Is a moderate party viable?

[jayem]

Well, sure, but in every state, the candidate of either of the two major parties has a shot at winning those votes. The point made by Faithful Pilgrim was that if you vote third party instead, that is a vote of conscience for a candidate who, realistically speaking, has no chance of carrying the state.

Correct. And my point is that it’s detrimental to the voters (millions of whom are effectively disenfranchised,) and ultimately to our society. The EC serves to maintain the lock that the 2 major parties have on the office of President. So even if the Constitution wasn’t already tough to amend, I don’t see that either the Democrats or Republicans would willingly eliminate what keeps the Presidency in their pockets. You’re obviously an intelligent person. You know this is true.

 

[Albion]

Correct. And my point is that it’s detrimental to the voters (millions of whom are effectively disenfranchised,) and ultimately to our society. The EC serves to maintain the lock that the 2 major parties have on the office of President. So even if the Constitution wasn’t already tough to amend, I don’t see that either the Democrats or Republicans would willingly eliminate what keeps the Presidency in their pockets. You’re obviously an intelligent person. You know this is true.

I favor the retention of the Electoral College for a number of reasons that people seldom think of or are aware of. A better approach to making third parties viable would be to change the state election laws so to end the discrimination against third parties that has been built into them.

 

[FenderTL5]

I favor the retention of the Electoral College for a number of reasons...

I would agree, although our reasons may/may not differ.

I would like to keep the electoral college but have the delegates awarded proportional to the vote in each state. Eliminate the 'winner take all' aspect at the state level.
Some states, but only a couple iirc, already do this. I'd like to see it applied universally.
Obviously the math will not work out perfectly each time but I do think a reasonable solution exists.

 

[jayem]

I would agree, although our reasons may/may not differ.

I would like to keep the electoral college but have the delegates awarded proportional to the vote in each state. Eliminate the 'winner take all' aspect at the state level.
Some states, but only a couple iirc, already do this. I'd like to see it applied universally.
Obviously the math will not work out perfectly each time but I do think a reasonable solution exists.

But what's the point? If EVs will be cast proportional to the popular vote, then why not just go with the popular vote? Why do we need middlemen to elect the President?

 

[Albion]

Well, they aren't cast proportional to the popular vote. They are cast state by state as the majority in each state has voted. We are a nation of separate states, each allowed its own laws and each with its particular needs, character and so on.

But a bigger practical problem with a direct popular vote would be that if the race is close (and many lately have been that way), the recount would take forever since every precinct in the whole country would potentially be involved. Imagine how harmful to the operation of government that would be.

 

[FenderTL5]

But what's the point? If EVs will be cast proportional to the popular vote, then why not just go with the popular vote? Why do we need middlemen to elect the President?

Simply, for starters - no constitutional amendment required.

Also, EVs assigned proportionally would be closer to just accepting the popular vote but not exact, the states would still matter. For example, in Maine and Nebraska, the winner of the popular vote in each of its congressional districts is awarded one elector, and the winner of the statewide vote is then awarded the state's remaining two electors.
This seems to be a reasonable approach/compromise to me.

 

[Percivale]

I also think getting electoral votes a lot of proportionally is the smartest goal at present. It’s a lot simpler than amending the constitution, and it is better for minor parties then a popular vote would be. It would also restore some of the original intent of the electoral college, because Often no party would win the majority of electoral votes, so some of them would have to work out a coalition or the choice would go to congress. Deliberation and consensus building would become part of electors job as was intended originally.

 

[Albion]

I also think getting electoral votes a lot of proportionally is the smartest goal at present. It’s a lot simpler than amending the constitution, and it is better for minor parties then a popular vote would be.

How so? If you are describing the Nebraska and Maine systems, I don't see any practical difference as far as the third parties are concerned.

 

[jayem]

Well, they aren't cast proportional to the popular vote. They are cast state by state as the majority in each state has voted. We are a nation of separate states, each allowed its own laws and each with its particular needs, character and so on.

The needs of states are represented in Congress by their Senators and House members. The President is a national official. His/her job is to execute federal laws made by Congress that in most cases will apply to the entire population in all the states. There is no rational reason why h(sh)e should not be elected directly by the entire voting population.

But a bigger practical problem with a direct popular vote would be that if the race is close (and many lately have been that way), the recount would take forever since every precinct in the whole country would potentially be involved. Imagine how harmful to the operation of government that would be.

That can be dealt with with if it happens. Far, far worse is disenfranchising voters. Why shouldn't the votes of conservatives in CA, or liberals in TX count?[/QUOTE]

 

[jayem]

Also, EVs assigned proportionally would be closer to just accepting the popular vote but not exact, the states would still matter.

For me, that's the crux of the problem. This is an archaic notion from 200 years ago, when the federal government was rather insignificant. Today, it's totally different. Why should states matter more than people? Why would geography be any factor in how we elect the President? It's preposterous. And as I said, states have their Senators and House Reps to address their interests.

 

[jayem]

Here's a WP article on what would be the result of different voting systems on all the elections since 2000. Click on the "Proportional" tab below the first paragraph. If EVs were awarded proportionately to the popular vote, 3rd party candidates would have benefited. But in 2000 and 2016, the result would be that no candidate would have reached 270. Both elections would either have been thrown into the House. Or the major party candidates would have had to make backroom deals with the 3rd party candidate in order to get his EVs. (Not to mention that the recount issue would apply to any close race in any state.) Does anything think this is really a better way?

Hate our electoral system? Here’s who could have been president under other setups

 

[Albion]

The needs of states are represented in Congress by their Senators and House members. The President is a national official. His/her job is to execute federal laws made by Congress that in most cases will apply to the entire population in all the states. There is no rational reason why h(sh)e should not be elected directly by the entire voting population.

Well, I have already given you a couple. If you consider that not to be rational, I guess I will have to live with it.

That can be dealt with if it happens.

It is virtually certain to happen, and I don't think that saying it "can be dealt with if it happens" makes much of a case for altering the Constitution.

 

[Percivale]

How so? If you are describing the Nebraska and Maine systems, I don't see any practical difference as far as the third parties are concerned.

The Maine and Nebraska systems are not proportional. Electors are elected by district instead of just by the state at large, which is a small improvement but not nearly as much as proportional representation would be. In a proportional system if a state had 10 electors and a minor party got 10% of the vote one of the electors would be from that party. At the convention that elector would probably engage in what I call deliberation and consensus building, and what Jayem calls backroom deals. The result is that minor party votes would not be wasted, and presidential candidates would be motivated to avoid alienating voters outside their base.

 

[Albion]

The Maine and Nebraska systems are not proportional.

Well, I was guessing at what was meant there ("If you are describing....").

 

[jayem]

It is virtually certain to happen, and I don't think that saying it "can be dealt with if it happens" makes much of a case for altering the Constitution.

But a voting sustem that in effect discards millions of votes is fine?

 

[Percivale]

But a voting sustem that in effect discards millions of votes is fine?

Every system discards millions of votes in some way or other. While ideally every vote would have the same weight no matter what state it’s from, it’s not a big deal in practice because there are about an equal number of small conservative states like Wyoming and small liberal states like Delaware.

 

[jayem]

presidential candidates would be motivated to avoid alienating voters outside their base.

That's my fondest dream. I want neither doctrinaire liberals nor conservatives in office. And more important than the general election is the nomination process. As regards the Presidency, I'd like to see a single national primary election, open to all voters, a few months before the November election. Every Presidential contender, from every party or independent, would run against each other. The results would be determined by a ranked voting system. Voters would rank the candidates from 1 to whatever. The top 2 most preferred candidates would be the nominees. They could be from the same party, or different parties. Whatever the voters decide. They'd pick their running mates, and the campaigns would proceed as usual up to the general election in November. The Dems and Repubs can still have conventions and designate their preferred candidate. But the final choice of who actually runs for President is up to the entire electorate. I want politically moderate people in office, who are pragmatic and willing to compromise. My goal is to eradicate, or at least minimize, the influence of highly partisan activists and ideological zealots. Above all, candidates should appeal to the broadest, most diverse elements of our population, and not be beholden to a "base." I think the only way to achieve that, is to radically change how candidates are nominated and elected.

 

[jayem]

Every system discards millions of votes in some way or other. While ideally every vote would have the same weight no matter what state it’s from, it’s not a big deal in practice because there are about an equal number of small conservative states like Wyoming and small liberal states like Delaware.

What is so terrible about the simple popular vote? Every vote, in every state, is counted and adds to a candidate's total. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Why is that so wrong?

 

[Percivale]

What is so terrible about the simple popular vote? Every vote, in every state, is counted and adds to a candidate's total. Whoever has the most votes, wins. Why is that so wrong?

I don’t have anything against the popular vote, but I wouldn’t want that to be the only change to the election system. Without also having range voting or something similar it would have many of the same problems with our current system. Also I prefer to focus on the changes that are easiest to make relative to how much impact they have.
The voting system you listed above would be a good one, though I don’t think it’s the only way to fix our system. In it the primary would be the only important election, the two who make it beyond that would probably be pretty similar most of the time.

 

[Albion]

But a voting sustem that in effect discards millions of votes is fine?

The same can be said of direct election (of the president) or of a proportional election system such as has been described.