NationStates Jolt Archive

Currently in MA the state version of the National Popular Vote bill has come out of committee with favorable results, and will hopefully be put to vote. Many in the state expect that if placed up for vote it will pass.

The gist of this type of bill is simple. In the US, the president is elected by gaining a majority of the electoral college votes. Each state gets a number of votes equal to the number of representatives it has in congress (which is two for senate plus whatever the number of representatives it has in the house of representatives, which is determined by population).

Now, HOW the state allocates its electoral college votes is a choice for each state. Most states in the US have a simple system, the person who gets the majority of the votes in that state gets all of the electoral votes of that state. Some states like maine have a proportionate system where their electoral college votes are given to the candidates in proportion to the votes in the state.

However, while it has rarely happened, it can happen, as did in 2000, where a president gets a majority of electoral college votes but does not win a popular vote. Many people have thought this an abhorant system in a democracy, where the person who wins is literally NOT the person who got the most votes, an anathma to the democratic process.

The problem is the electoral college system is embedded in our constitution, and would take a difficult constitutional amendment to get rid of. So what states are doing is that they are considering legislation that would give the electoral college votes of that state to the candidate who wins the national popular vote, not the candidate who wins in that state. However these pieces of legislation have triggering mechanisms, they don't take effect until enough states, making up the majority of the electoral college votes, pass similar legislation. Many attorneys in Mass., including myself, are very much in favor of this legislation, as it fixes, what we perceive, to be an outdated and outmoded system that has no place in modern democracies.

The text of the mass. legislation that should be up to vote soon can be found here (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/resources/bills/MA-S-445-2007.pdf).

So, what are your thoughts?

Here is some facts to consider:

In 2004, candidates spent more time and money in Florida than in 45 states combined.

The money spent in the top 5 states was almost three times that of the money spent in the rest of the nation on campaigning.

In 2000 and 2004 Bush did not campaign in the state of Massachusetts, at all. In both instances, the state, highly liberal, went to Gore and (of course) Kerry. In general republican candidates avoid the northeast entirely, as they know they can't win it, and any effort spent there will be wasted. However, if this was in effect in 2004, the state of MA would have gone to George W. Bush.

Love it. Please keep us updated on the statis of the bill.

Don't like it as much. The electoral system does tend to keep the major players coming to smaller states. It also tends to keep them coming to the so called battleground states as well. While that might suck for California (Deeply blue, but huge representation in Congress) I'd like to say that the battleground states, ones that can go either way, keep the major elections more moderate because the candidates are having to try and get to the swing voters in those states (Who tend to be moderate) than the die hards who will vote for the little D or R after a person's name regardless of the actual person.

I'd prefer to see all of the states go proportional, but this is an interesting idea as well.

Finally. The electoral system makes the candidates focus on a select few states and ignore the rest of the country.

I'd prefer to see all of the states go proportional, but this is an interesting idea as well.

Proportional is a good idea, but it doesn't address the problem - that there is such a large difference in state populations now that the electoral college now suffers from the same problem it is meant to alleviate.

Finally. The electoral system makes the candidates focus on a select few states and ignore the rest of the country.
Why do you think that would change? If it's just popularity, why would a candidate spend any amount of time in cow counties or ever leave an urban area?

Proportional is a good idea, but it doesn't address the problem - that there is such a large difference in state populations now that the electoral college now suffers from the same problem it is meant to alleviate.

There's no way to get rid of all the problems of the electoral college without getting rid of the whole thing.

In my mind, the biggest problem with the electoral college is the lack of representation of the people. 49% of the people in most states can vote for one candidate, but have no representation of that at the national level when the president is chosen because only the 51% counts. A proportional system represents the actual state vote.

And, since the electoral college votes are divied up by population, and the proportional votes would be divied up by vote, it would fairly accurately represent the popular vote, albeit with an unnecessary middleman.

I'd prefer to see all of the states go proportional, but this is an interesting idea as well.

If all states go proportional then most elections will be decided by the House of Representatives.

If all states go proportional then most elections will be decided by the House of Representatives.

Not most but there would be a fair share of them. Most people don't even think of that consequence.

If all states go proportional then most elections will be decided by the House of Representatives.

how in the world do you figure that?

I support my state. This makes me happy.

The electoral system does tend to keep the major players coming to smaller states.

not really. its not worthwhile to invest any time or money in a small state, unless it is very close in the national electoral count and in that small state. otherwise swinging one of the bigger states is worth like a half dozen tiny ones.

If it's just popularity, why would a candidate spend any amount of time in cow counties or ever leave an urban area?

there is no reason to leave urban areas in any industrial or post-industrial democratic system. nobody lives outside of the urban areas anyway, even in rural states. only like maine, vermont, and west virginia have more people outside their urban areas than in them.

I don't see what was wrong with the old method of drawing straws...

Quick lesson:

http://ap.grolier.com/cgi-bin-unauth/dated_article_news?templatename=/news/news.html&assetid=apn20050223.20&seq=10&assettype=0tdnc

The first part explains in what situations would the House of Representatives would be the deciding factor.

*sigh*

Yes, I'm well aware that the house would decide in the event that there were insufficient numbers. I am unsure how proportionality would suddenly render every election, or either the bulk of them, or, really, any of them to any significant degree, into situations where there is no clear winner.

how in the world do you figure that?

Quick lesson:

http://ap.grolier.com/cgi-bin-unauth/dated_article_news?templatename=/news/news.html&assetid=apn20050223.20&seq=10&assettype=0tdnc

The first part explains in what situations would the House of Representatives would be the deciding factor.

In my opinion people would actually start to vote for the candidate more then the actually party affiliation. If people realized that there vote did count individually for president they may more likely to vote for who they really wanted instead of the lesser of two evils. If that happened the national vote would be more fragmented.

perhaps. However I find "proportionality" to be just as wrong as the system we have now. Democracy needs to operate as one person, one vote.

*sigh*

Yes, I'm well aware that the house would decide in the event that there were insufficient numbers. I am unsure how proportionality would suddenly render every election, or either the bulk of them, or, really, any of them to any significant degree, into situations where there is no clear winner.

In my opinion people would actually start to vote for the candidate more then the actually party affiliation. If people realized that their vote did count individually for president they may more likely to vote for who they really wanted instead of the lesser of two evils. If that happened the national vote would be more fragmented.

The electoral system does tend to keep the major players coming to smaller states.
Wrong. Small states are too small to count for that logic to make sense, and since the nation is so consistently divided between red and blue, candidates only really need to focus on "swing" states. The electoral college is now doubly useless - it doesn't overcome the population difference which it was designed for, and the whole system is borked because of the red vs blue divide so the candidates definitely don't have to seriously campaign in small states.

perhaps. However I find "proportionality" to be just as wrong as the system we have now. Democracy needs to operate as one person, one vote.

I think it would be better then our current Electoral College. However it also safeguards a election that peoples votes counted one by one. Reason being is that someone could win with lets say 10% of the national vote. That is unlikely but possible.

I think it would be better then our current Electoral College. However it also safeguards a election that peoples votes counted one by one. Reason being is that someone could win with lets say 10% of the national vote. That is unlikely but possible.

No, not really. Because of the way the system is now, because electoral college votes per state are population based, you can't really win the presidency in the current system with such a low minority. There's just no way to get enough electoral college votes (unless we have a situation with soooo many candidates that a candidate wins electoral votes even though holding a very tiny minority...which is so unlikely as to be bizarre).

In a poli sci course in college, before the whole 2000 election nonsense, a professor told me, that based on the way the votes are set out, the barest minimum someone would have to get, in a 2 party system, is about 44, 45%

not really. its not worthwhile to invest any time or money in a small state, unless it is very close in the national electoral count and in that small state. otherwise swinging one of the bigger states is worth like a half dozen tiny ones.
Hmm... that no doubt explains why Nevada was graced by more presidential visits during the last election than it had in the previous 100 years. All for our paltry 5 votes. Oh, and lets not forget the candidate love fest that was Iowa.

The bigger states, California, New York, Texas tend to vote very reliably for one party or the other. No one expects to swing them.

Wrong. Small states are too small to count for that logic to make sense, and since the nation is so consistently divided between red and blue, candidates only really need to focus on "swing" states. The electoral college is now doubly useless - it doesn't overcome the population difference which it was designed for, and the whole system is borked because of the red vs blue divide so the candidates definitely don't have to seriously campaign in small states.
So riddle me Iowa and New Hampshire then.

So riddle me Iowa and New Hampshire then.

primaries ≠ the national election

primaries ≠ the national election
Oddly enough, they still show up after the primaries. The country is so split that only very few states get ignored.

Still proves my point though, if it was a strict popularity contest, candidates would ignore those states. This at least forces them to acknowledge them AND the issues that are important to them as opposed to only what the coastal states want.

Oddly enough, they still show up after the primaries. The country is so split that only very few states get ignored.

Still proves my point though, if it was a strict popularity contest, candidates would ignore those states. This at least forces them to acknowledge them AND the issues that are important to them as opposed to only what the coastal states want.

as I said in my second post, more time and money was spent in Florida in the 2004 election than in the bottom 45 states. The top 5 states alone represented three times the spending than the other 45.

In my opinion people would actually start to vote for the candidate more then the actually party affiliation. If people realized that their vote did count individually for president they may more likely to vote for who they really wanted instead of the lesser of two evils. If that happened the national vote would be more fragmented.

Good.

With the national popular vote all that matters, the next election will go to the zombie vote.

One good thing about the electoral college is that it compartmentalizes the votes - recounts are limited, the effect of fraud is limited, and there is more effort to actually campaign in different areas. Straight popular votes leave the entire nation open for massive fraud, huge recounts as a disputed election could result in hundreds of jurisdictions being recounted, and will end up with candidates only focusing on the most populous urban areas (win new england and southern california, and the national idiots who just vote party will carry you through to a win).

The secession of the south was largely caused by the northern states forcing through legislation and national policies that benefited them at substantial cost to the southern states. Seeking to further alienate segments of the population to focus on the large urban masses will only exacerbate national divisiveness.

Just changing how you allocate electoral college votes makes a lot more sense to me as you get a better result than winner takes all (currently all of Maryland's EC votes are a foregone conclusion no matter who runs) without the problems with national popular voting. Why not simply do it by congressional district? Whoever wins the popular vote in a congressional district wins one electoral college vote - the remaining 2 votes go to whoever wins the state popular vote. It seems to work well enough for Maine. (edit: and Nebraska)

Other countries that manage national popular votes do not have the same problem with scale as the US. The US is big and highly diverse - the situation is simply not comparable.

Anyone remember why we have the electoral college? So that states with small populations don't get ignored at the national level. So that California, New York, Texas, and the other large population states don't end up controlling the whole damn country. It's meant to even things out a little and give the little guys a voice.

The bigger states, California, New York, Texas tend to vote very reliably for one party or the other. No one expects to swing them.
Take a look at a breakdown of the popular vote in each of those states. You'll not that despite the tendency for electoral votes to swing either way, the popular vote tends to be pretty mixed.

The whole idea behind the popular vote is that every vote everywhere in every state counts, period. EVERYWHERE. Meaning there is no such thing as one entire state going for a candidate anymore under such a system. It means that candidates must campaign everywhere because every vote counts.

Take a look at a breakdown of the popular vote in each of those states. You'll not that despite the tendency for electoral votes to swing either way, the popular vote tends to be pretty mixed.

The whole idea behind the popular vote is that every vote everywhere in every state counts, period. EVERYWHERE. Meaning there is no such thing as one entire state going for a candidate anymore under such a system. It means that candidates must campaign everywhere because every vote counts.
But because population is not evenly dispersed over the entire country those spots with high population will get the most attention and low population areas would be ignored under a pure popular vote system.

So, what are your thoughts?I disapprove of the electoral college. I prevents a coalition government and thus promotes alienating at least half the country (if not more) from the presidency.

I disapprove of the electoral college. I prevents a coalition government and thus promotes alienating at least half the country (if not more) from the presidency.

This.

I dislike parts of Britain's system for similar reasons, though we don't have so much of a problem of only two parties.

Makes sense. But am I right in my understanding that it is essentially useless until he majority of states pass similar laws? In which case, you are asking larger states, who currently receive more attention, to give that for an altruistic goal.

I would prefer that electoral college were allocated on a proportional basis according to the vote for that state. For instance, if one candidate wins 50.1% of the vote and the other (okay, there would be more than one other, but for the purpose of this example I'm ignoring them) wins 49.9% of the vote, each candidate would get half of the electoral votes as opposed to all of the votes going to the most popular candidate.

Anyone remember why we have the electoral college? So that states with small populations don't get ignored at the national level. So that California, New York, Texas, and the other large population states don't end up controlling the whole damn country. It's meant to even things out a little and give the little guys a voice.

Right on. Similar to the Great Compromise, it balances the power of the people with the power of the states.

IMHO if State authority is no longer considered enough to preserve the electoral college, then the Senate should be eliminated at the same time. The mentality that demands a straight popular vote for President shoudl also want the Congress to have only votes representing the population, e.g. the House.

While I've supported reform of the electoral college, I've favored the proportional system, rather than the system that is proposed in Massachusetts, but even at that, this proposal makes far more sense than does the current system in place in Massachusetts.

how in the world do you figure that?

A President needs 270 electoral votes. If the states went to a proportional system, that means their votes will be split which means the odds of a President getting 270 electoral votes on election day slim down considerably, especially when you consider the battle ground states. It is a very good possibility that several elections will be decided by the US House if states went to a Proportional System.

I would prefer that electoral college were allocated on a proportional basis according to the vote for that state. For instance, if one candidate wins 50.1% of the vote and the other (okay, there would be more than one other, but for the purpose of this example I'm ignoring them) wins 49.9% of the vote, each candidate would get half of the electoral votes as opposed to all of the votes going to the most popular candidate.

I'd actually argue that the half+1/half-1 would be a better way to break down the vote, even when it is that close (and continued proportionality on down the line). That would still give candidates the incentive to focus on the individual states, but make the system more representative.

I would prefer that electoral college were allocated on a proportional basis according to the vote for that state. For instance, if one candidate wins 50.1% of the vote and the other (okay, there would be more than one other, but for the purpose of this example I'm ignoring them) wins 49.9% of the vote, each candidate would get half of the electoral votes as opposed to all of the votes going to the most popular candidate.

And now we return back to my argument of the House deciding elections.

So riddle me Iowa and New Hampshire then.

You do realize this isn't the actual election, right? This is the pre-election and they only matter because they are so early.

Anyone remember why we have the electoral college? So that states with small populations don't get ignored at the national level. So that California, New York, Texas, and the other large population states don't end up controlling the whole damn country. It's meant to even things out a little and give the little guys a voice.
Geez, maybe you should read my posts and not speak up without knowing what you are talking about.

The electoral college was supposed to do that, and it worked great - back when Virginia was the largest state and had the most electoral votes at 9 - making the difference between the largest and the smallest 6. Now we have a difference between the largest and the smallest of more than 50. It is completely pointless. The population differences are so vast that the system no longer overcomes them.

And now we return back to my argument of the House deciding elections.
You're going to have to do alot better than say it over and over for people to believe it. Like prove it. And when you do it, take into account that very few of the states have an even electoral count (around a 1/4).

You're going to have to do alot better than say it over and over for people to believe it. Like prove it. And when you do it, take into account that very few of the states have an even electoral count (around a 1/4).

A President needs 270 electoral votes. If the states went to a proportional system, that means their votes will be split which means the odds of a President getting 270 electoral votes on election day slim down considerably, especially when you consider the battle ground states. It is a very good possibility that several elections will be decided by the US House if states went to a Proportional System.

Read and comprehend.

Read and comprehend.

There is still the problem of you not explaining anything.

You obviously missed this part: "And when you do it, take into account that very few of the states have an even electoral count (around a 1/4)."

*sighs* I'm not even going to bother. A proportional system means that a vote will be split up. Lets take PA for example. If a candidate gets 67% of a vote (not likely but lets work with it) and his opponet gets 33% of the vote, Candidate A would receive 14 votes and candidate B would get 7 votes. That's the proportional system.

To go with what Mass. is doing, lets turn this on its ear. If they vote 63% democrat, under the current system, their votes would go to the Democratic Party. With the proposed bill and if other states do the same, if they vote 63% democrat but if a republican wins the popular vote, all of their votes would go to the Republican and not to the Democrat. How fair is that to the voters who voted for the democratic candidate?

To go with what Mass. is doing, lets turn this on its ear. If they vote 63% democrat, under the current system, their votes would go to the Democratic Party. With the proposed bill and if other states do the same, if they vote 63% democrat but if a republican wins the popular vote, all of their votes would go to the Republican and not to the Democrat. How fair is that to the voters who voted for the democratic candidate?
As opposed to the Republicans and Democrats in every other opposite non-swing state? The current system is laden with 49.9% of the voters' in each state votes being discarded.

Lets all remember now that the founders thought that 19 out of 20 elections would be decided by the House of Reps, not by the electoral college, so if proportional caused that then it would be along the founders' ideal. Despite the craziness that the Electoral College brings, it is still useful. It is created to stop the mob mentality so that a highly charismatic person cannot just sweep the country off its feet, but instead must prove time and again his points and positions to the country.

I believe proportional is the way to go. Do what maine does as someone already mentioned, split the votes for Rep seats by proportion, and then give the 2 votes for Senate seats to the majority. Smaller states would still be majority rule (NH and Wyoming for example only have 3 votes), but the vast majority would thus give a more fair split of the vote.

And unless no one got a majority of the popular vote (almost never happens), there would be enough electoral votes to get a winner. And if third parties steal some votes away, more for the better. Get some new ideas in the system, bartering cabinet seats for electoral votes.

It's what they already do in New Jersey and Maryland, apparently.

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Year_by_year_status_maps).

As opposed to the Republicans and Democrats in every other opposite non-swing state? The current system is laden with 49.9% of the voters' in each state votes being discarded.

Which would beg for a proportional system even in the non-swing states. But now that goes back to looking at the fact that if every state had a proportional system, the electoral votes from all states would be divided among candidates depending on the percentage of the vote (something else that needs to be talked about) and as such, odds are now going up that no candidate will reach that coveted 270 electoral vote platform.

It's what they already do in New Jersey and Maryland, apparently.

Linky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Year_by_year_status_maps).

Thanks for the list. Looks like a few states failed to adopt it and in many others it was not voted upon. It is interesting though I will say that.

There's no way to get rid of all the problems of the electoral college without getting rid of the whole thing.

In my mind, the biggest problem with the electoral college is the lack of representation of the people. 49% of the people in most states can vote for one candidate, but have no representation of that at the national level when the president is chosen because only the 51% counts. A proportional system represents the actual state vote.

And, since the electoral college votes are divied up by population, and the proportional votes would be divied up by vote, it would fairly accurately represent the popular vote, albeit with an unnecessary middleman.

Change that middle paragraph to "In my mind, the biggest problem with the British Parliament is the lack of representation of the people. 49% of the people in most constitituencies can vote for one candidate, but have no representation of that level when the MP is chosen because only the 51% counts. A proportional system represents the actual national vote" and you've pretty much summed up the problems of the British electoral system as well. What Demipublicents omits is that if a candidate gains a mere plurality - not a majority - in a state, then that candidate will (except in Maine and Nebraska) win all of the electoral votes despite winning a minority of the popular vote; in some four-party seats in the UK, the winning candidate can take the seat despite winning under 30% of the vote. Majority is nothing - plurality is everything. The Electoral College is simply massive First Past the Post on a national level.

However, Corneliu 2 is quite right in stressing that the arrival of national proportionality would probably throw the election to the House of Representatives for the first time since Jefferson defeated Burr; if the electors are bound to vote for a specific candidate, and no candidate reaches 50% of the vote, then the election must - under the US constitution - go to the House. I remain unconvinced by Guryeon's implicit argument that just because that's what the founders intended, this makes it a good thing; if the House is controlled by the party opposed to the candidate with the majority of the vote, we might well find that the election has an even less democratic outcome unless the House is bound to vote for the candidate who gains the plurality. And that worked _really_ well for Salvador Allende, didn't it?

However, Corneliu 2 is quite right in stressing that the arrival of national proportionality would probably throw the election to the House of Representatives for the first time since Jefferson defeated Burr;

Actually...the House decided the 1824 election between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams.

Actually...the House decided the 1824 election between Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams.

I stand corrected. And the 1824 election surely proves the point you're trying to make:

"[John Quincy] Adams ran against four other candidates in the Presidential election of 1824. His opponents included Speaker of the House Henry Clay, Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford, Tennessee Senator Andrew Jackson and John C. Calhoun. After Crawford suffered a stroke there was no clear favorite. After the elections no one had a majority of either the electoral votes or the popular votes, although Andrew Jackson was the winner of a plurality of both. The decision went to the House of Representatives. The candidate with the lowest votes, Henry Clay, was dropped from consideration, and Clay gave his support to Adams. Adams won on the first ballot and was named president. Adams then named Clay Secretary of State to the angry complaints of Andrew Jackson, who alleged a corrupt bargain and vowed to run again in 1828."

Which would beg for a proportional system even in the non-swing states. But now that goes back to looking at the fact that if every state had a proportional system, the electoral votes from all states would be divided among candidates depending on the percentage of the vote (something else that needs to be talked about) and as such, odds are now going up that no candidate will reach that coveted 270 electoral vote platform.
Wrong. With an electoral college system relying on the popular vote, people's votes actually count towards who wins the national election instead of just who wins the state. Right now their votes are discounted before they even count.

Proportionality will likely not result in most elections being sent to the House because, for proportionality to result in a situaiton like that, there has to be an election in which one candidate did not receive at least 50% of the vote. In fact, in a proportionality system, a candidate can receive slightly less than 50% because of the threshold required for votes. California has 54 electoral votes, meaning a candidate needs to get about 2% of the vote before getting any electoral votes.

For texas and new york it's 3%. For most other states it's 5% or more. So even if a third party did get say...4% of the vote in pennsylvania, it doesn't count at all because you can't split electoral votes and that candidate didn't reach the threshold necessary to secure one.

Even Ralph Nader didn't get enough votes in Floriday in 2000 to secure a single vote if florida was proportionate. In order to cause one candidate to not get above 270 votes, there needs to be a situation in which neither candidate got a clear majority AND a third party candidate got more than...4-5% of the vote.

That hasn't happened in a very long time

Wrong. With an electoral college system relying on the popular vote, people's votes actually count towards who wins the national election instead of just who wins the state. Right now their votes are discounted before they even count.

But if a blue state's votes goes to the winner of the popular election and that person is a republican, does that actually negate the majority of the people of said state? Vice versa for a red state's vote going to a democratic candidate. Now we are basicly telling the states that their choice does not matter. Also, why should a president receive all of the electoral votes anyways? Only one president got all the electoral votes and that was George Washington.

Proportionality will likely not result in most elections being sent to the House because, for proportionality to result in a situaiton like that, there has to be an election in which one candidate did not receive at least 50% of the vote. In fact, in a proportionality system, a candidate can receive slightly less than 50% because of the threshold required for votes. California has 54 electoral votes, meaning a candidate needs to get about 2% of the vote before getting any electoral votes.

1) California has 55 electoral votes.

2) Proportionality will likely result in most eletions being sent to the House because of how the votes would be distributed. This would have to be decided by the states themsevles though.

Wrong. With an electoral college system relying on the popular vote, people's votes actually count towards who wins the national election instead of just who wins the state. Right now their votes are discounted before they even count.

Um...I was referring to a proportional and not popular. Due try to keep up with both debates please. Both of them are going on in this thread.

1) California has 55 electoral votes.

Which does not in any way change my argument.

2) Proportionality will likely result in most eletions being sent to the House because of how the votes would be distributed. This would have to be decided by the states themsevles though.

Riddle me this, will you? If a third party candidate does not achieve enough votes to gain any electoral college votes, even in a proportionality system, because they didn't meet the threshold in the state, how does it matter how they are proportioned among two people? It doesn't matter how they're distributed. It doesn't matter what proportion goes where. If the votes are split among two people, then one of them must get the majority of the votes.

If we have 5 apples and are deciding how to split them between us, and we can't cut any into pieces, regardless of the method we split them between the two of us, one of us will end up with a majority right? You understand that if we have 5 apples and we have to split them all between two people, one of us will get aleast three, right? You understand how that works, yes?

In order, even under a proportionality system, for no candidate to get the necessary 270 votes, there must be a situation in which neither candidate got a clear majority and a third party or parties received enough votes to reach the threshold so that no candidate reached 270 votes.

I am not sure when such a thing has happened in a long time. Certainly it's an occurance uncommon enough to disqualify your statement that "most" elections would be decided by the house.

Proportionality will likely not result in most elections being sent to the House because, for proportionality to result in a situaiton like that, there has to be an election in which one candidate did not receive at least 50% of the vote. In fact, in a proportionality system, a candidate can receive slightly less than 50% because of the threshold required for votes. California has 54 electoral votes, meaning a candidate needs to get about 2% of the vote before getting any electoral votes.

For texas and new york it's 3%. For most other states it's 5% or more. So even if a third party did get say...4% of the vote in pennsylvania, it doesn't count at all because you can't split electoral votes and that candidate didn't reach the threshold necessary to secure one.

Even Ralph Nader didn't get enough votes in Floriday in 2000 to secure a single vote if florida was proportionate. In order to cause one candidate to not get above 270 votes, there needs to be a situation in which neither candidate got a clear majority AND a third party candidate got more than...4-5% of the vote.

That hasn't happened in a very long time

I believe you'll find that it happened as recently as 1992, when Perot won 18.9% of the vote. It also happened in 1968, when Wallace won 13.5% of the vote.

In the 15 post-WW II elections, the winning candidate won less than 50% of the vote on 6 separate occasions, and George W. in 2004 was the first candidate since his father in 1988 to win a majority of the vote (50.7%).

Your point on the necessity of achieving a variable threshold depending on the state is reasonably well-made, but I think misses the possibility that proportionality might well encourage third party or regionally-based participation on the basis that it suddenly becomes easier to win electoral votes. This is one of the reasons why third parties in Europe (such as the Liberal Democrats in the UK) are usually in favour of proportional representation: it greatly increases their potential influence over the first past the post system used in the UK parliament and US electoral college.

I believe you'll find that it happened as recently as 1992, when Perot won 18.9% of the vote. It also happened in 1968, when Wallace won 13.5% of the vote.

In the 15 post-WW II elections, the winning candidate won less than 50% of the vote on 6 separate occasions, and George W. in 2004 was the first candidate since his father in 1988 to win a majority of the vote (50.7%).

Your point on the necessity of achieving a variable threshold depending on the state is reasonably well-made, but I think misses the possibility that proportionality might well encourage third party or regionally-based participation on the basis that it suddenly becomes easier to win electoral votes. This is one of the reasons why third parties in Europe (such as the Liberal Democrats in the UK) are usually in favour of proportional representation: it greatly increases their potential influence over the first past the post system used in the UK parliament and US electoral college.[/QUOTE]

Again, the problem is whether these candidates would have made sufficient headway in order ot breach thresholds in enough situations. Now of course, your argument that it would result in potential increase in third party viability and cause this kind of problem in the future is well merited.

Which of course, in the end, is all I ask, is that someone making assertions actually back up those assertions with a well formed argument, as opposed to corny's tactic of going "nuh uh!".

Frankly speaking, I agree, you're absolutly right, that would be a rather considerable problem if each state adopted a proportionality system. I just wanted to see if some people were capable of making it.

Of course, if we really wanted to expand this argument further. If all the states in the union, so disatisfied with the current electoral process, changed their system in order to make it better, they'd certainly have sufficient votes to amend the constitution and get rid of the problem we're discussing...

But, all in all, I sitll favor the approach discussed in the OP

Which does not in any way change my argument.

No just correcting for accuracy.

Riddle me this, will you? If a third party candidate does not achieve enough votes to gain any electoral college votes, even in a proportionality system, because they didn't meet the threshold in the state, how does it matter how they are proportioned among two people?

If we went to a proportional system, you have to look at the fact that those who are running as an independent can very well gain enough votes to get a slice of the pie. You are looking at what is going on now where no third party candidate has ever done well but if we went to a proportional system, the rules will change to allow for such to actually do well. Why? Because people are tired of the status quo and they very well can send a clear messege to the top two parties. It is bound to happen sooner or later anyway but it will be so much closer if this nation went to a proportional system. It may not happen right away, in fact I doubt it will happen right away BUT it will occur and it will occur many times. Even now few presidents get over 50% of the vote. Bill Clinton never got it. Al Gore and GWB never got. GWB did get it in his second term but he was the first to actually do that since his father did it in 1988.

As I have said though, it will depend on what state law requires in order for the votes to be split. Always look at the possibilities and not what is actually in front of you. As a Government major, I look at all possible possibilities that could come up based on certain decisions and actions. A proportional system would actually toss several elections into the US House and now we could have a legitamcy problems for that very reason.

It doesn't matter how they're distributed.

In a proportional system it does.

It doesn't matter what proportion goes where.

See above

If the votes are split among two people, then one of them must get the majority of the votes.

Not necessarily the case especially if a state has their votes thrown out. Granted that's only happened a couple of times but not in recent memory but still possible which will bring us right back to the US House again.

Which of course, in the end, is all I ask, is that someone making assertions actually back up those assertions with a well formed argument, as opposed to corny's tactic of going "nuh uh!".

Frankly speaking, I agree, you're absolutly right, that would be a rather considerable problem if each state adopted a proportionality system. I just wanted to see if some people were capable of making it.

:headbang: nice try in trying to give credit to someone other than me when he actually agreed with the points I made which were the same points he made to you that I used to you but you just dismissed out of hand. I backed up my claims with a well reasoned argument that you just dismissed as having no merit even though the poster you quoted said nearly the exact same thing as I did.

:headbang: nice try in trying to give credit to someone other than me when he actually agreed with the points I made which were the same points he made to you that I used to you but you just dismissed out of hand. I backed up my claims with a well reasoned argument that you just dismissed as having no merit even though the poster you quoted said nearly the exact same thing as I did.

how convenient that you said it only AFTER he did. Par for the course with you really, waiting for someone else to make your argument, then repeating it almost verbatum and trying to claim credit.

The fact is, you didn't make any argument until after someone else did. Until someone else showed up and did your research for you, your argument consisted of nothing more than "nuh uh!".

how convenient that you said it only AFTER he did. Par for the course with you really, waiting for someone else to make your argument, then repeating it almost verbatum and trying to claim credit.

I see reading comprehension is not your strongest suite. If you had actually bothered to read anything I wrote in this thread, you notice that I said it before he did which prompted him to say:

However, Corneliu 2 is quite right in stressing that the arrival of national proportionality would probably throw the election to the House of Representatives for the first time since Jefferson defeated Burr;

As you see, I've already stressed it and backed it up before he said anything about it. So maybe next time, you will read everything before making assumptions. As a lawyer, you should no better than to assume anything.

I see reading comprehension is not your strongest suite. If you had actually bothered to read anything I wrote in this thread, you notice that I said it before he did which prompted him to say:

You know what I saw? I saw you make a claim, and then not do a single thing to back it up. People challenged that claim, and instead of providing factual basis for your position, you simply copy/pasted the exact same thing you said before.

People raised arguments and you did nothing to counter them. Provided no facts, made no counter arguments. You did absolutly nothing to support your position, even after I threw you a bone and said something you should have clearly been able to counter, and you didn't. You just basically kept saying the same, unsubstantiated thing.

It took somebody else to come along and provide actual, concrete numbers to support your argument, and then lo and behold, then you actually tried making a real argument...using the same information that was already provided for you.

Which, as I said, is pretty typical for you. YOu make general claims, do absolutly nothing to substantiate them, provide no figures, give no citations, do not elaborate in any way on your position, then when someone else comes along and does the work for you, you parrot it back like you knew it all along.

It's a tiresome and not very clever act. If you had the information in order to actually support and substantiate your argument, you would have used it in the beginning, and not oh so very coincidentally pulled it out five minutes after someone did it for you.

The fact that this time you're actually right doesn't really prove much, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.

and another par for the course. "it's not my problem that I didn't even bother to back up my argument, now I"m taking my ball and going home!".

And you wonder why people don't take you seriously

You know what I saw? I saw you make a claim, and then not do a single thing to back it up.

Not my problem.

People challenged that claim, and instead of providing factual basis for your position, you simply copy/pasted the exact same thing you said before.

Which again is not my problem as what I said was indeed on a factual basis. If you have a problem with that, take it up with someone who really and actually cares. What I said was indeed factual and if you don't like it well I really do not care. For an attorney you sure do suck at understanding facts when it hits you in the face.

I'm done here. I've said what I have to say on this issue and I will be keeping tabs on what Mass and other states (including PA) are doing with this. It seems interesting and I will have to do a deeper inquiry into it.

perhaps. However I find "proportionality" to be just as wrong as the system we have now. Democracy needs to operate as one person, one vote.

The only way to do that is to get rid of the electoral college entirely. If it's going to be there at all, state delegates must represent the will of that state's people.

Anyone remember why we have the electoral college? So that states with small populations don't get ignored at the national level. So that California, New York, Texas, and the other large population states don't end up controlling the whole damn country. It's meant to even things out a little and give the little guys a voice.

...and it doesn't do any such thing. Because the big states have an overwhelming number of electoral votes - and you only have to win 51% of that state to get all of them, focus is still on the big states.

The only way to do that is to get rid of the electoral college entirely. If it's going to be there at all, state delegates must represent the will of that state's people.

actually, the system I described in the OP works JUST fine. It's not true at all that state electoral college deligates must represent the will of that state's people. Not true at all.

Each state decides, on its own, how its electoral college votes will be decided. There is no right to vote for president. The state of...say..texas, can decide, by its own state legislature, that its electoral college votes will go to whomever wins the state popular vote, as is the case, they can also decide that who gets the electoral college votes will be decided by a coin flip. Or that the electoral college must always vote for the republican candidate. Or vote for which candidate's name comes first in the alphabet.

or really whatever system the state legislature of texas decideds. There is no constitutional obligation for a state to hold a presidential election. The state may allocate its electoral votes however it wants to, and can, as MA is consider, and new hampshire has done, to allocate its votes not to who wins the state election, but who wins the national popular vote.

There is no constitutional obligation for state electors to obey the will of the state election. The electors cast their vote in whatever way the state legislature decides that they shall. Now, true, as of now, the decision of all 50 states is based on a state wide popular election, but it need not. As I said, a state could decide that their electors will vote for a candidate chosen by a coin flip, and not have any state wide election for president.

Yes, because there's nothing like telling the people of your state, "Doesn't matter who you vote for, we're going to have our votes cast for whomever wins the national vote". In essence, their votes don't count, at least unless enough states change their laws...which, frankly, I don't see happening.

Better to spend the time and money working on the constitutional changes. It's not impossible, simply very difficult. And, with so many becoming disillusioned with the electoral system and mass media being what it is, it's far more likely to happen now than it ever has in the past.

Yes, because there's nothing like telling the people of your state, "Doesn't matter who you vote for, we're going to have our votes cast for whomever wins the national vote". In essence, their votes don't count, at least unless enough states change their laws...which, frankly, I don't see happening.

1) these laws have triggering mechanisms, they don't actually take place until "enough states change their laws". They simply don't take effect until states with a total of 270 electoral votes or more put in place similar legislation. Until then they have no effect. I explained that in the first post, did you read it?


Better to spend the time and money working on the constitutional changes. It's not impossible, simply very difficult. And, with so many becoming disillusioned with the electoral system and mass media being what it is, it's far more likely to happen now than it ever has in the past.

2) wait wait you don't think enough states would pass such laws, so instead you advocate an amendment to the constitution? You realize that it would take, depending on which, 20ish states passing similar laws to effectivly circumvent the electoral college. however it would take 34 states to amend the constitution.

Why would you argue that this system is not possible, and instead advocate an even harder system, for exactly the same result?

actually, the system I described in the OP works JUST fine. It's not true at all that state electoral college deligates must represent the will of that state's people. Not true at all.

(a) As long as we have the electoral college system, we do not have "One person, one vote." We have "One state, # of votes determined by population." This will be true even if lots of states adopt your system. It still won't actually be "one person, one vote.'

(b) As for my use of the word "must", I didn't mean it as a legal analysis. It is my opinion.

The problem with your system is that, in the end, it is no more democratic than the current system. 99% of the people in Massachusetts could vote for one candidate, but still have their state votes - their electoral votes - go to someone else. The actual votes of the population of Mass. would count for nothing.

This is the exact same problem I already have with the current system. Unless I vote for the Republican candidate in my state, my vote counts for nothing. It doesn't matter if 49% of the people in my state agree with me. Their votes count for nothing as well.

Yes, the legislature of my state could just decide not to have a vote at all and to assign electoral college votes as they please. I recognize that fact, but it is really irrelevant to the way I think things should be. The fact that we hold elections for those votes is a move towards making the process more democratic. I'd like to see it made more so. And, in my opinion, a system that preserves the electoral college but does not represent the will of the people is a bad system.

But if a blue state's votes goes to the winner of the popular election and that person is a republican, does that actually negate the majority of the people of said state? Vice versa for a red state's vote going to a democratic candidate.
Your point being what? Votes are already discarded, but at least with a popular vote system they are discarded at the right point - when they fail to make the majority of all votes and the other side wins.

(a) As long as we have the electoral college system, we do not have "One person, one vote." We have "One state, # of votes determined by population."

(b) As for my use of the word "must", I didn't mean it as a legal analysis. It is my opinion.

The problem with your system is that, in the end, it is no more democratic than the current system. 99% of the people in Massachusetts could vote for one candidate, but still have their state votes - their electoral votes - go to someone else. The actual votes of the population of Mass. would count for nothing.


The problem with your analysis is that you somehow seperate "massachusetts" with "the rest of the country". The votes of the population of Mass. would certainly count. They'd get counted as votes in the national election. Remember, these laws only trigger when enough states pass them so that there are enough states to ensure that the popular vote will actually reflect the electoral vote.

Arguing that their votes "won't count" is silly, they will most certainly count, they'd be votes in the national election, determining who wins the popular vote.

Yes it might cause some oddness, like for instance, Mass. is a very blue state, but if this was in place in 2004, it would have gone to george bush. Yes, that's a little odd, and would be different than the votes of the people of the state, BUT those of us who are in favor of it...we don't really like the electoral college and try to minimize it as much as possible short of an amendment (though we'd prefer that).

The idea is, this is our NATIONAL president. It is the leader of our COUNTRY. We shouldn't seperate based on "massachusetts" and "texas". We should look at what THE NATION wants, and to say that the people of Mass don't count...that's just untrue, they would most certainly count, as votes in the popular election.

yes, we will never reach "one person one vote" with an electoral college. What we CAN do is set up a system os that the results of the electoral college reflect, and have the same result, as "one person one vote" would have.

Is it the same thing? No. Does it create a situation os that the results are the same, yes. Which I think is the important thing, making the will of the nation take place, even if that will is executed through intermediaries like the electorla college.

Sure, I'd prefer direct, popular election, but this works as well in that it's the same result in the end.

So, Massachusetts wants to have its voice in electing a President determined by what voters in other states think.

Brilliant.

So, Massachusetts wants to have its voice in electing a President determined by what voters in other states think.

Brilliant.
Only if other states do the same thing:
This agreement shall take effect when states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes have enacted this agreement in substantially the same form and the enactments by such states have taken effect in each state.

So, Massachusetts wants to have its voice in electing a President determined by what voters in other states think.

Brilliant.

No, Massachusetts wants to have its voice in electing a President determined by what voters across the nation think.

As it should be.

Now, as a matter of principle, I prefer we just abolish the electoral college all together, and have a simple popular vote. However, that's not going to happen without a constitutional amendment, that's fine.

As a matter of practice I don't really care how the president is elected. It could be the electoral college, or a board of governors, or the winning candidate tapped on the shoulder by a sword held by the chief justice of SCOTUS, or the winning vote ceremoniously cast by a pig while a man in a toga dances the macarana. I don't care.

What I do care about is that, once the president is chosen, by whatever method, the results of that method mirror the results of the popular election. I don't care, as a matter of ceremony, how it's done. I only care that the result is the same. The winner is the one that won a popular election.

To have a result that the leader of the nation is not the person who got the most votes from the voting populace is not democracy.

What I do care about is that, once the president is chosen, by whatever method, the results of that method mirror the results of the popular election. I don't care, as a matter of ceremony, how it's done. I only care that the result is the same. The winner is the one that won a popular election.

To have a result that the leader of the nation is not the person who got the most votes from the voting populace is not democracy.

Now that you and Corneliu 2 have stopped arguing over to what extent anyone can take credit for something I wrote, or when it was written...

While I sympathise with your basic premise, it's worth pointing out that several Western democracies end up with results where the person or party who gets the most votes doesn't end up as leader (taking 'most votes' to mean a plurality, but not necessarily a majority). This is not a uniquely American problem.

Taking post-WWII results from just a couple of countries:

1951 United Kingdom - Labour vote 48.8%; Conservative vote 40%; result = Conservative government (321 seats out of 625)

1974 (1st '74 election) United Kingdom - Conservative vote 37.8%; Labour vote 37.2%; result = minority Labour government (301 seats - 5 more than Tories - out of 635).

1954 Australia - Labor vote 50.70%; Lib/Country vote 49.3%; result = Lib/Country government (64 seats out of 121).

1998 Australia - Labor vote 50.98%; Lib/National vote 49.02%; result = Lib/National government (80 seats out of 147)

The Australian lower house system isn't directly first past the post, either, but instead relies on preference redistribution where no candidate wins 50% of the vote in a seat in the initial vote.

And we'll leave out coalition governments in multi-party political systems where the largest vote-winner may be kept out of power by a coalition of smaller parties.


Not for a second am I arguing that the Electoral College works, or that Electoral college reform might not be necessary. But I thought it worth contextualising the problem by pointing out that the problem is by no means unique to the United States. In fact, you could argue that almost all representative democracies feature flawed electoral systems that can produce imperfect results; reform usually only changes the nature of the imperfection rather than removing imperfection.

Now that you and Corneliu 2 have stopped arguing over to what extent anyone can take credit for something I wrote, or when it was written...

That's an old argument that more has to do with his tendancies of making wild accusations without substantiation, then waiting until someone agrees with him and actually points out why, then having him basically say the EXACT SAME THING moments later as if it was his idea all along...

You just played the role of well intentioned passerby.


While I sympathise with your basic premise, it's worth pointing out that several Western democracies end up with results where the person or party who gets the most votes doesn't end up as leader (taking 'most votes' to mean a plurality, but not necessarily a majority).

Quite, I intentionally said "most votes" not "majority of the votes" which is damned hard in anything without a runoff


This is not a uniquely American problem.

- snip -



Of course, however i do note that the systems you mentioned are parliamentary systems. This may seem like a petty distinction but it's one that's somewhat important to keep in mind. I'm sure the same thing has happened in our US house of representatives before. Where it becomes a problem in a parliamentary system is that you end up with a prime minister whose party was not the most popular. However I find this not really THAT bad for a few reasons.

One, austensibly, the prime minister is no more or less powerful in most matters than any other member of parliament, at least not in the countries you mentioned. They don't have any particular veto power, they still vote as one person, and while they certainly have influence, and have certain powers over the military and the rest, they are in many regards just another parliament member.

Secondly, the PM is, himself, not elected directly, but rather is defined as the person who leads the party that got the most seats. And that's how parliamentary systems work, they're not elected nationally, they're elected by district.

Now, of course any system should be as close to direct proportion as possible, but sometimes wierd things come up and oddness happens. It's what happens when you try to create a ratio of votes to seats when the the number of seats isn't directly tied to the number of votes, and each seat represents a similar, but not exact, number of representatives. You get occassions when a party wins a number of districts not exactly equal to the % of votes nationwide.

But that is because it's not a nationwide vote. It's a series of district votes happening simultaniously. And while the percentages tend to match up fairly well, it doesn't always. As long as a very large number of people are represented by a very small number of seats, and those seats are tied to districts, it's going to happen that way. It is a flaw of that process, but, I must point out, that the number of seats in a parliament need not accurately reflect the % of the votes that party got nation wide because they are not national elections. They are district elections.

The president, on the other hand, is a whole different animal. He's not a "first among equals" like a prime minister. He's not one important member of a branch.

He is the head of the entire executive branch, and the only part of the federal executive branch chosen by elections. He's not "the leader of the majority party" like a prime minister (if he were, we'd have president Nancy Pelosi right now), he is not chosen based off of proportionate representation.

He is elected in an entirely seperate and distinct election, holding an entirely seperate and distinct political position, an an entirely seperate and distinct branch of the government. Parliaments are not. Parliaments are district voted, and weirdness happens. I find that a parliment might have a majority of seats held by a minority party not that big a problem, but rather a quirkiness that happens with district proportional voting.

I find that that a leader chosen by the nation in a seperate and distinct voting system, not as leader of a majority party, but as a seperate election for the president and the president alone, to not be the person who got the most votes in the nation, to be an abhorant system, and contrary to democratic ideals.

One, austensibly, the prime minister is no more or less powerful in most matters than any other member of parliament, at least not in the countries you mentioned. They don't have any particular veto power, they still vote as one person, and while they certainly have influence, and have certain powers over the military and the rest, they are in many regards just another parliament member.

Secondly, the PM is, himself, not elected directly, but rather is defined as the person who leads the party that got the most seats. And that's how parliamentary systems work, they're not elected nationally, they're elected by district.

<much snipping of supporting arguments>


May I gently and respectfully suggest the use of a spell checker (see 'ostensibly' and 'abhorrent').

Anyway, while you're theoretically correct over the differences between parliamentary and presidential democracies, the difference between theory and practice in many parliamentary systems has diverged considerably.

Elections in both the UK and Australia - the examples used above - are increasingly presidential in their focus on the party leader. For example, in the 2007 Australian election, the opposition's successful campaign was even branded 'Kevin 07' in the American style.

In practice, in both the UK and Australia, there's an increasing focus on, and centralisation of power in, the person of the Prime Minister, to the extent that the Prime Minister's office has achieved considerable paramountcy over parliament. Parliament is by no means powerless, and important differences remain between parliamentary democracies and the US presidential system (Gordon Brown is Prime Minister without having had to face an election, after all), but there are increasingly similarities as well.

In fact, so presidential have the UK and Australian systems become, so centred is power in the person of the Prime Minister, that there's an argument that the respective countries' parliaments now serve as little more than a glorified electoral college. In which case the flaws in their respective systems do become rather more meaningful.

But I'm digressing from your thread topic now, so I'll respectfully withdraw for the time being.