How 'bout that electoral college?

[Mongoose]

I figured it might be interesting to see how people view the electoral college.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The electoral college has its flaws, but I think going to a popular vote would be worse. Can you imagine what 2000 would have been like if the recount mess in Florida was not limited to one state.

I support modifying the electoral college so that the candidate who wins a Congressional district gets one vote and the candidate who wins the whole state wins two votes.

I have considered proportional distribution, but I think the issue of how to round the votes is just too complicated. It would probably be better to just go to a popular vote instead of this.

 

[Sycophant]

The electoral college has its flaws, but I think going to a popular vote would be worse. Can you imagine what 2000 would have been like if the recount mess in Florida was not limited to one state.

Perhaps a little more national oversight of voting procedures would be in order. Many other nations manage to have popular votes without the need to recounts.

I support modifying the electoral college so that the candidate who wins a Congressional district gets one vote and the candidate who wins the whole state wins two votes.

I have considered proportional distribution, but I think the issue of how to round the votes is just too complicated. It would probably be better to just go to a popular vote instead of this.

I think a proportional system is the only way to be even slightly fair with the existing electoral college system. Winner takes all is clearly not even close to representing the will of the people. Rounding should be too big an issue, we manage to round numbers in every other part of our life.

The stranger thing still is that at present the electoral college voters aren't even legally obliged to cast their vote according to their stated intention or the outcome of the state's vote.

I think an overall revamp would be in order.

I'd also recommend some form of proportional representation at a legislative level, but that would never happen because it would ruin the monopoly that the current two parties hold on government, and allow other more diverse voices into government.

 

[platzapS]

The stranger thing still is that at present the electoral college voters aren't even legally obliged to cast their vote according to their stated intention or the outcome of the state's vote.

The system made sense 200 years ago, when the commoners had no access to good (or even mediocre) information about the candidates. But if an elector today chose someone other than the people's vote, there would be outrage. As the original purpose has been rendered obsolete by public awareness of political issues and the influence of easily-accessible media, the electoral college itself is obsolete.

The EC must be a huge demotivator for voting unless you live in a swing state. If you're a Democrat in Alabama, or a Republican in California, what's the point of voting? Your vote truly does NOT matter!

Under a one-person, one-vote system, Republicans in California and Democrats in Alabama will matter on election day. I see no reason to keep the current system.

 

[DieHappy]

The system made sense 200 years ago, when the commoners had no access to good (or even mediocre) information about the candidates. But if an elector today chose someone other than the people's vote, there would be outrage.

This actually happens every time. Last year at least one elector voted for George Bush senior just to be a jerk. I'm pretty sure it was 84 when and elector from Minnesota voted for someone besides Dukakis. He was supposed to get however many votes that state has, but he actually got one less. So far, it's never actually mattered, but it is allowed.

 

[platzapS]

This actually happens every time. Last year at least one elector voted for George Bush senior just to be a jerk. I'm pretty sure it was 84 when and elector from Minnesota voted for someone besides Dukakis. He was supposed to get however many votes that state has, but he actually got one less. So far, it's never actually mattered, but it is allowed

Really? That's interesting, but it was probably only accepted because it made no difference.

 

[Inconel]

The system made sense 200 years ago, when the commoners had no access to good (or even mediocre) information about the candidates. But if an elector today chose someone other than the people's vote, there would be outrage. As the original purpose has been rendered obsolete by public awareness of political issues and the influence of easily-accessible media, the electoral college itself is obsolete.

The EC must be a huge demotivator for voting unless you live in a swing state. If you're a Democrat in Alabama, or a Republican in California, what's the point of voting? Your vote truly does NOT matter!

Under a one-person, one-vote system, Republicans in California and Democrats in Alabama will matter on election day. I see no reason to keep the current system.

The electoral college was part of a compromise, so that smaller states which would otherwise have no impact on the popular vote could count on having "some" sway over the presidential elections. After all, if a state has no voice in the Union, why would they want to join? This is taken further with the US senate, where Wyoming has just as much power as California.

I think the flaw with turncoat electors can be solved if electoral votes were made automatically, based on the popular vote in the state.

 

[Sycophant]

2004: One elector from Minnesota voted for John Edwards for both President and Vice-President.
2000: One vote from the District of Columbia was not cast.
Source

See also Wikipedia: Electoral College - Faithless Electors

 

[Selznak]

The system made sense 200 years ago, when the commoners had no access to good (or even mediocre) information about the candidates. But if an elector today chose someone other than the people's vote, there would be outrage. As the original purpose has been rendered obsolete by public awareness of political issues and the influence of easily-accessible media, the electoral college itself is obsolete.

Regarding that paticular purpose for the EC, you are quite correct in your observations. However, the EC serves a much more important purpose. Just as the founders designed the Senate as a balance against the House by giving both the smaller states as well as the larger states an equal number of Senators, so the EC helps to provide some balance by protecting the interests of the rural voters from being overwhelmed by those of the urban areas. Just imagine what it would be like if the president were elected according to a purely popular vote! The candidates would probably spend most of their time in the large urban areas on both coasts with only an occasional stop at a large city in the midwest or south. The large urban areas would come to dominate completely.

 

[Aimee30]

Scrap it--it does not represent the true sentiments or will of the people.

 

[Sycophant]

Just imagine what it would be like if the president were elected according to a purely popular vote! The candidates would probably spend most of their time in the large urban areas on both coasts with only an occasional stop at a large city in the midwest or south. The large urban areas would come to dominate completely.

As opposed to now, where they spend most of their time in the swing states with higher electoral college votes - Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania to name three. States with the winner-takes-all system and which are comfortably won by one party or the other are generally ignored, except for fundraising.

If there were a popular vote, a candidate would have to campaign nationwide, and appeal to more people, rather than being able to rely on support of certain states (especially larger ones).

The large urban areas wouldn't dominate, because there is not weighting of the votes. An small area with a dense population has not more power than a large area with a less dense population. Because a candidate campaigns in Los Angeles doesn't mean he'll get all the votes of the people there, they are individuals, they do not vote as a homogenous mass. That arguement makes no sense.

 

[MichaelFJF]

The electoral college is here to stay. There is no possible way it will change.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Perhaps a little more national oversight of voting procedures would be in order. Many other nations manage to have popular votes without the need to recounts.



I think a proportional system is the only way to be even slightly fair with the existing electoral college system. Winner takes all is clearly not even close to representing the will of the people. Rounding should be too big an issue, we manage to round numbers in every other part of our life.

The stranger thing still is that at present the electoral college voters aren't even legally obliged to cast their vote according to their stated intention or the outcome of the state's vote.

I think an overall revamp would be in order.

I'd also recommend some form of proportional representation at a legislative level, but that would never happen because it would ruin the monopoly that the current two parties hold on government, and allow other more diverse voices into government.

How would you divide up electoral votes proportionally?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

The electoral college is here to stay. There is no possible way it will change.

My proposed change only takes an act of the state legislatures. Maine already does it this way.

 

[Sycophant]

How would you divide up electoral votes proportionally?

Well, I wouldn't. I don't like the whole system.

However take California for example.

Bush received 45% of votes, Kerry got 54%.

We devide 100 by the electoral votes to establish what percentage each is worth. It's 1.82.

Bush gets 24.75
Kerry gets 29.70
Badnarik fails to make the 1.8% threshold and gets nothing.

So we round Bush and Kerry up (as there is no overlap) and get Bush 25, Kerry 30. Accurately representing the vote cast in California.

The only problem, as I understand it, is that a candidate must receive a majority of 270 votes. Meaning that if a third party candidate receives EC votes that majority level can't be reached. There are two solutions that I can see - 1) make it simply majority - whoever as the most wins. 2) allow deals - the third party candidate can give votes to another candidate (probably in exchange for a position in government, Vice President would be good).

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

What happens if you have something like Candidate 1 gets 4.7, Candidate 2 gets 3.6, and Candidate 3 gets 1.7?

 

[Sycophant]

What happens if you have something like Candidate 1 gets 4.7, Candidate 2 gets 3.6, and Candidate 3 gets 1.7?

Out of how many?

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Ten electoral votes.

 

[Sycophant]

Ten electoral votes.

I dunno, I'm not a mathmatician, but there are plenty of perfectly functional proportional systems worldwide that deal with overlaps.

 

[Mongoose]

The electoral college is here to stay. There is no possible way it will change.

Aww come on. One of the reasons why we have gun rights is to have a sufficient militia and the capability to resist the state. That is to say, if we the people don't like the way things are run, then we ought to be able to change it. As such, if it turns out that the people don't like systems such as this, they should change.

Also, whether or not it can change is irrelevant; the question here is if it should change or not.