NationStates Jolt Archive

Do we need to get rid of the electorial college? I say yes. For those of you who don't know about the EC:
he election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is indirect. The constitutional theory is that, while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[5] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.

Presidential Electors are selected on a state-by-state basis as determined by the laws of each state. Currently each state uses the popular vote on Election Day to appoint electors. Although ballots list the names of the presidential candidates, voters within the 50 states and Washington, D.C. are actually choosing electors from their state when they vote for President and Vice President. These Presidential Electors in turn cast the official electoral votes for those two offices. Although the aggregate national popular vote is calculated by state officials and media organizations, it has no effect regarding who are the winners of the presidential election (i.e., President-elect and Vice President-elect).

it's generally considered better form to include your reasoning rather than simply a "yes" or "no"

Yes, because popular consensus loses out to arbritrary point tallies.

No, because although it sucks, its needed so canidates Campaign in most states, not just a few major ones like Californa, New York, Texas, ect, ect.

No, because although it sucks, its needed so canidates Campaign in most states, not just a few major ones like Californa, New York, Texas, ect, ect.
Why is it particularly important that candidates have to go to Wyoming one day and end up in South Dakota the next, just for the sake of...well... having been there?

Seriously, we had a similar (if worse) thing in Britain with the Rotten Boroughs, when there were some basically empty tracts of land which held a lot of power in parliament, whereas towns such as Manchester had no representation at all, essentially due to a system of points-scoring similar to that in the US.

Kick the whole thing out and get a proper, consensual system of government.

No, because although it sucks, its needed so canidates Campaign in most states, not just a few major ones like Californa, New York, Texas, ect, ect.
I don't see why that would happen. A vote from someone living in California would be no more or less important or powerful than a vote from someone living in South Dakota.

The thing is, the Electoral College is a way of balancing straight popular vote against the power of states themselves. This is the same reason we have a House AND Senate. To eliminate the Electoral College is like elmininating the Senate.

The thing is, the Electoral College is a way of balancing straight popular vote against the power of states themselves. This is the same reason we have a House AND Senate. To eliminate the Electoral College is like elmininating the Senate.

except it's not. Not at all in fact. Mainly because the senate is based on state power, whereas the president is the head of state elected by the people.

I have a question for everyone. Let's say 50% of the population lives in 5 states. Now, as offputting this may be, in a democratic society what's wrong with candidates making those 5 states as important as the other 45?

Yes I know if you live in alaska you want your state to be just as important as Texas, but again, we're a democracy, and shouldn't it be population that counts? It may seem unfair if "five states get half the attention" but isn't that where half the population is?

In a democratic society, isn't that the point? Why should the states have the power to pick the leader of the people?

No need. There is no _electorial_ college.

The thing is, the Electoral College is a way of balancing straight popular vote against the power of states themselves. This is the same reason we have a House AND Senate. To eliminate the Electoral College is like elmininating the Senate.
The President should get into power the same way as anyone else - popular concensus.

His role of national representation is even more important than state representation, so I don't see why it makes sense not to take overall public opinion as a measure of who gets into power, instead of a points-based arrangement.

As to the Senate element - I would agree entirely. In my opinon, that, too should be changed. Having one member per state guaranteed, and then the rest based on their population would, in my opinion, make more sense. Giving Vermont the same power as California or Texas is slightly questionable, seeing as the senators from Vermont are hardly going to have such a great deal of experience of dealing with a large amount of people, and that the 26 smallest states with Senate representation, whose population roughly totals 45-ish million at a quick count, could win over the 24 larger states, who hold the other 245 or so million people in the US is lunacy, in my opinion.

except it's not. Not at all in fact. Mainly because the senate is based on state power, whereas the president is the head of state elected by the people.

I have a question for everyone. Let's say 50% of the population lives in 5 states. Now, as offputting this may be, in a democratic society what's wrong with candidates making those 5 states as important as the other 45?

Yes I know if you live in alaska you want your state to be just as important as Texas, but again, we're a democracy, and shouldn't it be population that counts? It may seem unfair if "five states get half the attention" but isn't that where half the population is?

In a democratic society, isn't that the point? Why should the states have the power to pick the leader of the people?

actually, we're a Democratic Republic. but I understand the sentiment. :p

If this were a true democracy, then it would be Majority Rules. yet how many times did SCotUS have to overturn Majority rule to insure the rights of the Minority?

Take your 5 State example. The problem is that the other 45 states would be disreguarded. Candidates would only focus on those 5 states and the needs/desires/wants of those 5 states.

and speaking from a state that is normally disreguarded in presidental elections... it does suck.

actually, we're a Democratic Republic. but I understand the sentiment. :p

If this were a true democracy, then it would be Majority Rules. yet how many times did SCotUS have to overturn Majority rule to insure the rights of the Minority?

Take your 5 State example. The problem is that the other 45 states would be disreguarded. Candidates would only focus on those 5 states and the needs/desires/wants of those 5 states.

and speaking from a state that is normally disreguarded in presidental elections... it does suck.

Not disregarded, not really. Let's say 150 million people live in 5 states, and 150 million in the other 45.

Unless the candidate feels he can get the overwhelming majority of those 150 million in the 5 states, ignoring the rest of the country is stupid. he still needs half the votes to win. It will still make the other 150 million people in the 45 states just as important as the 150 million in the 5 states, and really, why should the 45 states combined, with 150 million people get more attention than the 150 million in the 5 states?

it's the same number of people.

however, the way it is now, candidates don't even need half. They only need half the electoral votes, and to get electoral votes you only need half the votes of that state. In many ways, a candidate only needs the right half of the right half to win a presidential election.

In fact, you want to talk being ignored? I live in Massachusetts, we are a solidly blue state. How much attention do you think the Mass. gets? None. It's going democrat. Now the margin it goes democrat may be able to be changed, maybe if a republican candidate spent some time in the state the vote would be less like 30%/70% and more 40%/60%.

If a republican candidate spent some time in this state, he/she might be able to secure maybe 10% more of the vote, that's 600,000 votes from the popular vote he could take from the democrat challenger and add to his/her own popular vote tally. But they never do.

Because the outcome of the state is predetermined for the most part, and very little is going to change that? Why would a candidate spend ANY time in Massachusetts if, even though he might raise his popular vote, it won't stop the state from going blue?

And, on the same hand, if the democratic candidate knows he's going to win massachussetts, and its only a matter if he gets 70% of the vote if he puts effort into the state, or 60% of the vote if he doesn't, why would he care either?

But if those 600,000 votes were actually up for grabs and might make the difference....

Not disregarded, not really. Let's say 150 million people live in 5 states, and 150 million in the other 45.

Unless the candidate feels he can get the overwhelming majority of those 150 million in the 5 states, ignoring the rest of the country is stupid. he still needs half the votes to win. It will still make the other 150 million people in the 45 states just as important as the 150 million in the 5 states, and really, why should the 45 states combined, with 150 million people get more attention than the 150 million in the 5 states?
because campaign wise, it's easier to reach the 150 million in those 5 states than it would be to travel around 45 states to reach the same amount. Logistically it's effective, cheaper and easier. that's why Hawaii has such a hard time getting big named performers here. because logistically, people from the other islands have to spend more to attend the same function and is thus undesireable.

however, the way it is now, candidates don't even need half. They only need half the electoral votes, and to get electoral votes you only need half the votes of that state. In many ways, a candidate only needs the right half of the right half to win a presidential election. but they need to go to more states to get them. thus more states are treated equally,

In fact, you want to talk being ignored? I live in Massachusetts, we are a solidly blue state. How much attention do you think the Mass. gets? None. It's going democrat. Now the margin it goes democrat may be able to be changed, maybe if a republican candidate spent some time in the state the vote would be less like 30%/70% and more 40%/60%.

If a republican candidate spent some time in this state, he/she might be able to secure maybe 10% more of the vote, that's 600,000 votes from the popular vote he could take from the democrat challenger and add to his/her own popular vote tally. But they never do. same with Hawaii. :( but there is no guarentee that by removing the Electorial College, your state (and mine) would get the treatement deserving of it's populace.

And, on the same hand, if the democratic candidate knows he's going to win massachussetts, and its only a matter if he gets 70% of the vote if he puts effort into the state, or 60% of the vote if he doesn't, why would he care either?

But if those 600,000 votes were actually up for grabs and might make the difference.... I feel for you. I really do. however, look how long the Primaries are going on and that is popular vote. can you imagine the General Elections?

The thing is, the Electoral College is a way of balancing straight popular vote against the power of states themselves. This is the same reason we have a House AND Senate. To eliminate the Electoral College is like elmininating the Senate.

How is it like eliminating the Senate, and why should lines on a map HAVE any power in electing the President? Clearly the electoral college doesn't work, it gave us Bushes first term.

Yes. We need to get rid of it badly.

I feel a comprimise would work best. Keep it, but make winning the popular vote worth some "electoral points".


Otherwise, make me king.

No, because although it sucks, its needed so canidates Campaign in most states, not just a few major ones like Californa, New York, Texas, ect, ect.
That makes zero sense. The electoral college hasn't balanced out the vast population differences between states for decades.
For example, winning California is like winning the majority of the South East. Of course, this ignoring the polarization of the nation that completely negates what little effect the electoral college is supposed to have.

I feel a comprimise would work best. Keep it, but make winning the popular vote worth some "electoral points".
You can't go for some utter crap halfway house system. Just pack it all in, for crying out loud. It's just a rubbish, rubbish system.

Clearly the electoral college doesn't work, it gave us Bushes first term.
Actually, it was the Court who did that. If Florida had been recounted, Gore would have won electoral as well as popular vote.
The only good argument I've heard for keeping the electoral-college system is that it localized any voter-fraud/counting-error problems: if we had a really close election in a pure popular-vote system, instead of a messy recount in Florida or Ohio we would have to do it nationwide.

That makes zero sense. The electoral college hasn't balanced out the vast population differences between states for decades.
For example, winning California is like winning the majority of the South East. Of course, this ignoring the polarization of the nation that completely negates what little effect the electoral college is supposed to have.

I havn't really noticed anyone campaigning to New York, we pretty much always vote democratic. The real problem isn't the electoral college, its how the state decides to divide up their votes. Alot of states go for the all or nothing approach, which doesn't make sense, if you want to talk about throwing your vote away consider voting for the republicans (democrats) in a very democratic (republican) state.

That said, I still think the electoral college is bull.

Actually, it was the Court who did that. If Florida had been recounted, Gore would have won electoral as well as popular vote.
The only good argument I've heard for keeping the electoral-college system is that it localized any voter-fraud/counting-error problems: if we had a really close election in a pure popular-vote system, instead of a messy recount in Florida or Ohio we would have to do it nationwide.
They recounted it about 83 times. They got the right amount of votes that were there, it's just that some would say that the whole thing was basically rigged in terms of who got to vote.

But aye, 2000 was not the first time that a president with less actual public approval got into power due to their Electoral College tally.

They recounted it about 83 times.
Uh, no. They started to recount the state once. Scalia ordered them not to finish.
They got the right amount of votes that were there
No, they did not.
But perhaps this should be a separate thread.

In fact, you want to talk being ignored? I live in Massachusetts, we are a solidly blue state. How much attention do you think the Mass. gets? None. It's going democrat. Now the margin it goes democrat may be able to be changed, maybe if a republican candidate spent some time in the state the vote would be less like 30%/70% and more 40%/60%.

If a republican candidate spent some time in this state, he/she might be able to secure maybe 10% more of the vote, that's 600,000 votes from the popular vote he could take from the democrat challenger and add to his/her own popular vote tally. But they never do.


And yet, to play devil's advocate for a moment, getting themselves elected is not the only reason a presidential candidate goes to a state: they also do it to campaign on behalf of state and Congressional candidates. In this case, swinging a state from 70-30 blue to 60-40 blue makes a huge difference if that swing gets concentrated in one or two districts. Control of the House has often depended on just such targeting.

So what you might have made a case for inadvertantly isn't an elimination of the electoral college; it's the elimination of district gerrymandering that makes these targeted swings so hard to accomplish. I realize that with some states are red or blue all over (Alaska, for example) and so there is no real point to going there by either candidate, but in the last election there was a seismic shift in the level of competitiveness in a lot of districts out west: Idaho's First District, for instance, once home of Helen frickin' Chenoweth, the woman who insisted on calling herself Congressman because Anglo-Saxon males were the real discriminated-against party in America, very nearly went blue, as did Nevada's first district, a district that has never voted Democrat and was specifically gerrymandered to be a Republican district (the Senate Minority Leader taught my Nevada Politics class in college and she bragged about how politically brilliant it was to cede Republicans that district).

Anyway, the point is that if attention from political candidates is really what you're after, then it's entirely possible that we could solve that problem without resorting to abandoning the Electoral College: a seismic shift in electoral math does it somewhat; neutrally-drawn districts would probably do it a lot. That being the case, it seems to me that a stronger case needs to be made for eliminating the Electoral College, as well as a better estimation of the unintended consequences.

Not disregarded, not really. Let's say 150 million people live in 5 states, and 150 million in the other 45.

Unless the candidate feels he can get the overwhelming majority of those 150 million in the 5 states, ignoring the rest of the country is stupid. he still needs half the votes to win. It will still make the other 150 million people in the 45 states just as important as the 150 million in the 5 states, and really, why should the 45 states combined, with 150 million people get more attention than the 150 million in the 5 states?

it's the same number of people.

however, the way it is now, candidates don't even need half. They only need half the electoral votes, and to get electoral votes you only need half the votes of that state. In many ways, a candidate only needs the right half of the right half to win a presidential election.

In fact, you want to talk being ignored? I live in Massachusetts, we are a solidly blue state. How much attention do you think the Mass. gets? None. It's going democrat. Now the margin it goes democrat may be able to be changed, maybe if a republican candidate spent some time in the state the vote would be less like 30%/70% and more 40%/60%.

If a republican candidate spent some time in this state, he/she might be able to secure maybe 10% more of the vote, that's 600,000 votes from the popular vote he could take from the democrat challenger and add to his/her own popular vote tally. But they never do.

Because the outcome of the state is predetermined for the most part, and very little is going to change that? Why would a candidate spend ANY time in Massachusetts if, even though he might raise his popular vote, it won't stop the state from going blue?

And, on the same hand, if the democratic candidate knows he's going to win massachussetts, and its only a matter if he gets 70% of the vote if he puts effort into the state, or 60% of the vote if he doesn't, why would he care either?

But if those 600,000 votes were actually up for grabs and might make the difference....

As a fellow Massachusetts resident I agree with you.

I have three problems with the electoral college:

1. The electors don't have to actually follow the popular vote of the state,
2. There is no proportionality, the winner of a plurality/majority gets ALL of the electors.
3. Biased towards small states, 1 Wyoming vote = 4 California votes electorally.

...because you're under the delusion that an individual votes for the President.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section2

Article II
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

Every vote IS counted. It's just that Constitutionally, the citizens have no right to determine the President. The STATES do. This was done for two reasons:
A) As a hedge to prevent mob rule and
B) To ensure that large states didn't run the country while still giving the States a say in the Federal Government. The 2 senators given to the small states (the much begrumbled "extra say" is really nothing to complain about: so Wyoming has 3 votes instead of 1. California got 55 instead of 53. That's hardly massive disenfrancisement: all it does is make sure that all states have at least a minimal say in the election, no matter their population. Otherwise, why join the Union?

Dismantling the EC would basically give the US an "NFLocracy": all the cities with football teams (plus L.A.) would decide the election. Don't live there? You don't count. Heck, if you don't live in a city, don't expect a politician to care about you even. Why do anything where the votes aren't?

...because you're under the delusion that an individual votes for the President.

It appears that you are under the delusion that politics haven't changed in the past two centuries.

:rolleyes:

Do we need to get rid of the electorial college? I say yes. For those of you who don't know about the EC:

No. It needs to be reformed though.

It appears that you are under the delusion that politics haven't changed in the past two centuries.

:rolleyes:

Feel free to enumerate how at any time. Your witty use of rolling eyes leaves me thus far unconvinced. :D

The cold, hard reality of the situation is that barring laws granting the vote to more people (and rightfully so!), the calculus of the Republic has not changed an iota. I'm glad that all of majority age can elect whom they choose for various offices.

However, the idea for direct representation for the Presidency is like gun control, the war on drugs, or the Prohibition of Alcohol: just a bad idea. The Republic was set up in a *VERY* equal way for a reason -- so that everyone would be basically content, not so that a few would be happy.
Rights were given to the People, to the States, and to the Federal Government. So far I've yet to see any valid reason why this right should be taken from the States and given to (some) of the People.

I havn't really noticed anyone campaigning to New York, we pretty much always vote democratic. The real problem isn't the electoral college, its how the state decides to divide up their votes. Alot of states go for the all or nothing approach, which doesn't make sense, if you want to talk about throwing your vote away consider voting for the republicans (democrats) in a very democratic (republican) state.

That said, I still think the electoral college is bull.

This can be easily fixed by a simple means: let all cities (50,000+) vote on their own, they get 1 EC vote each. Then let all the small towns vote collectively and give them an equal number of votes. So if (say) Connecticut has 50 cities, it gets 100 votes: 50 cities and 50 "state". Top vote in the "district" gets that vote.

That way, the people who live in rural areas have as much say as their state's more numerous city-dwelling populace. Sure, that means that a voter in Goshen might have the same weight as 1,000 in New Haven, but it's all in fairness, right? Every vote should count!

Now, if anyone things this is a bad idea (which I hope you all do!): getting rid of the current EC for direct representation does the same thing... in reverse.

Feel free to enumerate how at any time.

Oh, I don't know... perhaps the fact that in every state, individuals do actually vote for the President?

Yes, the Constitution doesn't specify that. I know that. I bet plenty of other "Yes" voters know it too. So?

The Republic was set up in a *VERY* equal way for a reason -- so that everyone would be basically content, not so that a few would be happy.

You realize that the Electoral College makes it easier for fewer to get more?

That's precisely the complaint.

Rights were given to the People, to the States, and to the Federal Government. So far I've yet to see any valid reason why this right should be taken from the States and given to (some) of the People.

As far as making the election of the president more indirect, as the Founders intended, the Electoral College has been useless ever since state legislatures gave the right to the people. Talking about it in terms of "States" versus "the People" is irrelevant.

The only defense of it you can make is that it gives less populous states more say. And pointing out that the Constitution doesn't specify any individual right to vote is completely irrelevant to that.

Oh, I don't know... perhaps the fact that in every state, individuals do actually vote for the President?

Yes, the Constitution doesn't specify that. I know that. I bet plenty of other "Yes" voters know it too. So?

No, individuals most certainly do NOT vote for the President. They vote for whom the Elector is supposed to vote for.

You realize that the Electoral College makes it easier for fewer to get more?

That's precisely the complaint.

How? You keep saying this, but not why you believe this to be true. Both small and large states get their Senatorial count in Electors. That Wyoming is up from 1 to 3 doesn't take away from California, even though it got a smaller "bump" from 53 to 55.
Surely you're not saying that people in the more populous states are unhappy that a candidate could take the 39 "smaller" states and still lose the election?? :D
This is the United STATES, not the United CITIES of America.

As far as making the election of the president more indirect, as the Founders intended, the Electoral College is useless ever since state legislatures gave the right to the people.

The only defense of it you can make is that it gives less populous states more say. And pointing out that the Constitution doesn't specify any individual right to vote is completely irrelevant to that.

They did? News to me! I didn't see anything revised on the 12th Amendment. There's no reason why (if they wanted to) New Hampshire's State Legislature couldn't just choose the 4 best cow milkers as Electors. As late as 1812 half the states just plain chose their delegates, as did Colorado in 1876. Heck, Florida may have done likewise in 2000 had the Democrats not started the lawsuit.

Yes, that is correct, it does AS WELL as giving the States a voice in National Government.
It's not irrelevant, it's the seperations of powers and delegation of rights, and at the very cornerstone of the Republic.

No, individuals most certainly do NOT vote for the President. They vote for whom the Elector is supposed to vote for.

That's a pedantic and pointless distinction.

It wouldn't be, perhaps, if electors didn't virtually always vote for the candidate they're supposed to. But they do.

That Wyoming is up from 1 to 3 doesn't take away from California, even though it got a smaller "bump" from 53 to 55.

That's ridiculous. What matters is not the absolute quantity, but the relative one. If I have 10 votes, I have almost dictatorial power in a group where the total number of votes is 20, but I have very little say in a group where the total number of votes is 1,000,000.

Adding two votes to all the states necessarily gives less power to the larger states, because what matters is not how many votes the candidate gets (absolute), but whether or not the candidate gets a majority (relative). This becomes obvious if you just increase the number added--say, to a thousand.

"Say" in government is necessarily a zero-sum game: if I get more influence, somebody else gets less.

They did? News to me! I didn't see anything revised on the 12th Amendment. There's no reason why (if they wanted to) New Hampshire's State Legislature couldn't just choose the 4 best cow milkers as Electors. As late as 1812 half the states just plain chose their delegates, as did Colorado in 1876. Heck, Florida may have done likewise in 2000 had the Democrats not started the lawsuit.

Funny how your last example is from 1876... and as for Florida in 2000, I'm not sure that's an example you want to emulate.

In any case, the attempt with the greatest potential to succeed at effectively eliminating the Electoral College doesn't take that constitutional power away from the state legislatures at all. All it does is get them to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the state one.

Yes. Get rid of it.

It's an outdated system. When it was put in place, it made perfect sense because not everybody could get to a voting booth in those days.

Now, though, everyone can easily make it to a booth, so there's no point in having a system that focuses more on the state than the people.

As one of the few remaining reminders of states' rights, the electoral college should remain in place.
States' rights have been absolutely trampled in the last century - the federal government has become all-encompassing and states currently make very few decisions for themselves.

No, seriously, just make me king.

This is the United STATES, not the United CITIES of America.
You say that as if it is a bad thing. If more people live in cities than in rural areas, why should rural areas have their voting power increased?

It certainly needs reformed, but not entirely replaced. I've long proposed the concept of allocating electors by Congressional district, plus two for winning the entire state. Use a combined House and Senate for tiebreaking, should the need arise.

It certainly needs reformed, but not entirely replaced. I've long proposed the concept of allocating electors by Congressional district, plus two for winning the entire state. Use a combined House and Senate for tiebreaking, should the need arise.
You'd probably have to find a way to eliminate gerrymandering first.

Uh, no. They started to recount the state once. Scalia ordered them not to finish.

No, the Supreme Court ordered them to stop, because of Constitutional and legal requirements that were already in place. Specifically, the f14th amendment, and the deadlines for having certified their vote counts for the electoral college. As it stood, Florida's statewide recount was not being carried out in a uniform fashion, and was thus a direct violation of the equal protection clause, and because of the deadlines, there was insufficient time to develop a system that would have been compliant with the 14th amendment.

In effect, the state of Florida was actually well on its way to breaking the law in that recount.

So, about making me king....

You'd probably have to find a way to eliminate gerrymandering first.

Naturally, given that, to begin with, this process would likely be easiest if the way was paved by a Constitutional amendment, an amendment in regards to redistricting would need to be put in place as well at the same time.

No, the Supreme Court ordered them to stop, because of Constitutional and legal requirements that were already in place. Specifically, the f14th amendment, and the deadlines for having certified their vote counts for the electoral college. As it stood, Florida's statewide recount was not being carried out in a uniform fashion, and was thus a direct violation of the equal protection clause, and because of the deadlines, there was insufficient time to develop a system that would have been compliant with the 14th amendment.

In effect, the state of Florida was actually well on its way to breaking the law in that recount.

Something that most people do not realize and when pointed out, they say it was constitutional even though it wasn't.

Naturally, given that, to begin with, this process would likely be easiest if the way was paved by a Constitutional amendment, an amendment in regards to redistricting would need to be put in place as well at the same time.
If only the state legislatures would pass it...

"We should get rid of it because we're democracy!" is such a lazy argument. What about the Senate? It's much more obscene example of undemocratic elements ... where Montana gets two votes and California gets two votes, even though California has 35+ times as many people. In the six years it takes to elect all senators, Republicans could get two senators elected in each of the smaller 30 states, and Dems two senators in the larger 20 -- and even though many more people voted Democratic, Republicans would control the body 60-40. Why aren't these populists calling for the abolition of the Senate?

If you insist on "popular consensus" controlling absolutely everything in government, start with the Senate. Then we can talk the Electoral College.

omgtkk,

Look at the House of Representative! California has more house seats than any other state. Tell me...how is that democratic!

omgtkk,

Look at the House of Representative! California has more house seats than any other state. Tell me...how is that democratic!Because California has the most people?

Because California has the most people?

As the saying goes...

"He wanted to get away from all Civilisation so...he went to southern California"

I won't judge the North.

Working as intended. Remove it and say GOOD BYE to campaigning anywhere save for New York, California, and Texas.

A national primary would fix EC woes by removing the importance of 'early' state elections.

You say that as if it is a bad thing. If more people live in cities than in rural areas, why should rural areas have their voting power increased?

It is a bad thing. If the cities controlled the elections, why bother with anywhere but the NFLocracy? Presidents would veto any help to rural areas, as it would come at the expense of the cities. "That farm bill? Yeah, kill it. We need to pave more of Denver." Basically, it would disenfranchise millions of tax paying citizens that are spread out amongst the 9.8 million square km of the rest of the country! Again, *why* join the union if you don't live in the top 20 biggest cities? Why pay taxes if you live in Connecticut?

The rural areas don't have their voting power increased. That the city voters are counted with the State they live in is a balance. :)

No, individuals most certainly do NOT vote for the President. They vote for whom the Elector is supposed to vote for.
Correct.
How? You keep saying this, but not why you believe this to be true. Both small and large states get their Senatorial count in Electors. That Wyoming is up from 1 to 3 doesn't take away from California, even though it got a smaller "bump" from 53 to 55.
In proportion to population, Wyoming should be a fraction, not a whole 1. The boost on the voting power of each Wyomingan (Wyomingite?) is actually even larger than stated.
They did? News to me! I didn't see anything revised on the 12th Amendment. There's no reason why (if they wanted to) New Hampshire's State Legislature couldn't just choose the 4 best cow milkers as Electors.
It's the 14th Amendment which changed it: if people are not permitted to vote for Representatives or for Presidential Electors, the Congressional representation of that State is diminished in proportion to the fraction of voters who are disenfranchised. If a legislature chose the Electors now, that state (since it had disenfranchised all of the voters in one of the protected elections) would forfeit all of its seat in the House of Representatives.
As late as 1812 half the states just plain chose their delegates, as did Colorado in 1876.
Colorado was given a pass on that, once, because it was admitted just prior to the November balloting.
Heck, Florida may have done likewise in 2000 had the Democrats not started the lawsuit.
That would have forfeited all of Florida's Representatives.

No, because although it sucks, its needed so canidates Campaign in most states, not just a few major ones like Californa, New York, Texas, ect, ect.

Wow, well put.

I also like it, it works just fine for me.

No, seriously, just make me king.

I do hereby appoint you king...
*crowns KoL*
...of Vermont

That's a pedantic and pointless distinction.

It wouldn't be, perhaps, if electors didn't virtually always vote for the candidate they're supposed to. But they do..

Why is it pedantic? It is the truth. Your say so is no reason for it to be thrown on the trash-heap of history like Prohibition or slavery. C'mon, make a sound argument for a valid option for EC reform! I've already pointed out reasons why DR isn't the way to go with our government.

True, there are rarely "Faithless Electors", but I see that as a boon, not a reason to scrap a functioning system!

That's ridiculous. What matters is not the absolute quantity, but the relative one. If I have 10 votes, I have almost dictatorial power in a group where the total number of votes is 20, but I have very little say in a group where the total number of votes is 1,000,000..

Ah. So you're complaining that:
Wyoming: 1 in 438 (no Senatorial Electors) = 0.22% of the Presidential vote
California: 53 in 438 (no Senatorial Electors) = 12.10% of the Presidential vote
vs.
Wyoming: 3 in 538 (w/ Senatorial Electors) = 0.55% of the Presidential vote
California: 55 in 538 (w/ Senatorial Electors) = 10.22% of the Presidential vote

...California loses just under 2% of their direct population votes, while Wyoming's is increased 2.5 times... though they still barely give half a percentage to a winner.

Adding two votes to all the states necessarily gives less power to the larger states, because what matters is not how many votes the candidate gets (absolute), but whether or not the candidate gets a majority (relative). This becomes obvious if you just increase the number added--say, to a thousand.

"Say" in government is necessarily a zero-sum game: if I get more influence, somebody else gets less..

If that's true, your whole arguement boils down this: "the Union is not a Union of equals. Only high population states matter." Sorry, I disagree. California is NOT superior to Wyoming, or any other state. That's why there IS a Senate after all! So that all States have some say in Government.

Funny how your last example is from 1876... and as for Florida in 2000, I'm not sure that's an example you want to emulate.

In any case, the attempt with the greatest potential to succeed at effectively eliminating the Electoral College doesn't take that constitutional power away from the state legislatures at all. All it does is get them to allocate their electors to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the state one.

It's the last time it popped up. You know, kind of like how 2000 was the first time since 1876 that there was a disputed election. :D As for Florida in 2000, who's emulating what example? The issue was settled long ago, and I'd think that if you were unhappy with the outcome that you'd have perhaps LIKED it as a concept, what with the Florida Legislative Branch being marginally more Democratic than the Supreme Court.

That's still DR by another name. It doesn't change the dynamic of big-over-small, and of city-over-rural. All it does is disenfrancise people that don't live in places where one can readily find more than one Chinese restaurant. :(

Correct.

In proportion to population, Wyoming should be a fraction, not a whole 1. The boost on the voting power of each Wyomingan (Wyomingite?) is actually even larger than stated.

It's the 14th Amendment which changed it: if people are not permitted to vote for Representatives or for Presidential Electors, the Congressional representation of that State is diminished in proportion to the fraction of voters who are disenfranchised. If a legislature chose the Electors now, that state (since it had disenfranchised all of the voters in one of the protected elections) would forfeit all of its seat in the House of Representatives.

Colorado was given a pass on that, once, because it was admitted just prior to the November balloting.

That would have forfeited all of Florida's Representatives.

* Thanks.
* Agreed, but then if we had to calculate all states by fractions it'd be kind of messy. I put the exact % into the post above.
* Thanks. Bloody typos. Good point! But note that it might still have been necessary to break the crisis.
* True. But as that was an exceptional case, so was the dead heat in Florida in 2000... it wouldn't be the first time something excpetional was brought back, like Lincoln suspending Habeus Corpus for American Citizens during the Civil War in certain situations.
* Not necessarily. The Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal deadline for choosing electors. There'd be fewer Reps, but they'd still hold on to their Senators and 1 Rep at minimum.

"Get rid of the electorial college?"

Um... HELL YEAH!!! Its outdated and now impedes democracy. Lord knows we have enough undemocratic things going on in this country right now. The voters need to get full control.

I dunno. . . I would like to keep the EC but have the votes split percentage-wise for each state. I think that the problem that would entail would be that urban areas would be goven more voice but under the current system, they will be given all of the voice. Also, states with a slim margin of victore can have the elevtoral votes display that factor, and maybe a 3rd party can have a vote or two,

"Get rid of the electorial college?"

Um... HELL YEAH!!! Its outdated and now impedes democracy. Lord knows we have enough undemocratic things going on in this country right now. The voters need to get full control.

It's outdated like due process, Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition... Right to Bear Arms... Trial by Jury... stuff like that? ;) :D

Why is it pedantic? It is the truth.

Most pedantry is truthful. It's just also useless.

California loses just under 2% of their direct population votes, while Wyoming's is increased 2.5 times... though they still barely give half a percentage to a winner.

There are fifty states in the Union. The difference matters in total. For example, I'm pretty sure Bush would have lost the first time, and maybe the second, without it.

If that's true, your whole arguement boils down this: "the Union is not a Union of equals. Only high population states matter."

What are you talking about? The Union is (or should be) a union of equals: equal individuals, not equal states. Small-population states matter, too, but only in proportion to their population. Not beyond it.

Should we give extra votes to people with red hair because they are in the minority population-wise?

All it does is disenfrancise people that don't live in places where one can readily find more than one Chinese restaurant. :(

No one is disenfranchised. Their votes count the same as everyone else's.

It's outdated like due process, Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition... Right to Bear Arms... Trial by Jury... stuff like that? ;) :D

Only in the eyes of der Furher Bush.

Most pedantry is truthful. It's just also useless.

There are fifty states in the Union. The difference matters in total. For example, I'm pretty sure Bush would have lost the first time, and maybe the second, without it.

So the truth is useless? You must read the New York Times!! ;)
And Gore would have won had he carried his own state, and Kerry would have won had he taken Ohio. That's a hell of an argument you're making there: you seem to want to upend the rules because you didn't like the results regarding one side winning twice in a row. I wish the Yankees could do that!

What are you talking about? The Union is (or should be) a union of equals: equal individuals, not equal states. Small-population states matter, too, but only in proportion to their population. Not beyond it.

Should we give extra votes to people with red hair because they are in the minority population-wise?

Ah. So... "everyone is equal, except for the ones that don't live in clusters, close together. They get less say." You keep saying that, but I think you're not realizing it. The States exist because the people in a region chose to join together and form a government, then join the Union. You're saying that we should dissolve the Senate and not let them have an equal voice. Which foils the Connecticut Compromise, and basically ends the Union before it begins! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_compromise

You tell me: I'm not the one saying that people actually vote for the President! :) The States are the ones that do, it is their power. And since the formula is Senators+Reps=Votes, I'm satisfied... as both large & small states are given their voices... Further, I'm not saying the minority should be given more say. I'm saying that the law is the law, and that it is a very GOOD law.

No one is disenfranchised. Their votes count the same as everyone else's.

Oh, inasmuch as 1 vote = 1 vote, sure. The fact that the cities would dominate and that the rural areas would get the shaft? Not so much.
For example: today it takes Connecticut and Rhode Island to get 11 votes, which balances out Tennessee. Take away those Senatorial Electors and now Tennessee still gets 9 votes, but we need to add Vermont to balance it out. That's the small scale. Think how many 1 vote states would be needed to "balance" a 53 vote California! :eek:

Only in the eyes of der Furher Bush.

Then you Ohio boys shouldn't have had your brown shirts back in 04', huh?

Do we need to get rid of the electorial college? I say yes. For those of you who don't know about the EC:

With the electoral college, the people aren't making the final decision. This is wrong.

I do hereby appoint you king...
*crowns KoL*
...of Vermont

Bout time.

Oh wait....fuck Vermont. Oh well. Good enough.

The States exist because the people in a region chose to join together and form a government, then join the Union.
Well, no, I think only in the case of Vermont and West Virginia could it be argued that the unit exists because the local people decided to form that governmental unit. In all other cases the boundaries are arbitrary pencil lines that were drawn by people far far away.

That's a hell of an argument you're making there: you seem to want to upend the rules because you didn't like the results regarding one side winning twice in a row.

The point is not that Bush in particular won because of it. The point is that the two additional EC votes can make the difference in an election... which, because they don't correspond to population, is undemocratic.

Ah. So... "everyone is equal, except for the ones that don't live in clusters, close together. They get less say."

That's not what I said.

The States exist because the people in a region chose to join together and form a government, then join the Union. You're saying that we should dissolve the Senate and not let them have an equal voice. Which foils the Connecticut Compromise, and basically ends the Union before it begins! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_compromise

I was right. You are stuck in 1787.

:rolleyes:

The States are the ones that do, it is their power.

And if we believe in democracy, then their power derives from and is not independent of the people they represent. It follows that their power in selecting governing authorities should be proportionate to population.

It would be different if we really were a confederation, if "government" on the national level really just represented a commitment of various more or less autonomous states to cooperate with each other... then a primary concern would be preserving state autonomy rather than democratic governance (on the national level), and state-based voting would make sense.

But not in the government system we actually have.

For example: today it takes Connecticut and Rhode Island to get 11 votes, which balances out Tennessee. Take away those Senatorial Electors and now Tennessee still gets 9 votes, but we need to add Vermont to balance it out. That's the small scale.

So?

You forget, among other things, that effectively abolishing the EC would get rid of winner-take-all as well: to get all the urban votes, a politician would have to campaign pretty hard. It makes much more sense to appeal to a broad segment of the population.

No, because although it sucks, its needed so canidates Campaign in most states, not just a few major ones like Californa, New York, Texas, ect, ect.
This is a fallacious myth. The effect of the electoral college is to focus attention on a handful of large swing states. Small states, as a statistical rule, actually have less power within the electoral college than within a popular election.

Furthermore, the electoral college system strongly encourages cheating in crucial close states.

Well, no, I think only in the case of Vermont and West Virginia could it be argued that the unit exists because the local people decided to form that governmental unit. In all other cases the boundaries are arbitrary pencil lines that were drawn by people far far away.

I'm unclear as to your choice of Vermont, as its creation and joining the Union are very similar to Texas or Florida's.

West Virginia exists because that part of Virginia refused to leave the Union during the Civil War. In any event, the effect is still the same: the state formed by the will of the local populace, and then joined the Union out of choice. They could just have well gone off with the CSA.

As for pencils, that's a state-by-state basis. It's certainly true in some, but not in others.

This is a fallacious myth. The effect of the electoral college is to focus attention on a handful of large swing states. Small states, as a statistical rule, actually have less power within the electoral college than within a popular election.

Furthermore, the electoral college system strongly encourages cheating in crucial close states.

So what were the "swing states" in 1800? Rhode Island and Georgia?? I strongly suggest you should consider not looking at the EC in the prism of the last two elections and consider it historically.

As shown in my post to Soheran, small states have a slightly greater voice with the EC than with DR. There is no way to argue otherwise: if you think Delaware doesn't matter now, consider how much it will matter if San Diego alone is catered to as a voting constituancy!
Flat out: if one takes the Senatorial Electors away, there is no reason for ~40 states to be in the union. And most of those states (Connecticut, Delaware, New Jersey, Minnesota) GIVE more in taxes to the Federal Governement than they get back. No taxation without representation. Game over.

ANY system encourages cheating. That's the problem with voting in general. While Ohio-Florida vote stealing conspiracies are all well and entertaining, given the amount of corruption in some DR voting countries (Russia anyone? How about Iran?), that's no solution either.

The Electoral College makes the whole thing fun to watch, yes, but is it really fair? No, not really. Would it be good to change it? Sure. Will they change it? Not a chance.

As far as electing the President, I will swear up and down that the best way to elect a President is similar to how they pick who stays and who goes on "American Idol." Simply put, the primaries and stuff happen early on for every party - the GOP, the Dems, the Greens, you name it. By, let's say, the beginning of March, the top 12 parties in the country each pick one candidate. The first week in April, everyone votes for their favorite, and the top 10 vote-getters go on. Repeat in May, when eight advance, and in June, when six advance. In June, the initial conventions take place, and each candidate picks a VP. Then in July, they vote again, with the lowest-voted candidate leaving the competition. Repeat the process until only two remain, with each vote taking place in the first week of each month.

The first part, as in before they get it to six, is by straight popular vote. After that, while I would prefer a straight vote, it may be best to split the vote up by Congressional district, with a candidate who wins a district getting one vote while a candidate who wins a state gets two. Whoever wins D.C. gets three, of course. Lowest total is out.

I picture town hall debates and stuff for the six remaining candidates, VP debates toward the end, and maybe even come Cabinet selections if it comes to that. The grand finale would take place on Election Day with two candidates, and the winner takes all.

The idea is to give third-party candidates a chance. Not too many will win, but at least it's a fairer fight. Aside from that, people can't say, "Well, it's just the lesser of two evils," when there are 12 evils to pick from.

The point is not that Bush in particular won because of it. The point is that the two additional EC votes can make the difference in an election... which, because they don't correspond to population, is undemocratic.

Exactly, two EC votes can make the difference. So smaller states MATTER. Ah! But the US is NOT a Democracy! We're a Republic!
And for that matter, what makes population the final arbiter as to what is and what is not Democratic? I say we should allocate EC votes by square mile of territory in a state! That way, there is equality for all: everyone living in a set area votes and all votes are counted equally. HOPEFULLY, you see that while this system would be no more or less fair than DR in terms of all citizen's votes being counted equally, but that it is still unfair demographically, just as DR is.

That's not what I said.
Yes it is... and you said it again above: " because they don't correspond to population, is undemocratic." This is why I said I didn't think you were aware of the arguement you're making. :)

I was right. You are stuck in 1787.

:rolleyes:

Your clever use of rolling eyes still leaves me unconvinced, and you've still yet to actually state how and why things have changed in 200 years. Feel free to do so, or stop barbing.

And if we believe in democracy, then their power derives from and is not independent of the people they represent. It follows that their power in selecting governing authorities should be proportionate to population.

Exactly so. And the rules for the such power are enshrined in the Constitution. Thanks for the agreement on this point!

It would be different if we really were a confederation, if "government" on the national level really just represented a commitment of various more or less autonomous states to cooperate with each other... then a primary concern would be preserving state autonomy rather than democratic governance (on the national level), and state-based voting would make sense.

But not in the government system we actually have.

It does. You'll note that all powers not deposited with the Federal Government reside with the States or the Individual. For example, I still have to pay income tax in two different states. I can't carry my handgun to one of them, even though I'm paying taxes there.
Never mind other issues like the water rights battle being waged in the West. Or New York's attempt for the "passenger bill of rights" that was recently killed but may come back again anyway.
State government is alive and well in the US.

So?

You forget, among other things, that effectively abolishing the EC would get rid of winner-take-all as well: to get all the urban votes, a politician would have to campaign pretty hard. It makes much more sense to appeal to a broad segment of the population.


See my square-mileage plan above. Don't like it? That's why I don't like DR: it may be counter-intuitive, but it actually marginalizes people. This system was a compromise, and it's a darn good one!

It would? HOW? You've yet to put up a single idea for elections barring DR or getting rid of Senatorial Elections, both of which are indefensible.
As for a candidate working hard for all the urban votes, that's pretty much a joke, as I hope we both know. Historically, cities vote Democrat and rural areas vote Republican with VERY few exceptions. Why? Becuase the way the parties split between social programs, entitlements, etc.
Name me a city besides San Diego that W actually won. Or districts in Idaho that Gore did. Here's a 2000 election map (by district) from USA Today to help: http://bias.blogfodder.net/archives/archive/photos/2000countymap%20USA%20Today.jpg
...as you can see, there are exceptions, but they're rare.
Feel free to answer again for Carter/Ford or any other matchup since World War One. The answer remains the same.

The Electoral College makes the whole thing fun to watch, yes, but is it really fair? No, not really. Would it be good to change it? Sure. Will they change it? Not a chance.

As far as electing the President, I will swear up and down that the best way to elect a President is similar to how they pick who stays and who goes on "American Idol." Simply put, the primaries and stuff happen early on for every party - the GOP, the Dems, the Greens, you name it. By, let's say, the beginning of March, the top 12 parties in the country each pick one candidate. The first week in April, everyone votes for their favorite, and the top 10 vote-getters go on. Repeat in May, when eight advance, and in June, when six advance. In June, the initial conventions take place, and each candidate picks a VP. Then in July, they vote again, with the lowest-voted candidate leaving the competition. Repeat the process until only two remain, with each vote taking place in the first week of each month.

The first part, as in before they get it to six, is by straight popular vote. After that, while I would prefer a straight vote, it may be best to split the vote up by Congressional district, with a candidate who wins a district getting one vote while a candidate who wins a state gets two. Whoever wins D.C. gets three, of course. Lowest total is out.

I picture town hall debates and stuff for the six remaining candidates, VP debates toward the end, and maybe even come Cabinet selections if it comes to that. The grand finale would take place on Election Day with two candidates, and the winner takes all.

The idea is to give third-party candidates a chance. Not too many will win, but at least it's a fairer fight. Aside from that, people can't say, "Well, it's just the lesser of two evils," when there are 12 evils to pick from.

What you're talking about is basically a runoff system like they have in France or many other countries. The problem is that most people can't be bothered to go vote ONCE a year. The turnout for 12 (or even 6!) votes would be even lower than the numbers that turn out for the current primary system. :(

I'm unclear as to your choice of Vermont, as its creation and joining the Union are very similar to Texas or Florida's.
You are correct that Texas was a self-organized unit, and ought to have been on my list. Perhaps Hawaii also belongs there, although the unit was created by conquest rather than popular decision.
It is not true, however, about Florida. There was a self-organized "Republic of West Florida", briefly; however, it contained almost no territory that is now called "Florida" (it consisted of northeast Louisiana, still called the "Florida parishes", the Gulf coast and some interior of Mississippi and Alabama, and a small piece of the Florida panhandle).
As for pencils, that's a state-by-state basis. It's certainly true in some, but not in others.
In the original 13 cases, the pencil lines were drawn in London. In all other cases but 4 (see above), the pencil lines were drawn in Washington DC.

You are correct that Texas was a self-organized unit, and ought to have been on my list. Perhaps Hawaii also belongs there, although the unit was created by conquest rather than popular decision.
It is not true, however, about Florida. There was a self-organized "Republic of West Florida", briefly; however, it contained almost no territory that is now called "Florida" (it consisted of northeast Louisiana, still called the "Florida parishes", the Gulf coast and some interior of Mississippi and Alabama, and a small piece of the Florida panhandle).

In the original 13 cases, the pencil lines were drawn in London. In all other cases but 4 (see above), the pencil lines were drawn in Washington DC.

That's partially true: all of the original 13 had their lines drawn and redrawn by London. For example, had things gone a little differently, there could have been 14 colonies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_of_New_Haven.
However, many changed over time, often without Federal impetus. Consider the Michigan-Ohio wars, or the the decision of Texas (so far!) to never split into as many as 5 states. Or the old "Western Reserve" in Ohio and the Treaty of Fort Industry.

My point with Florida was that it was bought from Spain and the citizens there organized into a government, though you're right about the Federal Gov't being involved vis-a-vis the Seminole Wars.

My point is rather the DC did not always draw the pencil lines, nor London. On occasion, it was the states themselves.

What you're talking about is basically a runoff system like they have in France or many other countries. The problem is that most people can't be bothered to go vote ONCE a year. The turnout for 12 (or even 6!) votes would be even lower than the numbers that turn out for the current primary system. :(

This is why we need a system that allows people to vote, say, over the phone or the internet. The idea is this - just like American Idol, you call a number to vote for a candidate. The system, rather than saying, "Thank you for voting for David Cook," says, "Please enter your Social Security Number," and then may ask for a Voter ID number and a password or something. The idea is to prevent voter fraud, and though it's not a perfect system, no system is.

I suggest this because people vote far more frequently for shows such as "American Idol" than for public office. I think a lot of that is convenience. If voting were made more convenient, I think more people would do it.

However, many changed over time, often without Federal impetus. Consider the Michigan-Ohio wars
I do not know what you have been told about the "Toledo War", but that was 100% Federal impetus, over the strenuous objections of the inhabitants.
or the the decision of Texas (so far!) to never split into as many as 5 states.
I acknowledge that Texas ought to have been on the (small) list of exceptions where the inhabitants had anything to say about the boundaries.
Or the old "Western Reserve" in Ohio
The boundary lines in that case were drawn by the Articles of Confederation regime, who set up a special court to settle the Connecticut/Pennsylvania dispute. The inhabitants, again, had no say.
and the Treaty of Fort Industry.
I do not know this case: details?
My point with Florida was that it was bought from Spain and the citizens there organized into a government
My point was that the inhabitants had nothing to do with the creation of such a unit as "Florida" in the first place.
My point is rather the DC did not always draw the pencil lines, nor London. On occasion, it was the states themselves.
In 4 cases only.