The Electoral College

[Kamehameha34]

...is not necessary. For congressional respresentation, it's a necessity, but I don't see the purpose in, once recieving all of the presidential votes, putting weight on where they came from. In effect, that just makes on vote greater than another.

There is absolutely no advantage to it, and it wouldn't even be hard to abolish. Why do we still use it?

[ViolaLee]

I completely agree. After the last election, Hillary mentioned ending it. Maybe she will.

The GOP here in CA are trying to split our electoral votes instead of winner take all.

It all just causes corruption and abuse and you're right, it makes one vote count more than another. I say popular vote wins the Presidential election. It's time to change this law.

[firefox]

I find value in the college in that it eliminates the tyranny of the majority to some extent. That said, the current system, at least in CA is authoritarian to the extreme in that it is winner take all. If we want better representation, each elector should be able to cast the vote as he wishes and have it count. If that had been the case, we would have got at least one or two Libertarian electoral votes in CA in '04.

[Drocket]

There's one major, major, MAJOR problem with going with a straight "popular vote wins" system, which is what happens in close election: imagine Florida 2000, except nation-wide. I'd prefer not to have to worry about living through that, thank you very much... It would also require rewriting a massive section of the Constitution. It would probably require the biggest amendment ever, which would be guaranteed to be messy.

A better option, IMO, would be a system where each state divides up it's electoral votes based on the its vote, instead of having each state use a winner-take-all system. This wouldn't even require a constitutional amendment, as each state gets to chose how it's votes are divided itself. One important aspect there, though, is that for this to work, you need to get ALL the states to do it at the same time. If just a few states do it, it actually makes the system worse (which is why the Republicans are trying for it in California - they're deliberately trying to undermine the Democratic party.)

[ViolaLee]

I don't like that idea either.

My vote should be equal to everyone else's vote.

The only way for that to be, is to let the President be elected by the popular vote. If one district has more voters than another, then that district's voters have less of a vote.

Dividing the votes by district is the same thing on a smaller scale than dividing the votes by state.

What's the diff? Let all of our votes count equally and to prevent a Florida disastor, have a credible voting machine. I mean how hard can that be?

[Drocket]

Dividing the votes by district is the same thing on a smaller scale than dividing the votes by state.

Actually, I wasn't talking about districts. It would be a division of the electoral votes based on the votes within that state. If candidate A gets 40% of the vote and candidate B 60%, then candidate A would get 40% of that state's electoral vote and candidate B 60% (rounding where necessary, of course.)

have a credible voting machine. I mean how hard can that be?
Pretty hard, unfortunately.

Beyond that, though, is that fact that making 'everyone's vote equal' would, realistically, require rewriting the Constitution from scratch. The entire idea of having 2 branches of Congress was created specifically to PREVENT having everyone's vote be equal. If we're going to make all votes equal, then we need to get rid of the Senate...

[ed0316]

...is not necessary. For congressional respresentation, it's a necessity, but I don't see the purpose in, once recieving all of the presidential votes, putting weight on where they came from. In effect, that just makes on vote greater than another.

There is absolutely no advantage to it, and it wouldn't even be hard to abolish. Why do we still use it?

-----------------------------------------
The electoral college was written into our constitution because the framers of the constitution did not trust the unwashed masses (many whom couldn't read or write) to make intelligent choices. Another consideration was to allow more power to states with very small populations... thus inducing territories to apply for statehood.
To establish a popular vote would require a constitutional ammendment & this would fail due to the number of states with smaller populations that refuse to relinquish their extra voting power to the large population states.

Ed

[Truth_and_Power]

...is not necessary. For congressional respresentation, it's a necessity, but I don't see the purpose in, once recieving all of the presidential votes, putting weight on where they came from. In effect, that just makes on vote greater than another.

There is absolutely no advantage to it, and it wouldn't even be hard to abolish. Why do we still use it?

-----------------------------------------
The electoral college was written into our constitution because the framers of the constitution did not trust the unwashed masses (many whom couldn't read or write) to make intelligent choices. Another consideration was to allow more power to states with very small populations... thus inducing territories to apply for statehood.
To establish a popular vote would require a constitutional ammendment & this would fail due to the number of states with smaller populations that refuse to relinquish their extra voting power to the large population states.

Ed


But the electoral college votes are given out based on population, no? So if they are in a steady ratio to the population of a state all it does is make 51%=100%. So now the 5000 people who voted for nader caused a 100% swing in the influence of the state of florida. I see it more as a way to keep out third parties and independents than anything else.

[Kamehameha34]

The electoral college was written into our constitution because the framers of the constitution did not trust the unwashed masses (many whom couldn't read or write) to make intelligent choices. Then what's the point of giving one segment of the "unwashed masses" more of a vote than another?

To establish a popular vote would require a constitutional ammendment & this would fail due to the number of states with smaller populations that refuse to relinquish their extra voting power to the large population states.What do you think we're talking about? Getting rid of the senate?

[AlanC]

It would be have to be ratified by those same state legislators. Won't happen in our lifetime, nor should it.

[PatrickHenry]

Yeah, Kam. Dump the College.

This is one of the points of the original constitution that have become outmoded.

Repeal the 17th Amendment while we're at it, maybe that would appease the State legislatures.

[underdawg]

I think that every state should dump the winner take all approach to the electoral college. It should be divided up by percentages of the vote per state. The way things are now, a third party candidate will never have a chance, and I hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils all the time.

[NortheastCynic]

I'm with you with regards to repealing the 17th Amendment and allowing state legislatures to elect Senators [again] but I think the college should stay with reformations. Winner-takes-all per state is, frankly, stupid. Divide states up to make things more equitable.

On edit: Yeah, what underdawg said.

-NC

[ed0316]

I think that every state should dump the winner take all approach to the electoral college. It should be divided up by percentages of the vote per state. The way things are now, a third party candidate will never have a chance, and I hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils all the time.


While I agree that the electoral college & winner take all scheme stinks, few realize how difficult repealing or approving an ammendment really is. Getting a 2/3 majority, then 3/4 the states to ratify something is nearly impossible when it diminishes the power of some states. However, if all states allowed their electoral votes to be split due to the vote (very unlikely, because depending on the state, one party or the other would lose votes) things would be more equitable. Again, the party with the most to lose would fight this change.

[PatrickHenry]

I think that every state should dump the winner take all approach to the electoral college. It should be divided up by percentages of the vote per state. The way things are now, a third party candidate will never have a chance, and I hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils all the time.


While I agree that the electoral college & winner take all scheme stinks, few realize how difficult repealing or approving an ammendment really is. Getting a 2/3 majority, then 3/4 the states to ratify something is nearly impossible when it diminishes the power of some states. However, if all states allowed their electoral votes to be split due to the vote (very unlikely, because depending on the state, one party or the other would lose votes) things would be more equitable. Again, the party with the most to lose would fight this change.
So basically you're saying that democracy in the US is suffering from hardening of the arteries?:shock:

[Keith Hamburger]

I think that every state should dump the winner take all approach to the electoral college. It should be divided up by percentages of the vote per state. The way things are now, a third party candidate will never have a chance, and I hate having to vote for the lesser of two evils all the time.


While I agree that the electoral college & winner take all scheme stinks, few realize how difficult repealing or approving an ammendment really is. Getting a 2/3 majority, then 3/4 the states to ratify something is nearly impossible when it diminishes the power of some states. However, if all states allowed their electoral votes to be split due to the vote (very unlikely, because depending on the state, one party or the other would lose votes) things would be more equitable. Again, the party with the most to lose would fight this change.


"Winner take all" is not mandated by the Constitution and would not require any changes to the Constitution. That part is up to the states completely. The state decides how to allocate the electoral college votes.

Keith

[Howard2020]

The Electoral College is a vital part of our Constitution. I'm also in full ageement to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Doing away with the Electoral College would put the selection of our President in the hands of a half dozen states. Presidential candidates wouldn't even bother to campaign in the other 44 states. Who, for all intents and purposes, would control the country.

It is an incredibly bad idea.

[Kamehameha34]

Doing away with the Electoral College would put the selection of our President in the hands of a half dozen states. Presidential candidates wouldn't even bother to campaign in the other 44 states. Who, for all intents and purposes, would control the country.

That doesn't really make any sense, IMO. People in those 44 states would still vote for the candidate they think best represents them, and if those 'half dozen' states house more than 50% of the country's population, who cares if it's a half dozen states? Our country is based around individual rights, not collectivism.

[PatrickHenry]

The Electoral College is a vital part of our Constitution. I'm also in full ageement to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Doing away with the Electoral College would put the selection of our President in the hands of a half dozen states. Presidential candidates wouldn't even bother to campaign in the other 44 states. Who, for all intents and purposes, would control the country.

It is an incredibly bad idea.
Umm...isn't that the way it is NOW? That the big electoral vote states get the blitz and smaller states gotta watch on TV?

I think that eliminating the EC would mean that each vote has the same value. The candidate would have to play for the widest possible audience, not just the states that have the big clout.

[bishop]

Doing away with the Electoral College would put the selection of our President in the hands of a half dozen states. Presidential candidates wouldn't even bother to campaign in the other 44 states. Who, for all intents and purposes, would control the country.

you mean - the states where people actually live? sounds like a better idea than giving extra weight to empty space in s. dakota.. this is supposed to be a representative democracy, where citizens are the ones being represented rather than acreage.

the majority of the public aren't being represented by the current system. barely half of the country even bothers to vote - and those who do typically vote for the lesser of two evils, rather than candidates they truly believe in.

california's got the right idea as far as i'm concerned.. i doubt other states would be as courageous to push forth such an initiative..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/06/MNA6RVOC0.DTL

[Howard2020]

Yes it is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. What you're proposing is taking those rights away from 90% of the country. I'm sure too that the Americans living in those "other" 44 states will appreciate being refered to as "Acreage". You rely on "those" people for your very existance. The last time I looked, I doubt that Central Park could provide enough food for New York. The House of Representatives is where sheer numbers count.

The system would be greatly improved by the repeal of the 17th Amendment and return the selection of Senators to the State Legislatures.

Nothing California does is "courageous". They are merely pandering to the, and I love the word, NeoLibs. The entire state is a train wreck and now they're running a 10 - 15 Billion dollar debt over the next two years. One item being considered to cut their expenses is to release over 22,000 inmates from prison. That should help their tourist industry.

Have a blessed Christmas
and a Joyous New Year!

[Kamehameha34]

The electoral college system doesn't represent any state moreso than another in terms of population, it just makes it so that the people within that state have votes that are not equal to the people of other states.

[ed0316]

Doing away with the Electoral College would put the selection of our President in the hands of a half dozen states. Presidential candidates wouldn't even bother to campaign in the other 44 states. Who, for all intents and purposes, would control the country.

you mean - the states where people actually live? sounds like a better idea than giving extra weight to empty space in s. dakota.. this is supposed to be a representative democracy, where citizens are the ones being represented rather than acreage.

the majority of the public aren't being represented by the current system. barely half of the country even bothers to vote - and those who do typically vote for the lesser of two evils, rather than candidates they truly believe in.

california's got the right idea as far as i'm concerned.. i doubt other states would be as courageous to push forth such an initiative..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/09/06/MNA6RVOC0.DTL


Howard is of course right, but if only a few (either majority GOP or Dem) states do it, that will give an advantage to the party with the minority in those states. Therefore unless all states do this, one party will gain an advantage & freeze the situation to their advantage. Much like some states currently "redistrict" to give their party an advantage when they win state elections.
Anyone that thinks either party cares about fairness & represenative government, belives in the tooth fairy too.

[bishop]

Yes it is a REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY. What you're proposing is taking those rights away from 90% of the country. I'm sure too that the Americans living in those "other" 44 states will appreciate being refered to as "Acreage". You rely on "those" people for your very existance. The last time I looked, I doubt that Central Park could provide enough food for New York. The House of Representatives is where sheer numbers count.

likewise, the scores of people living and sending money to the benevolent federal government are being underrepresented in comparison to the acreage.

and as far as relying on those people for my existence, my deepest thanks to mexico for providing dirt cheap labor.