NationStates Jolt Archive

The Electoral College is a disease. It was born out of the government's lack of faith in it's constituents. As we all know, it was a system set in place to protect ourselves from our own ignorance, the government imposed ignorance. The poulace has never been stupid, and if they were it could only be due to some sort of supression of information, either governmental or religious. Of course we had it coming back then because we did little to stop it , remember the cogent observation of de Tocqueville, "The people get the government they deserve." But as free press has evolved and now with open weblogs and streaming video from around the world, information cannot be stopped, and if we were ever ignorant of key issues, or unable to obtain relevent information in order to make informed decisions, we certainly aren't now.
Thus, at least the Electoral College is outdated, but I ventured that it was a disease, suggesting foul work and spreading of uneasiness. Well, the Electoral College could be viewed as one of the major reasons citizens do not vote, but of course not directly. A main cause of low voter turn-out has consitently been lack of confidence in one of the two choices, in other terms, Americans hate the duopoly of Repulicans and Democrats as their only two force-fed choices. The Electoral college facilitates this because what it was designed to do was to take each state individually, count its votes and award a set number (based on population) of votes entirely to one party, the winning party. What this does, in effect, is filter out the non-contenders, and keeps them at the status of a non-contender by not allowing them any vote on the main stage.
The Electoral College also alienates certain minority voters in a number of established political regions;- take Texas as an example, any voter even wishing for the Democratic party to win nationally, has no realistic chance of improving his chosen candidate's chances of winning by voting, simply because Texas is a "Red State," everyone knows it, and will be until some unforseeable future date. So by this type of disenfranchising of voters, the Government ensures that the race will always be predictable to a point, and slighlty manipulatable. We deserve better.
One theory -- They want to hold onto it because in the future they may need it for same puposes in the world government, so if it were shown to be outdated/obsolete in USA then it would also be in any other gov't: sets a precedent, the people are ignorant.

Wow, a thread like this in a non-election year. I'm impressed. Anywho, I always thought that the Electoral College was set up both as a fail-safe, in case the people really wanted to elect the "wrong guy," and as a means of electing someone without having to count all the votes, which was difficult before technology (and even harder with it, but that's another thread for another day.) It's still in force because the Constitution would have to be amended to get rid of it, and the people haven't demanded such a thing with that much force. Besides, it works to enough small states' advantage that getting 13 states to vote "no" on such an amendment isn't difficult.

People are also used to a "good guy vs. bad guy" mentality in the elections. Democrats support their guy to the end; Republicans do the same. People back a presidential candidate they don't like because they want to win; it's the same reason people support a football coach they don't like - because he's on their team. Take that out of politics, and you take out the winning and losing as people know it. Suddenly, it's harder for their "team" to win, with so many parties contending. Plus, people get confused with all the available choice, and many frustrated citizens still don't bother voting.

The other extreme, however, is seen as intolerable; people want the right to vote, even if they choose not to exercise it. People want freedom, but they want the ability to use their freedom to take away others' freedom. They also want to be able to abstain from that freedom. It's America, and it's insane.

wow you have 0 posts.

I'm in favor of the Electoral College. Reason is simple. It gives the rural (less populated areas) a voice to be heard. What's the point in a Democracy if one group of people have no voice for policy change or lawmaking.

By eliminating the electoral votes and strictly go by the populous votes the only voices to be heard would be New York City, Los Angeles, Jacksonville, and so on and by doing so you are saying the Hell with everybody else. The electoral votes kind of makes it a level playing field instead of slanting it in favor of the well-populated cities.

I'm in favor of the Electoral College. Reason is simple. It gives the rural (less populated areas) a voice to be heard. What's the point in a Democracy if one group of people have no voice for policy change or lawmaking.

By eliminating the electoral votes and strictly go by the populous votes the only voices to be heard would be New York City, Los Angeles, Jacksonville, and so on and by doing so you are saying the Hell with everybody else. The electoral votes kind of makes it a level playing field instead of slanting it in favor of the well-populated cities.

We'd be better off with Run-Off voting.

The real reason the system is not going to change is that it favors both the main parties so it would be idiotic for them to change it. Actually, I don't really see the college as that big of a problem, sure, it distorts votes a little but the way congress is selected is much worse, and a much bigger problem. Seriously, who stupid dumb fuck decided that an elected official gets to draw the borders?

I've been working on a seriously weird system for choosing people for the legislature that represents the most people the best way without any of the inefficiencies of all the existing systems. Tell me what you think:

There are NO election districts, all candidates are voted from a nation-wide pool. The 435 ones with the most votes are chosen for the congress, the ones that didn't make it get to transfer their votes to anyone who did make it. When voting for a law, and any other purposes, the votes of the congressmen are NOT equal, rather every one of them votes with the votes of all those who voted for him(and the votes transferred to him).

This system has several advantages, just few examples:
-The vote of everyone everywhere is equal.
-It would break the lock the two behemoth parties have on US. For example the libertarians would turn into a very sizable very important party in one night.
-No more gerrymandering.

Fried Tuna;12221007']The real reason the system is not going to change is that it favors both the main parties so it would be idiotic for them to change it. Actually, I don't really see the college as that big of a problem, sure, it distorts votes a little but the way congress is selected is much worse, and a much bigger problem. Seriously, who stupid dumb fuck decided that an elected official gets to draw the borders?

I've been working on a seriously weird system for choosing people for the legislature that represents the most people the best way without any of the inefficiencies of all the existing systems. Tell me what you think:

There are NO election districts, all candidates are voted from a nation-wide pool. The 435 ones with the most votes are chosen for the congress, the ones that didn't make it get to transfer their votes to anyone who did make it. When voting for a law, and any other purposes, the votes of the congressmen are NOT equal, rather every one of them votes with the votes of all those who voted for him(and the votes transferred to him).

This system has several advantages, just few examples:
-The vote of everyone everywhere is equal.
-It would break the lock the two behemoth parties have on US. For example the libertarians would turn into a very sizable very important party in one night.
-No more gerrymandering.

A buddy of mine was telling me about a thing very similar to this that some cities and counties are already using in local elections. It was called fair voting, or fair elections... something like that.

I'm in favor of the Electoral College. Reason is simple. It gives the rural (less populated areas) a voice to be heard. What's the point in a Democracy if one group of people have no voice for policy change or lawmaking.

By eliminating the electoral votes and strictly go by the populous votes the only voices to be heard would be New York City, Los Angeles, Jacksonville, and so on and by doing so you are saying the Hell with everybody else. The electoral votes kind of makes it a level playing field instead of slanting it in favor of the well-populated cities.

...Which is bad if you think cities and territories should be equal, instead of people being equal.

I find the concept ridiculous. Let's turn it upside down. Why should someone living in Montana have more say on US laws than one living in New York? Should not voting be an equal right, not one where the ones living more sparsely are potentially three-four times more heard than the ones living in a city?

Fried Tuna;12221030']...Which is bad if you think cities and territories should be equal, instead of people being equal.

I find the concept ridiculous. Let's turn it upside down. Why should someone living in Montana have more say on US laws than one living in New York? Should not voting be an equal right, not one where the ones living more sparsely are potentially three-four times more heard than the ones living in a city?

Exactly (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=505332).

Urban areas skew overwhelmingly Democratic, and city-dwellers outnumber suburban and rural people. However, because of this voting district mess, that electoral power is isolated and diluted. It's inherently unfair.

Fried Tuna;12221030']...Which is bad if you think cities and territories should be equal, instead of people being equal.

I find the concept ridiculous. Let's turn it upside down. Why should someone living in Montana have more say on US laws than one living in New York? Should not voting be an equal right, not one where the ones living more sparsely are potentially three-four times more heard than the ones living in a city?

Well, more than likely, the way you seem to want it is is to have the cities be in elected offices forever and do you think that city slickers are going to be fair in regards to the rural areas? Do you think that city dwellers will pass policies that might possibly be fair or effects the rural areas? I seriously doubt this. Anyways, how many electoral votes does a rural area get? 1 or 2. while more populated areas have more. Sounds fair to me.

Fried Tuna;12221030']...Which is bad if you think cities and territories should be equal, instead of people being equal.

If the US were a unitary state I would agree completely. However, since we're still a federal republic I'm in favor of the Electoral College.

The EC was created to balance the power of the large states like Virginia with smaller states. And since 1824 when electors were first elected by popular vote instead of by the States themselves there has been only three times when the winner of the EC has not also won the popular vote either as a majority or a plurality. Those being the election of John Q. Adams over Andrew Jackson in 1824, Hayes over Tilden in 1876 (which took a special committee to decide the election due to two slates of electors being selected from Florida) and George W. Bush over Gore in 2000.

The claim that Democratic voters in say Texas (which shows the author's bias on the subject) won't matter could also be claimed if you went to a pure popular vote. The campaigns would be concentrated on large states--actually on large urban areas in large states. A place like Vermont would be ignored. Now, usually, places like Vermont are ignored anyway, but in a close election Vermont can become the kingmaker. This would never be the case in a popular system.

Also can you imagine the chaos in a close election like 2000? Instead of lawsuits in one state and a few counties you would have law suits in every state and every county and every precinct as the loser tried to "harvest" enough votes to over come say a 500,000 gap between him and the projected winner.

All one has to do to imagine this is look at the Taiwan presidential election in 2004. Where Chen won by only .23%. An election that close in 2000 in the US would have been only 234,600 votes spread over 50 states. How many lawsuits would be filed for a recount because now even if you say lost New York by 1.5 million votes, as did George Bush in 2000, you only need to harvest less than 5000 votes per state to give you victory. An extra 1/10th of 1 percent gives you 7000 extra votes in New York.

You should thank whatever deity you worship that the EC saved you from that fate in 2000 (and perhaps 2004 as well). Thanks to the courts and the lawyers the US still might not have a president by now if that had been the case.

The real reason most people don't like the EC is because they don't like the results it brought in 2000. If the situation would have been reversed and Gore had won few would be complaining now about the EC. Three times in a 180 years doesn't really cry out for change in my mind.

Even if the EC was created to stop the dumb-masses from voting for the president there is good reason. How many Americans can name all nine Justices of the Supreme Court? Or how many know there are nine of them? Or can name the three branches of the government? It will be well under 50%.

The Electoral College is a disease. It was born out of the government's lack of faith in it's constituents. As we all know, it was a system set in place to protect ourselves from our own ignorance, the government imposed ignorance.

Speaking of ignorance. The Electoral College was imposed in a time of relative technological dark age. The spread of information was slow and unreliable, thus people couldn't get information about the candidates at all or in time for an election. This is moot now.

The EC was created to balance the power of the large states like Virginia with smaller states.
Another now moot factor. At that time Virginia (the largest state) only had 6 more electors (or 3x the amount) than the smallest state. Now states like California have nearly 20 as many electors as the smaller states.

Even if the EC was created to stop the dumb-masses from voting for the president there is good reason. How many Americans can name all nine Justices of the Supreme Court? Or how many know there are nine of them? Or can name the three branches of the government? It will be well under 50%.
The Electoral College is not an intelligence test. Do the electors know that information? Do you even know who your electors are?

Even if the EC was created to stop the dumb-masses from voting for the president there is good reason. How many Americans can name all nine Justices of the Supreme Court? Or how many know there are nine of them? Or can name the three branches of the government? It will be well under 50%.


People have the right to vote. Responsible persons will vote whilst making an informed decision (well as informed as possible since everybody changes their platform after they get elected anyways). This does not mean making an informed decision is compulsary. The electoral college's vote should mirror their constituents votes. I can name the 3 branches of government but i can only name 3 of the Supreme Court Justices. Does this make me not qualified to vote? That's just inane.

Your knowledge about politics or literature doesn't determine your intelligence. Nor should it determine whether you have the right to vote. Isn't that part of liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Isaac Asimov said that he was intelligent only according to those persons in academia because they're who made the tests that say so. Whereas his auto-mechanic was not. However had a group of mechanics made a test to determine intelligence he would have failed quit miserably. While his mechanic would have been a genius. (This is a paraphrase I'm sure someone out there has it memorized or will look it up and tell me if I missed the point.)

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're trying to say.

In any case Dumb-masses are people too I say equal rights for Dumb-masses.

In any case Dumb-masses are people too I say equal rights for Dumb-masses.

If lying and deceiving to gain their votes and support becomes punishable by death - agreed.

Well, more than likely, the way you seem to want it is is to have the cities be in elected offices forever and do you think that city slickers are going to be fair in regards to the rural areas? Do you think that city dwellers will pass policies that might possibly be fair or effects the rural areas? I seriously doubt this. Anyways, how many electoral votes does a rural area get? 1 or 2. while more populated areas have more. Sounds fair to me.

Rural states get at least 3. And the electoral college only elects the president and vice president, last time I heard. And just because someone is from the city doesn't mean that all the city people would vote for him, unless the voters are dumber than I thought. Getting rid of the electoral college, as far as I know it, does not get rid of the senate nor the house districts already in place. The electoral college, though, includes all of the representatives and all the senators.

... All one has to do to imagine this is look at the Taiwan presidential election in 2004. Where Chen won by only .23%. An election that close in 2000 in the US would have been only 234,600 votes spread over 50 states. How many lawsuits would be filed for a recount because now even if you say lost New York by 1.5 million votes, as did George Bush in 2000, you only need to harvest less than 5000 votes per state to give you victory. An extra 1/10th of 1 percent gives you 7000 extra votes in New York. ...

We actually had one closer than that in 1960. Kennedy beat Nixon by 112,827 votes in the popular count, which is 0.165% of the total votes cast for both of them. Of course, Kennedy won the EC votes by 303 to 219, with 15 electors in various states going unpledged. A swing of a bit over 9,000 votes in Missouri and Illinois would have given those states to Nixon and neither man would have had a majority in the EC; another 2,000 votes or so for Nixon in New Jersey and he would have won. Here's a link to a really interesting site on US election results (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/).

Do the electors know that information? Do you even know who your electors are?

Electors are almost without exception top officials within the State party (e.g. Ex-Governors, and the like). Each party has a slate of electors, so if the GOP wins the GOP slate (15 in my case) vote for the GOP candidate--the Democrats, the LP, Reform, etc would each have their slate of 15.

In most cases the electors are required to vote for the candidate that won the state--in some cases there is the chance of faithless electors, but since the electors that get to vote are members of the party that won that state, it is very rare this happens--some examples are Mississippi and Alabama in 1960.

Who the electors are changes from election to election. And since their vote is based on the popular vote it doesn't matter if you know who they are--but most states print the names of the electors on the ballot and this information is avaliable before the election.

As for information being moot. I disagree. Many many stupid people in the US they get to vote but have no business anywhere near a voting booth.

People always pipe up about the right to vote--true. But there is also a responsibility in voting too--e.g. knowing who the candidates are, what the issues are, etc not voting for someone just because a person has a D or a L or a R next to their name.

During the 2000 meltdown, one person selected option #2 on his ballot to find out later that #2=Pat Buchanan. He complained that #2 was always the Democratic candidate. Well shouldn't he have read the ballot? Does this fool have any business voting? I'd say no.

As for voting machines. Many of the left and the right oppose them as do I. Punch cards were used for decades all over the US. Again it is your responsibilty to make sure the "chads" were 100% detached from the card. If the voter can't follow this simple step, I am not going to shed any tears that his vote won't be counted. We should go back to the punch cards and if any card has issues like pregnant chads, that vote for that office will simply be discarded.

Of course in Meilidao, we don't have elections.

So you don't know who your electors are and you don't know if they could answer any of your questions about government.

Rural states get at least 3. And the electoral college only elects the president and vice president, last time I heard. And just because someone is from the city doesn't mean that all the city people would vote for him, unless the voters are dumber than I thought. Getting rid of the electoral college, as far as I know it, does not get rid of the senate nor the house districts already in place. The electoral college, though, includes all of the representatives and all the senators.

Quite right. In the House, representation is a function of population, so less populous states have less pull, which is what the Founders wanted. In the Senate, where every state has two votes, things are a little more even. Senators from the smaller states can become powers there and have an effect on legislation sent over from the House. It balances rather nicely, I think.

We actually had one closer than that in 1960. Kennedy beat Nixon by 112,827 votes in the popular count, which is 0.165% of the total votes cast for both of them.


But unlike Taiwan in 2004, the US had the EC--just as it did in other close ones like 1968, 1976 and 2000. Nixon could have (and should have) challeneged Texas and Illinois, but with the EC he wouldn't have to challenge every state, every county or every precinct to make up the votes. In a close election today, you only need to challenge the states where the challenge will make a difference in the outcome of the EC (e.g. Florida 2000) not every state. Bush for example did not challenge New Mexico in 2000 even though there were grounds--because NM didn't matter--only Florida did. If Bush challenged and won NM and lost Florida, Gore would still have become president.

But unlike Taiwan in 2004, the US had the EC--just as it did in other close ones like 1968, 1976 and 2000. Nixon could have (and should have) challeneged Texas and Illinois, but with the EC he wouldn't have to challenge every state, every county or every precinct to make up the votes. In a close election today, you only need to challenge the states where the challenge will make a difference in the outcome of the EC (e.g. Florida 2000) not every state. Bush for example did not challenge New Mexico in 2000 even though there were grounds--because NM didn't matter--only Florida did. If Bush challenged and won NM and lost Florida, Gore would still have become president.

True, I was being picky. We do agree on keeping the EC, I think. At least, I think we should.

Oh, and that site I linked in my post up above is actually pretty cool, if you like that sort of statistical thing.

But unlike Taiwan in 2004, the US had the EC--just as it did in other close ones like 1968, 1976 and 2000. Nixon could have (and should have) challeneged Texas and Illinois, but with the EC he wouldn't have to challenge every state, every county or every precinct to make up the votes. In a close election today, you only need to challenge the states where the challenge will make a difference in the outcome of the EC (e.g. Florida 2000) not every state. Bush for example did not challenge New Mexico in 2000 even though there were grounds--because NM didn't matter--only Florida did. If Bush challenged and won NM and lost Florida, Gore would still have become president.

You are pretending that the Electoral College system makes every little local election imaginary, it doesn't. Those elections still happen, and they individually can still screw up or not. Your whole contention for the Electoral College is based on a false premise.

So you don't know who your electors are and you don't know if they could answer any of your questions about government.

Since the parties have yet to select the electors, I do not know who they are for 2008. But for the Democrats they would be people like Roy Barnes, Mark Taylor, Cathy Cox and other heavy weights in the Democratic Party and the same goes for the other parties.

They almost always vote as the popular vote demands they vote. You have to go back to 1976 and 1988 to find an elector to vote against the wishes of his state--an elector voting for Ronald Reagan from Washington State. And 1988 when a faithless elector voted for Lloyd Benson over Dukakis from WV. Since 1976 there has been 4304 electors and 4302 have voted for the candidates that the popular vote of their state directed them to vote for--that is 99.95% of the time. So being professional pols, they no doubt will have a deep understanding of the political system unlike the unwashed masses. But since they again 99.95% of the time vote in line with the popular vote and even when they don't vote in line with the popular vote it has zero effect on the outcome of the election, my concern about what they know about the issues and policies is less than those unwashed masses that vote and have no idea what they are doing....unlike the electors their voting does influence who wins and who loses.

As for the EC causing less people to vote. Good. We have in my view too many people voting as it is--too many people that have no idea why they are voting for this or that person. They know they have the right to vote but forget the part about the responsibility of knowing the issues and the candidates, etc.

As for those crying about democracy, the US was never intended to be a democracy. It was intended to be a republic and until the 20th century the term democracy had very negative implications.

You are pretending that the Electoral College system makes every little local election imaginary, it doesn't. Those elections still happen, and they individually can still screw up or not. Your whole contention for the Electoral College is based on a false premise.

When did I claim this? But a recount in a single house district or a statewide office with basically one set of lawsuits is not the same for a recount and the lawsuits to follow for every precinct in the United States when a candidate (like Chen and Lien in 2004) only needed to make up a very small percentage of the popular vote. The EC makes that nightmare impossible. So the chaos is restricted to one place like Florida not 50 places with hundreds of counties and thousands of precincts.

And you have about as much chance of getting rid of the EC as I do of being elected to the National People's Congress.

True, I was being picky. We do agree on keeping the EC, I think. At least, I think we should.

Oh, and that site I linked in my post up above is actually pretty cool, if you like that sort of statistical thing.

I agree the US should keep the EC.

There was some thing in the news about states independently deciding to award electoral votes to the national winner. I think this will be a big step forward in fairness and the full unification of the United States.

Thus, at least the Electoral College is outdated, but I ventured that it was a disease, suggesting foul work and spreading of uneasiness. Well, the Electoral College could be viewed as one of the major reasons citizens do not vote, but of course not directly. A main cause of low voter turn-out has consitently been lack of confidence in one of the two choices, in other terms, Americans hate the duopoly of Repulicans and Democrats as their only two force-fed choices. The Electoral college facilitates this because what it was designed to do was to take each state individually, count its votes and award a set number (based on population) of votes entirely to one party, the winning party. What this does, in effect, is filter out the non-contenders, and keeps them at the status of a non-contender by not allowing them any vote on the main stage. That bit I highlighted is, although the way most states do it, a state specific we for example award the winner in each congretional district an electoral vote with the remaining two votes going to the over all winner, I understand Main also does something like that.

Direct democracies do not work on large scales; it takes an awfully damn long time to decide anything and tally all the votes, especially when the ballots are printed.

The electoral college also protects states with lower populations, giving them a voice in government. If it were not for the electoral college states like South Dakota, Alaska, and other low population states would have little power on the national stage. States like California, New York, and Texas would drown out smaller states and the little guys would be ignored or stepped on. Probably both. The electoral college serves as an equalizer, leveling the playing field and ensuring that the few are not forgotten or abused by the many.

Direct democracies do not work on large scales; it takes an awfully damn long time to decide anything and tally all the votes, especially when the ballots are printed.

Are you saying that all the votes are not tallied in presidential elections?

The electoral college votes every four years ... for president. That's it. That's the only time that the whole country gets together and votes for one thing. The extra layer of the electoral college doesn't make a difference in how many people vote. Your argument against 'direct democracy' is irrelevent, since everyone's vote has to be tallied anyway. Unless you live in Florida, of course.

Are you saying that all the votes are not tallied in presidential elections?

The electoral college votes every four years ... for president. That's it. That's the only time that the whole country gets together and votes for one thing. The extra layer of the electoral college doesn't make a difference in how many people vote. Your argument against 'direct democracy' is irrelevent, since everyone's vote has to be tallied anyway. Unless you live in Florida, of course.
200-some years ago it took a while to write up a bunch of ballots, ship them out to the entire country (I know it wasn't as big but they didn't have cars, trains, planes, plantains, or teh interwebz), bring them back in locked boxes, and count them all by hand. I didn't say that not all votes are tallied, I just said it used to take a friggin' long time.

In a direct democracy, for informed decisions every voting citizen must be briefed. That takes a while. If not all are informed they can make bad decisions.

This nation is not and never was intended to be a direct democracy. It is a democractically elected republic. That means that leaders are elected by the people to decide for the people.

The last two nights of "American Idol" premieres have given me occasion to tout my idea for electoral reform - not to say everythign AI does is right, but it is to say that the U.S. electoral system could learn from it.

I'll use 2008 as a sample for this scenario - November 4 will be Election Day that year (I think it's silly to hold it on a Tuesday, but that's a scenario for another time.) Anywho, before May 6, all candidates for President have to be declared, put on a ballot, etc. Every party who wants to run someone has their candidate on the ballot...this gives parties a choice - they can run their primaries earlier than May 6 and have every party loyalist support the winner, or they can let each party submit multiple people and let the voters decide. Anywho, the top 10 vote-getters go through regardless of party affiliation.

From May 6 to June 3, the first Tuesday in June, the vote is narrowed from 10 candidates to 6. People can drop out of the race from that time or get the fewest votes; either way, six candidates go on.

By July 1st, all surviving candidates have to name a running mate. This is important, because the next vote is July 15, and whatever ticket gets the lowest vote total is out. The process is repeated on August 12, September 9, and October 6, until two candidates remain.

During this time, campaigns and interviews continue, and all candidates receive equal airtime. All candidates are allotted a grand total of 60 minutes of airtime from July 1st to October 5th that they may use to make speeches during prime time; they cannot use any additional time except during allotted time for ALL candidates. In addition, when there are four left, a "town hall" debate is staged for all candidates, and when there are three left, a more formal debate is staged concerning the five most pertinent issues as determined by...not sure what style of polling I would use.

Then, when two are left, there are two debates - both formal, and one for domestic policy with the other for foreign policy. Then, on November 4, they vote, and whoever gets more votes wins; it's as simple as that. No Electoral College. No faithless electors, Supreme Courts, or Diebold agendas - just a simple vote.

In addition, the candidates will be held to the highest standards of ethics - no cheating, no illegal spending, nothing. If a candidate is found to have engaged in that, they are out and the runner-up wins, just like Miss America. This goes for either member of the ticket - you cheat, both of you are out. If Bush and Cheney do anything unethical at the final five, they're out and the vote is cancelled; all the other four go on. If Bush and Cheney win and are soon discovered to have cheated, they're out and Kerry and Edwards win. Or Nader and LaDuke. Or Cobb and whoever, just whoever finished second.

That's the best I can do to encourage third-party candidates, and the voters' will being what it is, we may see the Presidential equivalent of Taylor Hicks elected.

In a direct democracy, for informed decisions every voting citizen must be briefed. That takes a while. If not all are informed they can make bad decisions.

Information is instant for all voting Americans. Televisions, radio, internet. there is no information time lapse any more, there hasn't been for decades in fact. Plus, people make bad decisions when informed, don't bother to get informed, or inform themselves by listening to other uninformed or biased people.

If the zombie founding fathers looked at how we are running shit today they would be like "what the fuck? You are all fucking morons." Because what they created at the time was needed at the time, times change.

The last two nights of "American Idol" premieres have given me occasion to tout my idea for electoral reform - not to say everythign AI does is right, but it is to say that the U.S. electoral system could learn from it.

I'll use 2008 as a sample for this scenario - November 4 will be Election Day that year (I think it's silly to hold it on a Tuesday, but that's a scenario for another time.) Anywho, before May 6, all candidates for President have to be declared, put on a ballot, etc. Every party who wants to run someone has their candidate on the ballot...this gives parties a choice - they can run their primaries earlier than May 6 and have every party loyalist support the winner, or they can let each party submit multiple people and let the voters decide. Anywho, the top 10 vote-getters go through regardless of party affiliation.

From May 6 to June 3, the first Tuesday in June, the vote is narrowed from 10 candidates to 6. People can drop out of the race from that time or get the fewest votes; either way, six candidates go on.

By July 1st, all surviving candidates have to name a running mate. This is important, because the next vote is July 15, and whatever ticket gets the lowest vote total is out. The process is repeated on August 12, September 9, and October 6, until two candidates remain.

During this time, campaigns and interviews continue, and all candidates receive equal airtime. All candidates are allotted a grand total of 60 minutes of airtime from July 1st to October 5th that they may use to make speeches during prime time; they cannot use any additional time except during allotted time for ALL candidates. In addition, when there are four left, a "town hall" debate is staged for all candidates, and when there are three left, a more formal debate is staged concerning the five most pertinent issues as determined by...not sure what style of polling I would use.

Then, when two are left, there are two debates - both formal, and one for domestic policy with the other for foreign policy. Then, on November 4, they vote, and whoever gets more votes wins; it's as simple as that. No Electoral College. No faithless electors, Supreme Courts, or Diebold agendas - just a simple vote.

In addition, the candidates will be held to the highest standards of ethics - no cheating, no illegal spending, nothing. If a candidate is found to have engaged in that, they are out and the runner-up wins, just like Miss America. This goes for either member of the ticket - you cheat, both of you are out. If Bush and Cheney do anything unethical at the final five, they're out and the vote is cancelled; all the other four go on. If Bush and Cheney win and are soon discovered to have cheated, they're out and Kerry and Edwards win. Or Nader and LaDuke. Or Cobb and whoever, just whoever finished second.

That's the best I can do to encourage third-party candidates, and the voters' will being what it is, we may see the Presidential equivalent of Taylor Hicks elected.
Running so many ballots would be quite expensive, but it's not a bad idea. To save money you could use an Single Transferable Vote to get the last 6 to 2.

200-some years ago it took a while to write up a bunch of ballots, ship them out to the entire country (I know it wasn't as big but they didn't have cars, trains, planes, plantains, or teh interwebz), bring them back in locked boxes, and count them all by hand. I didn't say that not all votes are tallied, I just said it used to take a friggin' long time.

In a direct democracy, for informed decisions every voting citizen must be briefed. That takes a while. If not all are informed they can make bad decisions.

This nation is not and never was intended to be a direct democracy. It is a democractically elected republic. That means that leaders are elected by the people to decide for the people.

I'm pretty sure that ballots were not printed centrally and distributed to the nation as a whole, ever. They were printed locally. After all, local contests had to be included on the ballots. Also, the counting always has been done locally, too. Each state's electors would be certified and meet at some point after that, cast their votes, and those are the results that go to Washington. But your point about the slowness of communication in the late 18th and early 19th centuries is well taken. That's why the election is in early November, the certification of results in December, and why the President and Vice-President weren't inaugurated until March (up to the mid-30s).

I don't think many people understand how much our founding fathers feared the fickleness of the people and public opinion. Thus they sought to limit the directness of the people's voice on the national level. You may not realize but the Constitutional framers only intended for there to be direct election for the House of Representatives. Senators were initially elected by their state legislatures. Also the President is elected through a more indirect means of the electoral college.

Edit: I think most people don't view the electoral college favorably is because they don't understand what its original purpose was and still is in my opinion. I don't believe what some people say is that it was created because of a lack of technology. That just seems like an excuse to try and get rid of the system.

I don't think many people understand how much our founding fathers feared the fickleness of the people and public opinion. Thus they sought to limit the directness of the people's voice on the national level. You may not realize but the Constitutional framers only intended for there to be direct election for the House of Representatives. Senators were initially elected by their state legislatures. Also the President is elected through a more indirect means of the electoral college.

Edit: I think most people don't view the electoral college favorably is because they don't understand what its original purpose was and still is in my opinion. I don't believe what some people say is that it was created because of a lack of technology. That just seems like an excuse to try and get rid of the system.

Good points. And I simply cannot resist ... the founding fathers feared fickleness? Holy alliteration! :D Welcome to NSG.

Good points. And I simply cannot resist ... the founding fathers feared fickleness? Holy alliteration! :D Welcome to NSG.Thanks :)

I thought that was pretty a good first post to make!

Running so many ballots would be quite expensive, but it's not a bad idea. To save money you could use an Single Transferable Vote to get the last 6 to 2.

That's a good point, although I more thought of the problem being with the time taken for each vote, not with the expense. The expense can be dealt with; what I was thinking was a system of computers designed to read people's ID cards. The computer system would be strictly on an intranet system, and a paper trail would occur as a means of backing the computers up. All the computers would be at designated polling places, of course, and would only be used for elections.

The only concern I have is that there would be so much time involved every fourth Tuesday with voting. People might have a bit of a short attention span with it, but then again, it's better than what we have now.

A Single Transferrable Vote might be a good idea, but if it breaks, people are elected because they were someone's third or fourth choice. That doesn't exactly scream "mandate", and it makes people think about their votes when they cast them.

The electoral college was created precisely to counter the ignorance exhibited in the OP.

If the zombie founding fathers looked at how we are running shit today they would be like "what the fuck? You are all fucking morons." Because what they created at the time was needed at the time, times change.

Really? The framers (the founders and the framers were not the same) were very distrustful of popular democracy as they should have been. Until 1824, the electors of the EC were elected by the states, not the people and until 1914 (the 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913) US Senators were elected by the States as well. The ONLY national office that the Framers intended to be voted on by the people was the House of Representatives.

There is a movement to repeal the 17th Amendment to give power back to the States in this regard.

Looking and how dumb the American people are on the whole I side with the Framers in this regard.