence, the electoral college might as well give a voter in california four votes for every voter in montana. the electoral college mathematically gives voters in big states more power than those in small states.

full mathy argument behind this:
http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/misc/us-voting.html

actually, i don't know why proponents of the ec talk about how great it is that rural voices get heard when it is just isn't true. rural voices barely matter at all under the electoral college. they are actually disproportionately left out by it, due to the fact that whether the rural areas vote for you or not doesn't matter as long as you get enough votes in the cities to outvote them in that state (nearly every state has larger urban populations than rural ones).

as for giving the small states power, that ain't true neither. there are a huge number of way to win the presidency without any particular small state, but much fewer to do so without any particular big state. what this means is that a single person's vote in a small state has less power to affect the outcome of the national election than a single person's vote in a big state. in essence, the electoral college might as well give a voter in california four votes for every voter in montana. the electoral college mathematically gives voters in big states more power than those in small states.

full mathy argument behind this:
http://www.eleves.ens.fr:8080/home/madore/misc/us-voting.html

There are, unfortunately, a few problems with that page. The first is that the electoral votes per state are dated and not accurate from what I can see (CA is 55 now, not 54), and the second is the very real (if somewhat deplorable) effect of "safe" vs "swing" states.

The third is the apparent lack (unless I missed something) of an analysis of how the system statistically deviates from a simple majority vote, and how much further (or nearer) his proposal of square root based electoral representation is... particularly when the actual tendancies of the particular states with regard to turnout and affiliation distribution (we're not working on an entirely abstract population here) is taken into account. If the electoral votes are weighted further against population, it seems likely that minority-elected presidents will become likelier.

The fourth is that it's very easy to misinterpret; in fact, from his model, we see that most of the states have fairly close to "fair" coefficients of power.

If all states split their electoral vote either based on congressional district or population (the former will tend to mirror the House unduly; given the current (gerrymandered) state of House districts, division on the basis of raw vote numbers might prove fairer.)

It is further noting that small states also fail to receive attention thanks to most of them being "safe" states; New Hampshire appears to be the exception, but most of the rest are fairly predictable, only going over to the other party in a genuine landslide.

Its as symple as this folks, bush or kerry, one or the other. The nation is the Uniter States right ? if anything its unfair that each state doen't have just as many electoal votes as the next. The way i figue it is that each state choses who it wants to be the president as a way of saying we're not gona be dominated by new york , texas or calafornia.

There are, unfortunately, a few problems with that page. The first is that the electoral votes per state are dated and not accurate from what I can see (CA is 55 now, not 54), and the second is the very real (if somewhat deplorable) effect of "safe" vs "swing" states.

true, the numbers have probably shifted slightly due to redistricting.

secondly, while i think that the concept of 'safe' and 'swing' states is pretty overrated - considering how quickly 'safe' states can switch parties if somebody says the right words to them - you could very easily use this analysis to predict which of the swing states are going to be most focused on (though that also comes down to pretty much looking at which of them have the most ec votes)

The third is the apparent lack (unless I missed something) of an analysis of how the system statistically deviates from a simple majority vote, and how much further (or nearer) his proposal of square root based electoral representation is... particularly when the actual tendancies of the particular states with regard to turnout and affiliation distribution (we're not working on an entirely abstract population here) is taken into account. If the electoral votes are weighted further against population, it seems likely that minority-elected presidents will become likelier.

no doubt. which is why the ec, while a terrible idea from the start, was considered by the constitutional convention to be a much better option than letting each state have one vote. i'm not down with his whole square root based representation either.

The fourth is that it's very easy to misinterpret; in fact, from his model, we see that most of the states have fairly close to "fair" coefficients of power.

If all states split their electoral vote either based on congressional district or population (the former will tend to mirror the House unduly; given the current (gerrymandered) state of House districts, division on the basis of raw vote numbers might prove fairer.)

It is further noting that small states also fail to receive attention thanks to most of them being "safe" states; New Hampshire appears to be the exception, but most of the rest are fairly predictable, only going over to the other party in a genuine landslide.

it is true that most states look fairly close to being fair, which i think is kind of the point - it doesn't really help out the individual voter in small states, it just makes the big states and their voters artificially more important. any form of splitting the ec vote would drastically change these numbers, mainly by breaking up the current power concentrations.

i've often wondered if small safe states could be made to switch parties if anyone would actually bother talking to them. the safe state mentality seems to be somewhat self-defeating. after all, the populists and progressives and socialists and such all used to do quite well out in the republican safe states of the west and midwest.

The nation is the Uniter States right ? if anything its unfair that each state doen't have just as many electoal votes as the next.

an idea very similar to this was rejected outright at the constitutional convention for being grossly unfair - it would let the small states dominate the big ones. if it hadn't been for slavery we'd have had direct elections of the president.

I believe the electoral college, as it stands, is one of the more just systems out there. It ensures that pols pay attention to states like Colorado and Missouri. The United States, one must remember, is a collection of bound states in Union. This Union must alllow the states power as well as the nation.

I believe the electoral college, as it stands, is one of the more just systems out there. It ensures that pols pay attention to states like Colorado and Missouri.
and ignore states like New York, Wyoming, Vermont, Texas, etc.

The problem is the winner take all system.
I would at least do two things, get rid of the winner take all in all states.
Second I think that proportional representation makes sense (Colorado referendum).

The Electoral College works. Means the cities can't push the rest of teh country around. I seem to remember a time oh a little over 200 years ago when a bunch of cities tried telling their colonies what to do. I seem to also remember there being a little war or something that came as a result.

Anyways to the original post, shifting to a county basis would have several side effects. The first would be the loss of the power of a state. The Second would be that the republicans gain a rather huge amount of the vote and would nearly always dominate the electoral college in this case. Don't believe me? Look up a map of how the US voted by county and you'll see a rather large republican majority, even in states that democrats "control".

I seem to remember a time oh a little over 200 years ago

Really, wow!, you're old!


;)