NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to start by saying that I'm torn on this issue--I'm undecided as to whether this is the best way to change the system or if the system needs changing, quite frankly, but it's an interesting idea and I'd like to hear and engage in some debate on the issue. This is another one of those issues that shouldn't be a partisan one, even though it involves politics.

There's a national move on to change the way electoral votes are apportioned. The US Constitution only says that the states get to decide how to apportion their votes, and all but two use the "first past the post" system--Nebraska and Maine apportion them according to the percentage won in the state congressional districts. To change the system nationwide to allow for the direct election of presidents would require a constitutional amendment, and frankly, I don't think there's the will to get that done, so some people have devised an interesting way to get around that issue (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-vote31may31,1,7954080.story?coll=la-headlines-politics).
Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

The bill is part of a 3-month-old movement driven by a Bay Area lawyer and a Stanford computer science professor. The same 888-word bill is pending in four other states and is expected to be introduced in every state by January, its sponsors say. The legislation would not take effect until enough states passed such laws to make up a majority of the Electoral College votes — a minimum of 13 states, depending on population.

"This is a bill that would allow California to be able to play a role in presidential elections," said Barry Fadem, the Lafayette, Calif., lawyer spearheading the drive. Now, because the state is largely ignored, he said, "A vote in California is not equal to a vote in Ohio, and everyone would concede that."

The bill — AB 2948 by Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Anaheim) — cleared the Assembly 49 to 31 with a single Republican vote from Assemblyman Rick Keene (R-Chico). To become law, it must be passed by the Senate and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.

Fadem said he was surprised by the partisan divide in the Assembly vote. In the New York Legislature, Republicans introduced the bill, he said, and they support it in Illinois, Missouri and Colorado.
So the idea would be that once enough states sign on to control enough votes to elect the President in the College, they'd all be bound by this compact, but not before. This would make the election of the President a contest of the popular vote instead of the electoral one, since all the states would vote for the popular vote winner instead of the winner of their individual states.

So what do you think? Do you like the reform? Do you worry that it will put too much power in the hands of urban areas with large concentrations of voters? Is that enough to make it worth the chance that the winner of the popular vote won't be the president?

Please, let's keep partisanship out of this discussion as much as possible.

Well, if thats how the majority sees it, so be it. I don't think its a bad idea.

Well, if thats how the majority sees it, so be it. I don't think its a bad idea.
It would certainly be a way to get states that aren't generally involved anymore back in the mix--how much time did major candidates spend in California, Texas and New York in 2004? Not much, except to raise money. But if, say, a Republican thought that by improving his output in California from 40% to 45%, he might win the popular vote and thus get those electoral votes, why wouldn't he spend a few days and a few bucks in the OC trying to motivate people?

The electoral college made sense when information was incredibly difficult to come by. Now? Now it makes no sense at all. I say full speed ahead on this. We could see sharp rises in voter participation, not to mention the possibility of actual third party competition! We need a Libertarian President in 2008, so let's get these implimented right away!

I like it. I think it's high time we realize that the way we elect presidents now was written for a time when the states were far more isolated from each other than they now are. It used to be it could take days to get from one state to another so communication, travel and commerce were much more local affairs. Now, I can be in New York tomorrow if I decided to go today. I can set up a corporation in Delaware, set up my manufacturing in Chicago, have my business offices in California and my customer service call center in India. State boundaries are becoming more and more irrelevent except in regards to law enforcement.

I want to start by saying that I'm torn on this issue--I'm undecided as to whether this is the best way to change the system or if the system needs changing, quite frankly, but it's an interesting idea and I'd like to hear and engage in some debate on the issue. This is another one of those issues that shouldn't be a partisan one, even though it involves politics.

There's a national move on to change the way electoral votes are apportioned. The US Constitution only says that the states get to decide how to apportion their votes, and all but two use the "first past the post" system--Nebraska and Maine apportion them according to the percentage won in the state congressional districts. To change the system nationwide to allow for the direct election of presidents would require a constitutional amendment, and frankly, I don't think there's the will to get that done, so some people have devised an interesting way to get around that issue (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-vote31may31,1,7954080.story?coll=la-headlines-politics).

So the idea would be that once enough states sign on to control enough votes to elect the President in the College, they'd all be bound by this compact, but not before. This would make the election of the President a contest of the popular vote instead of the electoral one, since all the states would vote for the popular vote winner instead of the winner of their individual states.

So what do you think? Do you like the reform? Do you worry that it will put too much power in the hands of urban areas with large concentrations of voters? Is that enough to make it worth the chance that the winner of the popular vote won't be the president?

Please, let's keep partisanship out of this discussion as much as possible.


Well, for starters, you would never have to campaign in a rural area again. Ever.

You could confine your campaiging to the 20 largest cities in the US, specifically the urban dwellers. You could safely ignore the suburbs.

So, this would leave all of the so-called "red state" areas safely out of the Presidential equation forever.

If California were to go the same way as Maine and Nebraska it would aid the GOP quite a bit.

I'm okay with the popular vote deciding the election. The electoral college was originally meant to allow for small states to theoretically have as much importance in elections as large states. But that's not what happened. Some small states are important, some aren't. Some large states are important, some aren't. Connecticut certaily didn't matter in the slightest in the last two elections. A few hundred Floridians mattered a lot more than a few hundred thousand Connecticut...eers.

Because of the electoral college, only SWING ststes matter. States where a few poll percentage points separate the parties. Any states beyond that are functionally ignored. That's not what the Electoral college was meant to do.

So I see no problem with going back to the popular vote. However, I have to say that I'm a little unconfortable with the states finding a way to circumvent the U.S. Constitution like this. I'd rather see a constitutional amendment.

Well, for starters, you would never have to campaign in a rural area again. Ever.

You could confine your campaiging to the 20 largest cities in the US, specifically the urban dwellers. You could safely ignore the suburbs.

So, this would leave all of the so-called "red state" areas safely out of the Presidential equation forever.

So where's the downside? :p

If California were to go the same way as Maine and Nebraska it would aid the GOP quite a bit.
That's only with current voting rates, though. With the Presidency decided by popular vote, voting rates will skyrocket. Who KNOWS what will happen then? I know I can't predict it, and neither can you.

(By the way, if you're a puppet, good show. You're hilarious.)

Well, for starters, you would never have to campaign in a rural area again. Ever.

You could confine your campaiging to the 20 largest cities in the US, specifically the urban dwellers. You could safely ignore the suburbs.

So, this would leave all of the so-called "red state" areas safely out of the Presidential equation forever.
God, I hope so.

That aside, why shoudl a few people living in a receiver state like Arkansas have so much influence over people who live in donor state like California? They'll still have an equal say in the Senate and their representation in The House. As for not campaigning in the 'burbs, first, more than half our population has moved here and, second, it's not always population that you worry about. You also have to think about who's actually gonna show up at the polls.

You also have to think about who's actually gonna show up at the polls.

Enter Karl Rove *applauds*

The whole purpose of the Electoral Collage is to ensure states rights

Enter Karl Rove *applauds*
...did you just applaud Karl Rove?

I'm okay with the popular vote deciding the election. The electoral college was originally meant to allow for small states to theoretically have as much importance in elections as large states. But that's not what happened. Some small states are important, some aren't. Some large states are important, some aren't. Connecticut certaily didn't matter in the slightest in the last two elections. A few hundred Floridians mattered a lot more than a few hundred thousand Connecticut...eers.

Because of the electoral college, only SWING ststes matter. States where a few poll percentage points separate the parties. Any states beyond that are functionally ignored. That's not what the Electoral college was meant to do.

So I see no problem with going back to the popular vote. However, I have to say that I'm a little unconfortable with the states finding a way to circumvent the U.S. Constitution like this. I'd rather see a constitutional amendment.
I'd go a step further and say that all of New England is functionally ignored, particularly in the past two elections. Considering that if we were one state, we would have the 5th largest population, that is a significant ammount ignored.

Also commonly ignored/underused are New York and California.

I do think this could be a good idea, but I wonder what would actually come of it. I will keep going for the amendment, but for now, this is atleast an interesting reform.

btw, its officially Connecticutanian

Enter Karl Rove *applauds*
Yeah, he was really good at rounding up the ideologically rigid, uneducated idiots and getting them to the polls. Aside from that, out of respect for the OP's request for a non-partisan discussion, i'll drop the rest of my kneejerk response to the mention of the soon to be indicted moron.

The whole purpose of the Electoral Collage is to ensure states rights
It hasn't done that too well...unless you live in Florida or Ohio.

...did you just applaud Karl Rove?

Despite what people may think of his morals, methods, candidate etc, Rove is a political genius. 10 times better than James Carville or George Stephanopoulos.

Despite what people may think of his morals, methods, candidate etc, Rove is a political genius. 10 times better than James Carville or George Stephanopoulos.

Indeed. Few Democrats want to believe that anyone outside their party beat them because of superior tactics and strategy.

They would rather hear that something illegal took place, or that Diebold rigged the election. They can't for one second believe that a Republican beat them at their own game.

Despite what people may think of his morals, methods, candidate etc, Rove is a political genius. 10 times better than James Carville or George Stephanopoulos.
I'll give you that. A sadistic, cruel genius, but a genius nonetheless.

Deep Kimchi: The results were just a wee bit suspicious though. Suspicious enough that I felt an investigation was worthwhile regardless of the results, as the point was not to prove who won, but to ensure that the voting was fair. Does that make sense?

Slightly off-topic, but help for an ignorant foreigner would be greatly appreciated...

If Congress is controlled by the Democrats and the executive is formed by the Republicans, how does anything get done?

It takes rather a long time and nothing important really gets done. Unless of course there is strong bipartisanship caused by a disaster.

Slightly off-topic, but help for an ignorant foreigner would be greatly appreciated...

If Congress is controlled by the Democrats and the executive is formed by the Republicans, how does anything get done?
by not being so stuck in "Oh, I can't vote for that! He's a republican" or "Nope, that was proposed by a democrat!" that you're blinded from a decent law being passed.

in other words, nothing gets done.

which isn't terribly different from the norm.

Slightly off-topic, but help for an ignorant foreigner would be greatly appreciated...

If Congress is controlled by the Democrats and the executive is formed by the Republicans, how does anything get done?
It doesn't, pure and simple. Partisanship interferes everywhere, and it is absolutely ridiculous. Of course, the same is true in every democratic/republic-style government. It's just part of how it all works.

In Texas, city councilmen cannot be partisan.

Slightly off-topic, but help for an ignorant foreigner would be greatly appreciated...

If Congress is controlled by the Democrats and the executive is formed by the Republicans, how does anything get done?
A lot less would have gotten done which would have been great for the last six years. Gridlock beats this guys ability to get stuff done any day of the week. Can you imagine how much better off the world would be right now if Bush was faced with gridlock over the term of his presidency?

Well if Rove doesn't start working those polls, in November the worst could happen, the Grand Old Party could lose *sobs at the mere thought*

Well if Rove doesn't start working those polls, in November the worst could happen, the Grand Old Party could lose *sobs at the mere thought*
Guess what, genius? That would be a good thing! Hell if I want to see Democrats in office, but they'd be better overall than Republicans right now. I'd prefer a whole bunch of Independents if possible, though. Maybe even some Libertarians. I think that would be a nice formation for Congress, don't you think?

Nothing gets done? What a fantastic way of preventing the growth of government...

I'd like to see:

President Zell Miller (D)
Vice-President Jeb Bush (R) (because you can't have a conservative in the executive branch without having a Bush influence/connection).

So....Instead of fixing the system, we're going to jerry-rig it? I think that's ridiculous. And I wonder why all the democrats wanted it and all the republicans didn't. Maybe it does have something to do with the large urban areas being overwhelmingly liberal. All the red states would go away? Sounds like there's a motive behind it.

And if California wasn't so predictably a blue state, maybe their representatives would pay a little more attention to what they wanted instead of blatantly ignoring them. *shrugs*

Nothing gets done? What a fantastic way of preventing the growth of government...

It's most bloody when say party X controls the House, party Y controls the Senate and then party X controls the White House.

So....Instead of fixing the system, we're going to jerry-rig it? I think that's ridiculous. And I wonder why all the democrats wanted it and all the republicans didn't. Maybe it does have something to do with the large urban areas being overwhelmingly liberal. All the red states would go away? Sounds like there's a motive behind it.

And if California wasn't so predictably a blue state, maybe their representatives would pay a little more attention to what they wanted instead of blatantly ignoring them. *shrugs*
Once again, you are basing this on current voting rates. If voting rates skyrocket--which they would if this occurs--then the entire scaling of states in terms of party would be turned upside down. We have absolutely no idea what would happen, and quite frankly, it makes more sense to give the power to the people than to not give the power to the people. Those who say not to because it might favor the Dems and leave the Repubs in the dirt are being idiotically partisan.

And before you target me with insults about being a Dem: I'm a Libertarian.

Libertarians are a dying breed, incidently so are populists.

Libertarians are a dying breed, incidently so are populists.
What used to be Libertarians? I agree. They were extremists. My definition of Libertarian is what many people might consider to be Centrist. In essence, it's the definition I want people to associate with Libertarian once I start reforming the party from within.

I've always thought of a libertarian as someone with:

i) Low social conservatism.
ii) High economic conservatism.

Once again, you are basing this on current voting rates. If voting rates skyrocket--which they would if this occurs--then the entire scaling of states in terms of party would be turned upside down. We have absolutely no idea what would happen, and quite frankly, it makes more sense to give the power to the people than to not give the power to the people. Those who say not to because it might favor the Dems and leave the Repubs in the dirt are being idiotically partisan.

And before you target me with insults about being a Dem: I'm a Libertarian.

Ok. You're right. On current voting rates. I don't think I'm the only one to think this though or nobody would be wanting to do this. Obviously someone is planning on gaining an advantage. None of the political parties I know is interested in keeping things truly fair and competitive.
And fine. Give the power to the people. Make a constitutional change. Quit trying to get around the system. And to say that voting would skyrocket is just a guess. Because people MIGHT feel like their vote has less significance if they're now voting for the whole thing rather than a piece of the pie. Everyone thrown in together.
And I'm hurt that you feel I would stoop so low as to insult you for your political beliefs. Where's the debate in that? :p

Connecticut...eers.

i'd go with connecticutterites

So I see no problem with going back to the popular vote. However, I have to say that I'm a little unconfortable with the states finding a way to circumvent the U.S. Constitution like this. I'd rather see a constitutional amendment.

technically, the constitution leaves the manner of choosing electors up to the state legislatures anyway, so it isn't really circumventing anything.

This would only make sense to me if we were a unitary state. Despite what many people seem to think, we're still a union of states, whether you like it or not. If the American people really want a single "America", then perhaps a new Constitution is in order. Until that day, the electoral college should remain as it is.

Personally, I'd like to see domestic policy handled at the state level. I'd feel as though my vote were worth more if I were voting for a state rep, and if that actually meant much. I think the US is far too large and diverse for the Federal government to handle even as much as it does, because not all of it's solutions work everywhere. What is good for the goose isn't necessarily good for the gander.

Anyway, that's all the ranting you'll have to suffer through today from this decentralist, almost-secessionist, anti-federalist.

Didn't NY put the wrong initial in John Kerry when casting it's votes and have to do them again? And one member of the electoral college from some where around the mid-west accidentally gave an electoral vote to John Edwards instead of John Kerry.

So....Instead of fixing the system, we're going to jerry-rig it? I think that's ridiculous.

it's just easier this way - only takes 11 states, rather than 2/3 of the house and the senate and 38 states.

And I wonder why all the democrats wanted it and all the republicans didn't.

who knows. that isn't the case in the other states talking about this idea.

"In the New York Legislature, Republicans introduced the bill, he said, and they support it in Illinois, Missouri and Colorado."

Forget the electoral college, we need a system of preferential voting....you rank the candidates for president, and you get the most points if you're ranked 1st.

Like out of 4-5 candidates, points go down with ranking until lowest/0.

Candidate with the most points wins. Instead of getting somebody who is constantly ranked 1st on some and 4th on others, the winner will likely have the most 2nd/3rd rankings.

So....Instead of fixing the system, we're going to jerry-rig it? I think that's ridiculous. And I wonder why all the democrats wanted it and all the republicans didn't. Maybe it does have something to do with the large urban areas being overwhelmingly liberal. All the red states would go away? Sounds like there's a motive behind it.

And if California wasn't so predictably a blue state, maybe their representatives would pay a little more attention to what they wanted instead of blatantly ignoring them. *shrugs*
You didn't actually read the article, did you? :rolleyes: In New York, the resolution has been put forward by the Repblican party. That's why I wanted this discussion to remain non-partisan, because this issue has supporters all across the spectrum. And it says something that California is willing to chance that its electoral votes would go to the Republican party when they're so reliably a Democratic state, and that it would pass a Democratically controlled House there.

it's just easier this way - only takes 11 states, rather than 2/3 of the house and the senate and 38 states.

Nope--it takes a majority of the popular votes to win under this system. The way it would work is that the states under the compact would agree to send their electoral votes to the overall winner of the popular vote, regardless of who wins in their individual state, so California could wind up giving their electoral votes to the candidate their citizens didn't pick. The idea is that this would ensure that the winner of the popular vote would be the winner of the electoral college, since in order for the compact to go into effect, there have to be enough electoral votes under ther control for them to swing the election.

dude. i've just been reading the kos post on the subject. a bunch of the comments are not at all inspiring as far as the average comprehension level of kos readers goes.

Nope--it takes a majority of the popular votes to win under this system.

i meant to enact the change

dude. i've just been reading the kos post on the subject. a bunch of the comments are not at all inspiring as far as the average comprehension level of kos readers goes.
I haven't ventured in there, but I wouldn't be surprised. It's a complex issue.

Not like it matters, California usually votes Dem.

Not like it matters, California usually votes Dem.
But were this system to go into effect, if a Republican won the popular vote nationwide, California's electoral votes would go to him or her.

Not such a bad idea, but is there an "official vote total nationwide?" Or is there simply the grand-sum total of all votes cast in the individual states?

Honestly, though, all you would really need is two big states at opposite ends of the spectrum (California and Texas, for example; or California and enough of the smaller states) for this to work. Honestly, I don't think it makes THAT much of the difference in terms of results, but I think it would make the voter feel much better in terms of the results.

On a separate note, when they say "winning the popular vote," do they mean an absolute majority? Because, if it's that, than They wouldn't have cast their votes for either Gore or Bush in 2000 (or Clinton in 1992, for that matter).

But were this system to go into effect, if a Republican won the popular vote nationwide, California's electoral votes would go to him or her.

Ohh I see whats going on now. Yeah nevermind I didnt understand what was going on.

Eh, I dont know. It doesnt seem like a system only one state can enact. If California were to vote 100% dem their votes shouldnt go repub. I think a system like Nebraska and Maine have would make more sense, but the states that give a small number of votes might reject it.

You didn't actually read the article, did you? :rolleyes: In New York, the resolution has been put forward by the Repblican party. That's why I wanted this discussion to remain non-partisan, because this issue has supporters all across the spectrum. And it says something that California is willing to chance that its electoral votes would go to the Republican party when they're so reliably a Democratic state, and that it would pass a Democratically controlled House there.
No. I just read your post which did in fact highlight that. I was actually responding to the fellow debaters comments. We are having a discussion about political elections as presented by political parties. I was bringing up the point that they wouldn't be producing these changes if they didn't think they could gain an advantage, red or blue. So to remain partisan neutral, can anyone tell me why New York Republicans would want to do such a thing?
But thank you for your sarcasm. May I have another?

So to remain partisan neutral, can anyone tell me why New York Republicans would want to do such a thing?

cause then their votes might actually count?

It doesnt seem like a system only one state can enact.

which is why it only takes effect once enough states to equal 50%+1 or more of the electoral college votes sign on. so about 11 states, then, if all the big ones signed up.

cause then their votes might actually count?
Exactly. It's trying to skew the system. If it's broke, fix it. We don't need an election system held together with twine and duct tape. This is no different than deliberately rezoning to split up minorities to minimize their effect in elections.

No. I just read your post which did in fact highlight that. I was actually responding to the fellow debaters comments. We are having a discussion about political elections as presented by political parties. I was bringing up the point that they wouldn't be producing these changes if they didn't think they could gain an advantage, red or blue. So to remain partisan neutral, can anyone tell me why New York Republicans would want to do such a thing?
But thank you for your sarcasm. May I have another?
NY republicans would want it for the same reason everyone else does. It isn't always about gaining an advantage (despite the fact that it usually is). Under the most recent example of popular vote contradicting electoral votes, yes, the dems would have come out on top. However, with the close elections of recent years at all levels, it is impossible to predict who would benefit when. The current system is breeding apathy. I know that my vote means nothing. CT is always fairly heavily democrat. There is no real need for me to vote, as my vote only impacts which elector goes from my state. Even then, the elector can change who he votes for (and it has happened before)

There is no reason why we should not vote directly for the president, seeing as we already directly vote for every other elected official. The current system is grossly outdated, and I think both sides are coming to see that.

Exactly. It's trying to skew the system. If it's broke, fix it. We don't need an election system held together with twine and duct tape. This is no different than deliberately rezoning to split up minorities to minimize their effect in elections.

what? i think you misunderstand the principles at work here.

Ohh I see whats going on now. Yeah nevermind I didnt understand what was going on.

Eh, I dont know. It doesnt seem like a system only one state can enact. If California were to vote 100% dem their votes shouldnt go repub. I think a system like Nebraska and Maine have would make more sense, but the states that give a small number of votes might reject it.The compact wouldn't go into effect untill there were enough collective electoral votes between the participating states to decide the election. It would be a collective effort between at least 11 states, if not a great many more.

personally, i find the idea that a mere 11 states could effectively abolish the electoral college to be funny. what was that noise about "protecting small states" again?

what? i think you misunderstand the principles at work here.
No. Under the current system, they have no hope of any real authority or influence in the Presidential election. With the right mix of other states, they will regain the control or atleast a fighting chance.

No. Under the current system, they have no hope of any real authority or influence in the Presidential election. With the right mix of other states, they will regain the control or atleast a fighting chance.
As said before, this isn't just California. It is at LEAST 11 states. Additionally, it doesn't change the fact that if the popular vote went republican, then Californias electorals would go republican.

And every person should have influence and authority over an election. That would be the point of a democracy, no?

No. Under the current system, they have no hope of any real authority or influence in the Presidential election. With the right mix of other states, they will regain the control or atleast a fighting chance.

now i know you don't understand the principles at work here

NY republicans would want it for the same reason everyone else does. It isn't always about gaining an advantage (despite the fact that it usually is). Under the most recent example of popular vote contradicting electoral votes, yes, the dems would have come out on top. However, with the close elections of recent years at all levels, it is impossible to predict who would benefit when. The current system is breeding apathy. I know that my vote means nothing. CT is always fairly heavily democrat. There is no real need for me to vote, as my vote only impacts which elector goes from my state. Even then, the elector can change who he votes for (and it has happened before)

There is no reason why we should not vote directly for the president, seeing as we already directly vote for every other elected official. The current system is grossly outdated, and I think both sides are coming to see that.Imagine the outcry for this sort of solution if Kerry had won Ohio--he'd be the President and would have lost the popular vote by the largest margin ever in that situation. That's why Republicans ought to want this system in place--because it could benefit them too.

The one real objection to the plan that I've seen--and it's a legitimate one--is that all the system really does is switch the power from rural areas to urban ones. Since the goal would then be to reach the most people with the smallest amount of effort, candidates would concentrate on cities for votes, and would neglect rural areas. As a Democrat, I believe this would favor my party, so from a partisan perspective, I consider that a feature, not a bug. Others would no doubt disagree.

The counter argument to that point of view is that a savvy candidate could run on a platform of sweeping rural America and then try to pick off just enough support in urban areas to carry the day. It's a workable strategy, I believe, but not an easy one.

The counter argument to that point of view is that a savvy candidate could run on a platform of sweeping rural America and then try to pick off just enough support in urban areas to carry the day. It's a workable strategy, I believe, but not an easy one.

i don't know, it seems to work for the republicans alright. if they manage to hold the coalition together in the face of their increasingly obvious internal contradictions, it might continue to do so.

plus what it really would do is shift the deciding power from 'swing cities' in swing states to urban areas more generally.

i don't know, it seems to work for the republicans alright. if they manage to hold the coalition together in the face of their increasingly obvious internal contradictions, it might continue to do so.

plus what it really would do is shift the deciding power from 'swing cities' in swing states to urban areas more generally.
Right now it's an easier strategy for them because of the electoral votes in the winner take all system--but do you think that maybe Democrats will put a little more money into GOTV efforts in places like Helena or Billings under this system? Sure, because while in the past, it made little sense to campaign in Montana, under this program it would matter, because the race is to the total number of votes. It's less important where they come from. And the Republicans would spend a little more time in places like San Diego or even NYC, for precisely the same reason.

Going to a straight popular vote would be a horrible system.

If nothing else, think about this one word: recount.

Were we to switch to a straight popular vote, the campaign really would turn into the lowest common denominator of the major cities – everything else would be greatly ignored.

Why would this in any way boost voter turnout? It might decrease voter turnout because now people think their vote counts as even less than before – why bother trying to get a few of their neighbors in Podunk Kansas out to move on some issue when you don’t have a hope of countering downtown LA?

Elect me – I will enslave all farmers to produce free food for city dwellers!
Seriously though, you really would have an executive entirely geared toward a couple cities and suburbia. That’s it.

Montana: Might as well not exist.
Alaska: Where?
Wyoming: Why not?

Not to mention it then becomes so much easier for fraud to influence the vote – the zombie vote will really come out in every small town in America.

A good step might be to apportion the electoral votes to reflect the popular vote within that state. Maine and Nebraska have a winner takes all approach, just divided into each chunk of the state. How about a proportional representation? You get a portion of the electoral votes equal to the portion of the popular vote within the state? This way you get a balance between keeping state power and popular vote.

Imagine the outcry for this sort of solution if Kerry had won Ohio--he'd be the President and would have lost the popular vote by the largest margin ever in that situation. That's why Republicans ought to want this system in place--because it could benefit them too.

The one real objection to the plan that I've seen--and it's a legitimate one--is that all the system really does is switch the power from rural areas to urban ones. Since the goal would then be to reach the most people with the smallest amount of effort, candidates would concentrate on cities for votes, and would neglect rural areas. As a Democrat, I believe this would favor my party, so from a partisan perspective, I consider that a feature, not a bug. Others would no doubt disagree.

The counter argument to that point of view is that a savvy candidate could run on a platform of sweeping rural America and then try to pick off just enough support in urban areas to carry the day. It's a workable strategy, I believe, but not an easy one.
I agree on the weakness of this system...and the partisan view, but i have no doubt that republicans would campaign rural areas heavily.
A good candidate would have a grass-roots effort such as that by dean. In the age of the internet, there is no reason you couldn't easily get your message everywhere in the nation.

I do wonder...would this stop the idea of swing state, only to create swing cities?

Going to a straight popular vote would be a horrible system.

If nothing else, think about this one word: recount.You mean they might actually have to count everyones votes?! Heaven forbid!

Were we to switch to a straight popular vote, the campaign really would turn into the lowest common denominator of the major cities – everything else would be greatly ignored. Thats a legitimate fear. And I agree that could happen. But a smart politician would realize that rural america would be largely ignored, and could easily campaign that area through emails and such.

Why would this in any way boost voter turnout? It might decrease voter turnout because now people think their vote counts as even less than before – why bother trying to get a few of their neighbors in Podunk Kansas out to move on some issue when you don’t have a hope of countering downtown LA?
What is the point in voting today? I know my state will go democrat in national elections, and my vote doesn't even go for the guy I want in office. I elect the person whom I want to then have elect the person I want to run the nation. And that person who I actually elected? They can change their vote at any time. Feel the power of the system.
Elect me – I will enslave all farmers to produce free food for city dwellers!
Seriously though, you really would have an executive entirely geared toward a couple cities and suburbia. That’s it. As opposed to the current system where they are geared to one or two states? At the very worst, they are equal evils.

Montana: Might as well not exist.
Alaska: Where?
Wyoming: Why not?when is the last time anyone actually worried about any of those three states? The past two elections came down to a single state. Florida in 00, Ohio in 04. a few votes in either of those states easily erased every vote cast in Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming combined.

Not to mention it then becomes so much easier for fraud to influence the vote – the zombie vote will really come out in every small town in America.perhaps it is time to modernize our election systems? Hell, even the Iraq system of inking a finger is better than our current controls over fraud.

A good step might be to apportion the electoral votes to reflect the popular vote within that state. Maine and Nebraska have a winner takes all approach, just divided into each chunk of the state. How about a proportional representation? You get a portion of the electoral votes equal to the portion of the popular vote within the state? This way you get a balance between keeping state power and popular vote.Better than what we have? yes. But what about those small states you were worried about? Who is going to campaign to maybe win 1 electoral vote? Alaska is huge...there is no way you could campaign the entire state and guarentee you win all 3 votes even.

I do wonder...would this stop the idea of swing state, only to create swing cities?

nah, because winning or losing any particular city by a small margin won't have the hugely distorting effect that winner-take-all state blocks does.

As opposed to the current system where they are geared to one or two states? At the very worst, they are equal evils.

when is the last time anyone actually worried about any of those three states? The past two elections came down to a single state. Florida in 00, Ohio in 04. a few votes in either of those states easily erased every vote cast in Montana, Alaska, and Wyoming combined.

yep. idaho is rather fucked under either system, and will be until it has more people in it or the u.s. gives up on even pretending to do the approximately equal weight voting thing. but direct elections would at least spread things out to the rest of the population that basically doesn't count.

And every person should have influence and authority over an election. That would be the point of a democracy, no?
You must be thinking of somewhere with a fair and intelligent political system.

Although it's not my place to dictate to Americans how to run their country, I think it's an abomination that the president is not voted in democratically. The fact that a Wyoming citizen's vote is worth more than a New Yorker's is a disgrace.

You must be thinking of somewhere with a fair and intelligent political system.
silly me;)

I want to start by saying that I'm torn on this issue--I'm undecided as to whether this is the best way to change the system or if the system needs changing, quite frankly, but it's an interesting idea and I'd like to hear and engage in some debate on the issue. This is another one of those issues that shouldn't be a partisan one, even though it involves politics.

There's a national move on to change the way electoral votes are apportioned. The US Constitution only says that the states get to decide how to apportion their votes, and all but two use the "first past the post" system--Nebraska and Maine apportion them according to the percentage won in the state congressional districts. To change the system nationwide to allow for the direct election of presidents would require a constitutional amendment, and frankly, I don't think there's the will to get that done, so some people have devised an interesting way to get around that issue (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-me-vote31may31,1,7954080.story?coll=la-headlines-politics).

So the idea would be that once enough states sign on to control enough votes to elect the President in the College, they'd all be bound by this compact, but not before. This would make the election of the President a contest of the popular vote instead of the electoral one, since all the states would vote for the popular vote winner instead of the winner of their individual states.

So what do you think? Do you like the reform? Do you worry that it will put too much power in the hands of urban areas with large concentrations of voters? Is that enough to make it worth the chance that the winner of the popular vote won't be the president?

Please, let's keep partisanship out of this discussion as much as possible.

An interesting idea on paper - but lord help them the first time the Electorals have to vote contrary to their own population's vote. Imagine if NY and CA had cast their electoral votes for Bush in 04...

I think the electoral college is just fine the way it is. There would be no justice in populous states strong-arming the smaller ones every election - and I live in a large state with the fastest growing electoral influence.

An interesting idea on paper - but lord help them the first time the Electorals have to vote contrary to their own population's vote.

why? do you expect the 60%+ of the population that opposes the very existence of the electoral college to get angry when the electoral college results always match the national popular results?

Under a bill passed by the Assembly, California would join an interstate compact in which states would agree to cast their electoral votes not for the winner in their jurisdictions but for the winner nationwide. Proponents say that would force candidates to broaden their reach to major population centers such as California.

California already plays a huge role in the national elections. It plays the biggest role in fact. It has the most electoral votes of any state. How could it play any bigger of a role?

California already plays a huge role in the national elections. It plays the biggest role in fact. It has the most electoral votes of any state. How could it play any bigger of a role?
Its role is diminished by the fact that it's a safe state, much as Texas's is. Democrats currently only go to Texas to raise money, and the same goes for Republicans going to New York or California. A situation like the one described in this thread would make it worth actually campaigning in those states--at least for the voters. The candidates would probably look at it as a hassle.

Its role is diminished by the fact that it's a safe state, much as Texas's is. Democrats currently only go to Texas to raise money, and the same goes for Republicans going to New York or California. A situation like the one described in this thread would make it worth actually campaigning in those states--at least for the voters. The candidates would probably look at it as a hassle.


This idea has the same merit as eliminating the senate.

This idea has the same merit as eliminating the senate.
It's not even close to being the same thing. This reformation of the electoral college system would only affect presidential elections. The Senate affects considerably more than that.

It's not even close to being the same thing. This reformation of the electoral college system would only affect presidential elections. The Senate affects considerably more than that.


You're forgetting the most important part - how it affects the people from the states they represent. Eliminating the Senate would have the same effect on the people from small states as changing the electoral college would - resulting in them being virtually unrepresented.

You're forgetting the most important part - how it affects the people from the states they represent. Eliminating the Senate would have the same effect on the people from small states as changing the electoral college would - resulting in them being virtually unrepresented.

but i thought you guys are holding that bush won the popular vote last time...

California already plays a huge role in the national elections. It plays the biggest role in fact. It has the most electoral votes of any state. How could it play any bigger of a role?
But no one goes there. That is the problem with the electoral college system, it solidifies one of the problems people say it alleviates - candidates avoiding certain areas for lack of effect on the election. California is a guaranteed blue state. The Republicans don't need to go there more than once for show because they have no chance. Even the Democratic candidate may only go two to four times.

You're forgetting the most important part - how it affects the people from the states they represent. Eliminating the Senate would have the same effect on the people from small states as changing the electoral college would - resulting in them being virtually unrepresented.
That is bullshit fearmongering put forward by people who don't look at the system as a whole and therefore know jack squat.

Why don't we just abolish it? IT's much easier...what you say keeps it even though it wont do anything...you always have 538 electoral votes for president.

Why don't we just abolish it? IT's much easier

no, it's not. that would require a constitutional amendment, which requires vastly more work than the proposed method. this can be done by 11 states, even if everyone else strongly objected, while abolishing the electoral college entirely requires the support of 38 states and 2/3 of both houses of congress.

But no one goes there. That is the problem with the electoral college system, it solidifies one of the problems people say it alleviates - candidates avoiding certain areas for lack of effect on the election. California is a guaranteed blue state. The Republicans don't need to go there more than once for show because they have no chance. Even the Democratic candidate may only go two to four times.


That is bullshit fearmongering put forward by people who don't look at the system as a whole and therefore know jack squat.

I have more knowlege of the Electoral system within the grogans stuck to my butthair than you'll accumulate in your entire life.

There - see - My insults are far superior to yours and yet neither of us has contributed anything to this thread. Now I just feel dirty - like you should.

but i thought you guys are holding that bush won the popular vote last time...

What are you talking about?

no, it's not. that would require a constitutional amendment, which requires vastly more work than the proposed method. this can be done by 11 states, even if everyone else strongly objected, while abolishing the electoral college entirely requires the support of 38 states and 2/3 of both houses of congress.

Hehe - yes -- why bother with little details like the constitution.

Like I said - beyond the sheer audacity of the plan as well as then logistics - god help the poor delegats from California, NY etc. who would have had to vote for Bush in 04. They'd be up to their EYEBALLS in litigation. Doubt me - what party do most lawyers belong to?

You're forgetting the most important part - how it affects the people from the states they represent. Eliminating the Senate would have the same effect on the people from small states as changing the electoral college would - resulting in them being virtually unrepresented.
Again--how? Simply saying it doesn't make it true. The two aren't remotely similar. Small states--especially those with denser populations--won't be affected in the least. The entire eastern seaboard falls into that category (both blue and red states)--politicians will still be all over those areas. And the lower population states will still be hit, probably with more advertising than with visits because they can cover more ground that way. But under this system, votes will be votes, no matter where thet come from.

Sounds to me like you're just trying to hold on to a system that currently favors your side.

I believe the electoral college shows no real purpose. I don't see why the public can't just cast it's ballot and then somone adds it up and wallah, we see who the winner is.

Again--how? Simply saying it doesn't make it true. The two aren't remotely similar. Small states--especially those with denser populations--won't be affected in the least. The entire eastern seaboard falls into that category (both blue and red states)--politicians will still be all over those areas. And the lower population states will still be hit, probably with more advertising than with visits because they can cover more ground that way. But under this system, votes will be votes, no matter where thet come from.

Sounds to me like you're just trying to hold on to a system that currently favors your side.

You don't even know my side - so don't presume to know me.

You have simply ignored the validity of my observation - that if we don't need the electoral college we don't need senators either. If we are to rule solely by popular vote then the senate is considerably out of step with that...

You don't even know my side - so don't presume to know me.

You have simply ignored the validity of my observation - that if we don't need the electoral college we don't need senators either. If we are to rule solely by popular vote then the senate is considerably out of step with that...
One does not follow from the other--that's the point you've never addressed. The Senate is there to balance out the House legislatively--that's it. The electoral college has a completely different function. Why you refuse to acknowledge that simple difference is beyond me, because it's a basic one, not difficult to understand.

I absolutely hate the idea of California hinging it's electoral votes upon those of other States.

Id be for carving the state up into districts of population with each district representing one vote. I realise this is just begging for gerrymandering to occur but I prefer this possibility to the all or nothing system we use now.

End the Electoral College now!!! Direct votes! One person one vote!

Hehe - yes -- why bother with little details like the constitution.

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

looks like it's in the clear.

Like I said - beyond the sheer audacity of the plan as well as then logistics - god help the poor delegats from California, NY etc. who would have had to vote for Bush in 04. They'd be up to their EYEBALLS in litigation. Doubt me - what party do most lawyers belong to?

litigation about what? following the law and making presidential elections into direct elections (which 60+% of people have consistently wanted since they started being polled on it decades ago)?

One does not follow from the other--that's the point you've never addressed. The Senate is there to balance out the House legislatively--that's it. The electoral college has a completely different function. Why you refuse to acknowledge that simple difference is beyond me, because it's a basic one, not difficult to understand.


You are part-right. The Senate (compoed of two senators per state regardless of population) was DESIGNED to balance out the house (consisting of representatives whos numbers are based on a States population) both of which constitue the legislative branch. Allowing for popular as well as impliit voice to carry relatively equal weight. Just as the electoral college was DESIGNED to balance out the states with popular as well as implicit power for the executive branch. Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge that simple fact is beyound me because it's a basic one, not difficult to understand.

litigation about what? following the law and making presidential elections into direct elections (which 60+% of people have consistently wanted since they started being polled on it decades ago)?


If 60+% of people wanted that then we'd have it now, wouldn't we... :rolleyes: unless you figure those 60% are all from the places where power already resides and they just want to strip smaller population centers of what power they have remaining...

For all it's glaring and obvious faults I still prefer to keep the electoral college on the grounds that I like States to have as much power independent of federal power as possible. Smaller population States now have a little more sway than they would when electing a president than they would if it was merely popular vote. I think this is a good thing. I live in California which is the most populous State. This means my individual vote has less worth in a presidential election than any other State due to the way the electoral college is constructed. So be it. I dont want California to have any more sway over say, Wyoming, than it has right now.

Viewpoints may vary of course but there are some valid and sensible reasons to keep the electoral college.

If 60+% of people wanted that then we'd have it now, wouldn't we... :rolleyes:

why the fuck would anyone who pays any attention at all think that? there's all sorts of ridiculously popular shit that we don't have. like the ban on assault weapons (71% supported continuing it, and yet off it went). or universal healthcare (62% support and steady for years). or ratifying the kyoto treaty (it's at 61%, last i heard). or a federal minimum wage at least $2 higher (fucking 83% for that one).

Slightly off-topic, but help for an ignorant foreigner would be greatly appreciated...

If Congress is controlled by the Democrats and the executive is formed by the Republicans, how does anything get done?


The US does VASTLY better when one party isn't in total control. The last six years the Republicans have had absolute power. See where it's got us? Before that they had Congress but Democrats had the oval office. The result was often deadlock, but the country did much better.

Bush has NEVER vetoed a bill. Ever. Not a single one. I think Clinton took the veto stamper.

Every vast spending bill, every bit of big government law that's come out in the last six years has been personally approved by the Shrubbery in Chief. Right now Republicans are trying to run away from their record. It's both amusing and pathetic.

Smaller population States now have a little more sway than they would when electing a president than they would if it was merely popular vote.

which explains why it would be possible for a candidate to completely sweep 39 states (and 1 district) and fall just under a plurality in the remaining 11 and not become president.

the electoral college actually makes big population states count even more than they should due to the winner-take-all system.

which explains why it would be possible for a candidate to completely sweep 39 states (and 1 district) and fall just under a plurality in the remaining 11 and not become president.

the electoral college actually makes big population states count even more than they should due to the winner-take-all system.

Not all States are winner take all.

why the fuck would anyone who pays any attention at all think that? there's all sorts of ridiculously popular shit that we don't have. like the ban on assault weapons (71% supported continuing it, and yet off it went). or universal healthcare (62% support and steady for years). or ratifying the kyoto treaty (it's at 61%, last i heard). or a federal minimum wage at least $2 higher (fucking 83% for that one).

But 89% think Elvis is alive, 76% believe in UFOs, only 3% make up statistics and 129% think you're a fucking moron... so what's that proove?