Electoral Colledge

[mrbiggs]

Well, I'ma try this, even though my other post has a grand total of 0 views. Can you imagine what this is doing to my self image?

Anydangway, the electoral college. The democrats are mad about last election because they think they would have won if there was no electoral college. What do you think? Should it stand?

[Dee EffEll]

See:

www.electoral-vote.com

[biglardo]

The electoral college (EC) has been a part of the republic since the constitution was adopted (1780s). I believe there have been four elections in which the loser in the total vote was elected because he obtained the majority of the electoral vote.

The Democrats were certainly upset about the 2000 election, but EVERYONE in both campaigns knew the rules going into the election so the result should not have been a complete surprise! So the arguments made after the election, like the EC is unfair, etc., are pretty ridiculous.

The arguments have been made that some votes have greater weight in small states than in larger ones. However, if it was merely a straight vote, the candidates would focus on where the larger number of voters are i.e. large states. (I live in Illinois where neither candidate has campaigned much since Kerry has a substantial lead in polls. But it hasn't stopped them from coming to raise big money!)

I will say that the possibility of a repeat with one candidate garnering more votes but still losing is high!

The system isn't perfect but it has served for nearly 225 years. I say keep it (of course trying to change it is nearly impossible anyway since it would require a constitutional amendment).

[mrbiggs]

Originally Posted by biglardo

The electoral college (EC) has been a part of the republic since the constitution was adopted (1780s). I believe there have been four elections in which the loser in the total vote was elected because he obtained the majority of the electoral vote.

The Democrats were certainly upset about the 2000 election, but EVERYONE in both campaigns knew the rules going into the election so the result should not have been a complete surprise! So the arguments made after the election, like the EC is unfair, etc., are pretty ridiculous.

The arguments have been made that some votes have greater weight in small states than in larger ones. However, if it was merely a straight vote, the candidates would focus on where the larger number of voters are i.e. large states. (I live in Illinois where neither candidate has campaigned much since Kerry has a substantial lead in polls. But it hasn't stopped them from coming to raise big money!)

I will say that the possibility of a repeat with one candidate garnering more votes but still losing is high!

The system isn't perfect but it has served for nearly 225 years. I say keep it (of course trying to change it is nearly impossible anyway since it would require a constitutional amendment).

I agree!
And if you DON'T agree, post!

[jeff]

I disagree - the electoral college should go, and should have gone years ago. The fact that it was built into the original Constitution is irrelevant: they also voted that blacks (who werent allowed to vote) counted as 3/5 of white people for purposes of calculating electoral representation. We've gotten better as a country since then.

It's a vestige of founding fathers' suspicion and distrust of giving the regular citizen too much power. It violates core principles of democracy like "one person, one vote'.

It gives further bias to small states beyond that of the 2 per state in the Senate, because each state gets 3 electors automatically, regardless of population.

It diverts all attention to swing states, disenfranchizing voters in states, large or small, that are expected to be solidly for one party or the other. Why should a candidate campaign or focus on issues specitic to NY, which is expected to go Democratic (and vice versa for a state expected to go Republican). So, we hear a lot about risks of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountains that affect 2M people in Nevada, a swing state, instead of protecting 19M people in NY from terrorism in the state's harbors, a non-swing state. We hear a lot about Cuban issues because Florida is a swing state, but not about similar issues for other ethnicities. So, it distorts the actual subjects that get discussed and decided on, and makes sure that certain constituencies get disproportionate power to influence candidates.

It also discourages people from voting: if your state is solidly expected to go for one side or the other, why even bother going to the polls? Policy that discourages voter participation is bad policy.

The electoral college system violates the principles of 'majority rule' and 'every vote is equal'. It needs to go.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by jeff

It also discourages people from voting: if your state is solidly expected to go for one side or the other, why even bother going to the polls? Policy that discourages voter participation is bad policy.

More so than if it were completely a popular vote? If you feel like a drop in the bucket with the electoral college system, you're going to feel even more that your vote doesn't count if you're counted with the rest of the nation's populus.

The electoral college system violates the principles of 'majority rule' and 'every vote is equal'.

Not entirely so. "Majority rule" is just balanced with the principle of "protecting minorities," the minorities of the smaller states that would be completely ignored if the electoral system were not in place. New York's concerns will be attended to; the large body of Congressmen in the House of Representatives ensures that. The same cannot be said of Wyoming's concerns.

As an advocate of the ACLU, I'm surprised that you have distaste for the "old" Constitutional system of the electoral college.

[prototoast]

There are a few main problems I see with the electoral system. First, if all the largest states states went 51/49 for one candidate, and every other state went 100% for the 49 candidate, there is the potential for huge differences in electoral and popular vote, because of states where 100% of the electoral vote goes to the popular winner.

The other problem I have is that the number of electoral votes is based on population, without regard for the number of people who actually voted. What if, hypothetically, only 1 person from california or new york voted. That one person would control a lot of electoral votes.

[Dee EffEll]

Originally Posted by biglardo

The system isn't perfect but it has served for nearly 225 years. I say keep it (of course trying to change it is nearly impossible anyway since it would require a constitutional amendment).

There are many ways to reform the procedure we use to select a president without a consitutional amendment. In the end, it would still remain the electors that choose the president, but how the electors are chosen can be reformed in any number of ways. (NB: The term "electoral college" is found nowhere in the Constitution.)

Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting selection of their electors based on voting districts. Colordao is considering a voter initiative so split the selection of electors on popular vote in the state (but this initiative may in fact be unconstitutional, so even if it passes, it may not be valid.)

And of course, Congress can by law increase the size of the House of Representatives, thus making the "sentators" electors of less relaive significance, and making the electors' representation closer to that of the general population.

[Army Fencer]

Originally Posted by jeff

It diverts all attention to swing states, disenfranchizing voters in states, large or small, that are expected to be solidly for one party or the other. Why should a candidate campaign or focus on issues specitic to NY, which is expected to go Democratic (and vice versa for a state expected to go Republican). So, we hear a lot about risks of nuclear waste in Yucca Mountains that affect 2M people in Nevada, a swing state, instead of protecting 19M people in NY from terrorism in the state's harbors, a non-swing state. We hear a lot about Cuban issues because Florida is a swing state, but not about similar issues for other ethnicities. So, it distorts the actual subjects that get discussed and decided on, and makes sure that certain constituencies get disproportionate power to influence candidates.

...

The electoral college system violates the principles of 'majority rule' and 'every vote is equal'. It needs to go.

Wait, this sounds a bit too familiar. Are you sure you aren't an editor from the NYTimes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

Not entirely so. "Majority rule" is just balanced with the principle of "protecting minorities," the minorities of the smaller states that would be completely ignored if the electoral system were not in place. New York's concerns will be attended to; the large body of Congressmen in the House of Representatives ensures that. The same cannot be said of Wyoming's concerns.

The problem of big states getting more than their share of attention in a popular vote system can be adressed by a system where members of congress are forced to run in several voting precincts at once. See my post starting the thread "voting in Iraq" for an exhaustive treatment on this topic.

Another thing is that in countries with straight popular vote, the issues of small districts do get attended to on a regular basis, so the assumption is not likely to work out as feared. I could provide several examples from Swedish politics, if you were to be interested.

Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jeff

The electoral college system violates the principles of 'majority rule' and 'every vote is equal'. It needs to go.

That was never a founding principle of this country. The system of electoral votes (as well as the two houses of congress) were compromises made by the states for them to agree to be part of the union. They entered the union voluntarily (though it later turned out that continued participation was not voluntary), and they would not have agreed to do so under a majority rule/every vote is equal system.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

More so than if it were completely a popular vote? If you feel like a drop in the bucket with the electoral college system, you're going to feel even more that your vote doesn't count if you're counted with the rest of the nation's populus.

But right now, the "excess votes" in a winning state are completely superfluous

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

Not entirely so. "Majority rule" is just balanced with the principle of "protecting minorities," the minorities of the smaller states that would be completely ignored if the electoral system were not in place. New York's concerns will be attended to; the large body of Congressmen in the House of Representatives ensures that. The same cannot be said of Wyoming's concerns.

And having 2 votes in the Senate, regardless of population, doesn't already take care of that?

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

As an advocate of the ACLU, I'm surprised that you have distaste for the "old" Constitutional system of the electoral college.

Distaste is too strong a word - the Constitution is a great, but flawed document (see above for 3/5 of a human, right?). Believing in civil liberties, and supporting organizations that support them, doesn't mean slavish adherence to the anti-democratic (small "d") parts of the Constitutions. The Bill of Rights is more related to individual civil liberties, anyway

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Army Fencer

Wait, this sounds a bit too familiar. Are you sure you aren't an editor from the NYTimes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/29/opinion/29sun1.html

Nope, I stole from them, not they from me. Perhaps I should have given a citation, but it might have led to a tedious and distracting argument about authority to make such comments rather than discussing them on their merits. The timing was apt, and it gave me concrete examples to bolster my case.

[jeff]

Originally Posted by prototoast

That was never a founding principle of this country. The system of electoral votes (as well as the two houses of congress) were compromises made by the states for them to agree to be part of the union. ...

I quite agree. Don't we all agree that 'one person, one vote' and 'majority rule' should be the law of the land *now*?

Peter makes the excellent point that direct voting democracy is widely in use (we're the exception in the USA), and it hasn't led to small districts being ignored.

What has been ignored in the preceding posts is the undue attention paid to swing states, which seems to me a much larger factor than big vs. small. Both parties will do minimal campaigning in NY, except for fund raising, in order to focus on swing states. Do we really want the national debate to be based on the issues of states that happen to have close races?

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jeff

I quite agree. Don't we all agree that 'one person, one vote' and 'majority rule' should be the law of the land *now*?

Peter makes the excellent point that direct voting democracy is widely in use (we're the exception in the USA), and it hasn't led to small districts being ignored.

What has been ignored in the preceding posts is the undue attention paid to swing states, which seems to me a much larger factor than big vs. small. Both parties will do minimal campaigning in NY, except for fund raising, in order to focus on swing states. Do we really want the national debate to be based on the issues of states that happen to have close races?

I agree that a strict popular vote would bring more attention to more people, but I actually would like more state power in the government. Right now, everyone is always looking to the federal government for everything, and people can't agree. Here in massachusetts, it seems like most people are in favor of social programs (welfare, health care, education, etc.). In more conservative parts of the country, most people seem to be opposed... so instead of putting that in the hands of the federal government (unconstitutional anyway), why can't they just make it happen in their state. It's the same problems that lead to the civil war--too many people don't just want to control themselves, but also want to control others. The federal government should be greatly reduced. Imagine tax cuts... about half the country likes bush's tax cuts and another half hates them--well, for every state where most people don't like those tax cuts, then for every dollar of federal tax cuts people receive, the state should increase taxes.

With more state power, there is greater room for compromise, but for most people, it's not enough to live the way they want--they also want to make others live the same way.

Free market government.

[jeff]

Okay - that's all worth talking about, but I think it's a subject for a different thread! (rather than being about the Electoral College) You wanna start a new thread, or just hijack this one?

To this leading to the civil war - quoting Lincoln: "I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. " and further: " I believe the declara[tion] that "all men are created equal" is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest;"

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by jeff

Okay - that's all worth talking about, but I think it's a subject for a different thread! (rather than being about the Electoral College) You wanna start a new thread, or just hijack this one?

To this leading to the civil war - quoting Lincoln: "I insist that our fathers did not make this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. I insist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They did not make it so, but they left it so because they knew of no way to get rid of it at that time. " and further: " I believe the declara[tion] that "all men are created equal" is the great fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest;"

Well, I think the civil rights issues should rightly be federal (which is why the constitution has since been updated with many ammendments on the subject), however the issue of states' rights is forever connected to the electoral college. So long as the states power continues to disintegrate, and more and more burdens are placed on the federal government, then I believe it is right for the electoral college to be disbanded and for the popular vote to decide the president... however, if the idea of a state still means anything, the electoral college is a good.

[jeff]

Perhaps. I see the question of electoral college - used solely for presidential election - to be a quite different subject from which rights and powers properly belong to the states and which to the Federal government. We could go to a direct representation system next cycle and still have different state laws and policies.

Personally, I would like a mix of local government for more responsive government, but with a federal structure guaranteeing rights. While I like the idea of "local is responsive, local is good", I grew up when "states rights" was the cover phrase for "institutional support for racism", so I remain suspicious. Once burned, you know. A very complex subject...

[jBirch]

While we're talking electoral reform, I'd like to see simply more then two parties. In fact, I'd like to see the total abolishment of the entire party apparatus, with senators and congress reps able to support whomever they believe is the best for the position. I'd like to see the concept of popular voting for president removed with an election in the upper and lower house for the best candidate instead.

How can you have a meaningful working democracy when you can only choose one of two possibilities? People don't vote because they don't want either candidate, not because they feel like a drop in the bucket.

Take it easy.