Electoral College

[Zarathustra]

As an opening to this post, I'd like to say that I am going to vote for Bush in the upcoming elections. I'm not saying this to spark debate over which candidate is the better choice, etc., since by now I assume the majority of the US Lurkers have made up their minds on the issue. I put the spotlight on this because when I vote, I'll know fully that my vote will not aid Bush at all.

That's right, chances are that my vote will not matter at all.

Living in Illinois, it's almost a given that the state will go Democratic. The Chicagoland area especially has a history of voting Democratic and I doubt this year will be any exception. Hence, my vote will do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the election. It could contribute to the chances of the candidate of my choice, but chances are it will not.

Now, I'll be voting nonetheless, but I'd to post this question for discussion: what would be a good replacement to our current system of the Electoral College? I feel there are aspects of it which are quite antiquated, and dislike the way it forces the system to remain bipartisan (with an Independant candidate thrown in for good measure, even if he has no chance of success), but it does ensure that the winning candidate will have a majority vote (electoral votes, I know). To completely abolish it could result in a system where 5 candidates run for office and the one with 25% of the nation behind him comes out victorious; obviously not what we'd wish to accomplish.

I've seen lots of discussion on the Electoral College, but have yet to hear a method (nor come up with one myself) that does a better job. Any thoughts?

Additional Trivia Info: The Electors for each state are not forced to vote in agreement with that state's voting. If I were an Elector for Illinois, I could feasibly cast the state's vote for Candidate A, even though 100% of the state voted for Candidate B. In some states this is not against the law at all. In others it is a misdemeanor. Still others heighten the crime to a felony. And finally, in some states it is dubbed illegal, but there is absolutely no penalty.

[jahcs]

Before we fix the electoral college I would like the actual voting system updated so we do not need armies of lawyers to find out who got the most votes. 1 U.S. citizen, 1 vote is a rule I'd like to see enforced, followed, cherished, and defended.

edit: to clarify - I know many of us do cherish the right to vote and will defend it. A program to ensure all U.S. citizens who want to vote can and their vote will be counted correctly and only once.

As for the electoral college, the current system is a bit outdated - not broken, just outdated. I would like to see the state's electoral votes be separated by district. Whatever that district voted is how that electoral vote is cast.

[Kevin]

I've been giving it some thoughts and I have discovered to my own surprise that I have come down on the side of being a proponent of it. There could be some tweaks to it, but I still think I like it.

Any review of the system would of course have to look at the 2000 Presidential election. There are a few ways to look at it. The first that jumps into most peoples mind is that the system is broken. More people voted for Gore so he should have won, but he didn't. That seems to be a pretty strong case for something being broken in a system where majority is supposed to rule.

But is majority actually supposed to rule? Is that the way the system really works, and if it is, is that the way we actually want the system to work? You could say that the electoral college did exactly what it should do in the 2000 election. It put the person with the broadest support into the whitehouse. Bush won more states and by far more counties than Gore (you can see a nice visual here, Bush=blue, Gore=red).

So because of the nature of the electoral college, the canidate with the broadest support won the election. That will only happen if those running are close enough in total votes that you can be assured they have enough support to govern effectively. I like this about the system. It is very similar to the compromise that created the house and senate. The house is representation by population, i.e. majority rules. The Senate is representation by region. Each state gets 2 votes. Since the number of electors for each state is choosen based on how many representatives you have in congress (senate + house), the electoral college rolls all that into one.

I would like to see more states do what Nebraska and Maine does. The majority vote in the state gets 2 electoral votes, just like the senate representation. The other votes are all based on the house voting districts. Whoever wins that district gets the electoral vote. This is exactly like the system for the federal representation. Though under this system Bush would have won in a landslide. But you don't have to have the all or nothing approach we have.

But my point and feelings are, that I don't want a majority rules elected president. I want one that has the broadest support because the country is so large and diverse, that I feel that is required.

But basically fix some of the all or nothing aspect. If you break it down into the districts at least your vote is more likely to make a difference. The issue here is do the populous areas now get overridden by the rural areas? And of course redistricting becomes and even bigger issue. But yeah, most states are not as polarized as they are made out to be. Of course this system would have made it a landslide victory for Bush and might exasperate the problems.

Edit: I said Kansas when I meant Nebraska. I also remembered the other state was Maine.

[Minionman]

Ah, so I can head down to vote and we can cancel each other out. And life goes on. Now neither of our votes counts.


I have read about other voting systems. Nonwe of them have to do with the electoral college, but they are designed to be more fair. One idea is to have people pick first, second, etc. choices and whoever gets the most added up wins, which could help 3rd parties because although they may still get to little votes, people can pick the major runners in the same order they would otherwise. The idea is that someone who ois everyone's second choice has a good chance, where as otherwise they would loose to someone who is more people's 1st choice, since only the 1st choice gets counted in howit works now.

There are some elector systems that split the votes. Main and Nebraska give two to the overall winner and 1 per congressional district, Colorado has a change up for voting of whether to split it's votes in proportion to the actual popular ones. Whether these would keep the electoral college doing what it was designed for while staying fair is up for grabs.


Off topic: How about the senate election? Wasn't it "fun"?

[Minionman]

  The issue here is do the populous areas now get overridden by the rural areas?  [right][snapback]58754[/snapback][/right]

Hopefully not, since each district should have the same amount of people. It really depends on the percentage in certain areas of who votes for who.

[LochnarITB]

It put the person with the broadest support into the whitehouse. Bush won more states and by far more counties than Gore (you can see a nice visual here, Bush=blue, Gore=red).
[right][snapback]58754[/snapback][/right]

This is a geographic perception, not populace. Compare that map to this one. The current electoral college has the effect of magnifying the vote of those living in less dense states and diluting those from higher density ones. I am a firm believer in one person one vote. We do not have that. Given today's communications, each voter is capable of being as informed as they choose to be. No single person's vote should be weighted heavier than that of any other.

[kandrathe]

Any change would change the way that their money is used, and I think we need to be careful before we muck around with it. I think if every state did what Maine and Nebraska are doing, then the money would go into national TV advertising rather than focused on where they can sway the electoral votes. The big states, New York, Florida, Texas, and California would command the lions share of attention.

The current system is weighted toward geographic "party" solidarity. Currently in order for a third party to have any chance of winning, they need to construct a large party structure across many states. If we changed the way that the electoral college worked then it might be easier for a third party winner. Not that it would be a bad thing, just I think it bears some scrutiny before it might be changed.

[eppie]

First, I think the american system as it is now is not suitabel for electing a president with so much power. Would an american president have the same function as has the french or german president (so not much) it could be a googd system, just because the outcome would be of less importance.
I mean even if you just have an election using the popular vote, the fact that a few 1000 votes can make such a difference ius a bit scary, especially if big decission have to be made.
As I said before, the way campaign are run and funded to me are even bigger problems, plus the fact that a lot of americans out of "patriotism" are more likely to vote for the current president (if possible) democrat or republican. Politicians should stop playing with the people and realize that a presidency of the US is something too important to go mudslinging and using campaign adds. (and don' say they don't work because otherwise they wouldn't spend millions on it)

[kandrathe]

First, I think the american system as it is now is not suitabel for electing a president with so much power. Would an american president have the same function as has the french or german president (so not much) it could be a googd system, just because the outcome would be of less importance.
I mean even if you just have an election using the popular vote, the fact that a few 1000 votes can make such a difference ius a bit scary, especially if big decission have to be made.
As I said before, the way campaign are run and funded to me are even bigger problems, plus the fact that a lot of americans out of "patriotism" are more likely to vote for the current president (if possible) democrat or republican. Politicians should stop playing with the people and realize that a presidency of the US is something too important to go mudslinging and using campaign adds. (and don' say they don't work because otherwise they wouldn't spend millions on it)
[right][snapback]58775[/snapback][/right]

Oh, well, not really that scary. The American president needs to be backed by a huge number of very rich people and corporations. Hence, our choices are always limited to the lap dogs of the rich and powerful. There is no difference between Bush and Kerry. They will do as they are told.

[Roland]

As an opening to this post, I'd like to say that I am going to vote for Bush in the upcoming elections.  I'm not saying this to spark debate over which candidate is the better choice, etc., since by now I assume the majority of the US Lurkers have made up their minds on the issue.  I put the spotlight on this because when I vote, I'll know fully that my vote will not aid Bush at all.

That's right, chances are that my vote will not matter at all.

Living in Illinois, it's almost a given that the state will go Democratic.  The Chicagoland area especially has a history of voting Democratic and I doubt this year will be any exception.  Hence, my vote will do absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of the election.  It could contribute to the chances of the candidate of my choice, but chances are it will not.

Now, I'll be voting nonetheless, but I'd to post this question for discussion:  what would be a good replacement to our current system of the Electoral College?  I feel there are aspects of it which are quite antiquated, and dislike the way it forces the system to remain bipartisan (with an Independant candidate thrown in for good measure, even if he has no chance of success), but it does ensure that the winning candidate will have a majority vote (electoral votes, I know).  To completely abolish it could result in a system where 5 candidates run for office and the one with 25% of the nation behind him comes out victorious; obviously not what we'd wish to accomplish.

I've seen lots of discussion on the Electoral College, but have yet to hear a method (nor come up with one myself) that does a better job.  Any thoughts?

Additional Trivia Info:  The Electors for each state are not forced to vote in agreement with that state's voting.  If I were an Elector for Illinois, I could feasibly cast the state's vote for Candidate A, even though 100% of the state voted for Candidate B.  In some states this is not against the law at all.  In others it is a misdemeanor.  Still others heighten the crime to a felony.  And finally, in some states it is dubbed illegal, but there is absolutely no penalty.
[right][snapback]58752[/snapback][/right]

Right idea, wrong approach.

The way I see it is very simple - the people don't elect the presiden; we elect the people who elect the president. It really is quite that simple. We the people decide who gets voted into the House and the Senate. By voting for people who we feel best support our goals and wishes, we thereby attempt to secure our "vote" for presidency. If your views swing more towards the Republican side (like my own), you vote for Republican House and Senate representatives. They, in turn, should vote accordingly for a Republican president, and thus your wishes are inevitably granted, more or less.

The only major problem with this system is not how the VOTES are tallied, but how the DEMOGRAPHIC is tallied - i.e. the political parties. And that, my friend, is a MUCH bigger, more complex issue to tackle, and not one I have any thoughts on how to change whatsoever. Being boxed into "Category A, B, or C" has its advantages and limitations, and it is exactly those limitations, among a few others that spring up further down the road, that I believe you (and many others who raise this issue) have a problem with. Said other issues being if a Republican presidential candidate, for example, is NOT someone you want in office, despite being a Republican supporter. That can complicate things, of course, but that is the nature of the beast. You cannot have everyone running for President.

I, too, am in the same boat Z. I live in Mass., a HIGHLY liberal / Democratic state (and the one which John Kerry has come from to run for President, no less - I spit on that fact). My vote, along with my father's, probably won't amount to jack in the sea of Democratic support that will likely fill this election. However, I can take at least some comfort in knowing that, despite how the populace of my state feels, the Congressmen my state has elected will make the ultimate decision on who becomes President. But, again, here is that same issue - voting for Repubican Senate / House Representatives in a primarily Democratic state. It's a tricky business, full of lots of catch-22's and loops. But it IS manageable. Not perfect, but manageable. And I, for one, feel that the system has lasted us this long, and thus is not in any dire need of major change.

Besides, given the way this country is, do you really think any major changes, no matter how needed, will come about swiftly enough to matter? Particulaly for this upcoming election?

[KillerAJD]

Right idea, wrong approach.

The way I see it is very simple - the people don't elect the presiden; we elect the people who elect the president. It really is quite that simple. We the people decide who gets voted into the House and the Senate. By voting for people who we feel best support our goals and wishes, we thereby attempt to secure our "vote" for presidency. If your views swing more towards the Republican side (like my own), you vote for Republican House and Senate representatives. They, in turn, should vote accordingly for a Republican president, and thus your wishes are inevitably granted, more or less.

The only major problem with this system is not how the VOTES are tallied, but how the DEMOGRAPHIC is tallied - i.e. the political parties. And that, my friend, is a MUCH bigger, more complex issue to tackle, and not one I have any thoughts on how to change whatsoever. Being boxed into "Category A, B, or C" has its advantages and limitations, and it is exactly those limitations, among a few others that spring up further down the road, that I believe you (and many others who raise this issue) have a problem with. Said other issues being if a Republican presidential candidate, for example, is NOT someone you want in office, despite being a Republican supporter. That can complicate things, of course, but that is the nature of the beast. You cannot have everyone running for President.

I, too, am in the same boat Z. I live in Mass., a HIGHLY liberal / Democratic state (and the one which John Kerry has come from to run for President, no less - I spit on that fact). My vote, along with my father's, probably won't amount to jack in the sea of Democratic support that will likely fill this election. However, I can take at least some comfort in knowing that, despite how the populace of my state feels, the Congressmen my state has elected will make the ultimate decision on who becomes President. But, again, here is that same issue - voting for Repubican Senate / House Representatives in a primarily Democratic state. It's a tricky business, full of lots of catch-22's and loops. But it IS manageable. Not perfect, but manageable. And I, for one, feel that the system has lasted us this long, and thus is not in any dire need of major change.

Besides, given the way this country is, do you really think any major changes, no matter how needed, will come about swiftly enough to matter? Particulaly for this upcoming election?
[right][snapback]58779[/snapback][/right]

I as well.even though im not old enough to vote(13 but hey this voting year excites me) Nevada is a democratic state.most people here want to vote for kerry because he says hell give tax cuts to the "poor".i, as a bush fan, dont believe this and would vote for bush because kerry has said outright that he would take troops out of iraq.this ,my opinion, is the wrong thing to do.About the state, obviously it will sway democratic but there still is pride in voting. :)

[Wyrm]

I actually just did a story for my Journalism class about the Electoral College... If it weren't for the fact that the election was tomorrow (it is Monday now), I might be intruigued by the coincidence.

Anyways, the current electoral college is pretty much the best we can come up with for now. I think the only possible improvement could be to get rid of the electors and have a process where the state winner automatically got the college votes. Granted, there's never really been a problem with them in the past, but it just seems like they don't really do anything that couldn't be done better with an automated process, assuming that the automation wasn't corrupted.

First, I think the american system as it is now is not suitabel for electing a president with so much power.

Actually, the president doesn't have as much power as most people imagine he does. The only reason Bush has been able to do a lot of the stuff he has is because he's been doing a lot of it in the shadow of the war on terror, etc. Because of that, people haven't known about a lot of the dealings, and thus, haven't been able to voice their opinion on them. Now, I'm not trying to attack Bush for this (even though I really don't like him or the decisions/speeches he's been making), because I think any politician would have done the same thing. And I'll stop there before I start rambling.

Just checked http://www.electoral-vote.com/ and apparently Kerry is in the lead again.

[Armin]

Oh, well, not really that scary.  The American president needs to be backed by a huge number of very rich people and corporations.  Hence, our choices are always limited to the lap dogs of the rich and powerful.  There is no difference between Bush and Kerry.  They will do as they are told.
[right][snapback]58778[/snapback][/right]

And that, sadly hits the nail square on the head not only for the US but world wide... :D

In a time where the media dictate the outcome of elections (and yes, even in France and here in Germany and *everywhere*, just perhaps not with so many strange rituals... :P ) and it's necessary to spend hundreds of millions to get elected, that will even increase in the future. And political parties (even in countries where there are more than 2 that count :ph34r: ) will keep becoming more and more similar to each other.

But I still think that Bush would speed up the downward spiral more than Kerry, if only a bit...

[eppie]

And that, sadly hits the nail square on the head not only for the US but world wide...  :D

In a time where the media dictate the outcome of elections (and yes, even in France and here in Germany and *everywhere*, just perhaps not with so many strange rituals...  :P ) and it's necessary to spend hundreds of millions to get elected, that will even increase in the future. And political parties (even in countries where there are more than 2 that count :ph34r: ) will keep becoming more and more similar to each other.

But I still think that Bush would speed up the downward spiral more than Kerry, if only a bit...
[right][snapback]58792[/snapback][/right]

But still, here in Holland (multiparty system) political parties get a few broadcasting minutes on TV (for free) in which they can explain a bit about what they stand for. For the rest the campaigning here stop with posters, which usually only show the party logo or the face of the person that is no. 1 on the list of the party. And of course debates, honest, fair discussions between people from different parties. Contributions from companies to political parties are not even allowed (but I'm not 100 % sure of this). So I must state here that at least in Holand we are very very far from how things go in the US.

[Assur]

Hi

The fairest system, where every vote counts, would be to treat the USA as one voting district and get rid of the Electoral College. It would be a two round system. If one candidate gets 50% plus one vote in the first round he is elected. If no candidate manages that, the two candidates with the biggest number of votes would square of in round two, where there would be clear winner.

To prevent any number of candidates who don't stand a chance from cluttering up the ballot, every candidate would need to get a certain amount of supporting signatures in a number of states, perhaps 5% of all registered voters in a state in 40 states. Since it would be federal election, there should be federal election law which would apply in all states.

I've done two missions in the Balkans for the OSCE supervising elections. The first rule in our case was always "Keep it as simple as possible" , didn't work out of course <_<

good karma

[jahcs]

Some interesting ideas Assur.

Would anyone involved in this thread also support mandatory voting?


I would like to see everyone capable of voting excercising that right and privilege but mandatory voting I'm not so sure. A democracy's strength relies on informed voting. Mandatory voting might bring a greater percentage of the uninformed into the process.

[Assur]

[quote=jahcs,Nov 1 2004, 10:46 PM]
Some interesting ideas Assur.

Would anyone involved in this thread also support mandatory voting?

Hi

I may have expressed myself in the wrong terms. I'm not for mandatory voting. The right to vote includes the right to abstain.

The only thing that should be mandatory is that the candidate has to show a certain amount of support (signatures from voters) to get him onto the ballot paper, to prevent the appearance of non-serious candidates.

good karma

[Minionman]

First, I think the american system as it is now is not suitabel for electing a president with so much power. Would an american president have the same function as has the french or german president (so not much) it could be a googd system, just because the outcome would be of less importance.

This was sort of the point of the electoral college, and earlier on, the election of senators by state governments instead of actual people. The idea behind these two is to keep the government more moderated, since as it started out the state governments picked the electors. In both these cases the elections had to go through several layers of people, so that even if people had picked the state governments out of sudden, short lasting strong feelings, after a few layers cooler heads would prevail and the president/senate wouldn't have been picked for 4/6 years because of some short lasting anger or outrage typwe feelings. Now the electoral college mainly works it seems to kep one region of the country from taking over the rest, wqhether it's working is up for grabs. And, as someone else said,the president doesn't necessarily have a lot of power, there have been plenty of times congress has used its power more. Mainly foreign policy becomes more of a president's power and that's what we're all seeing more of now.

And for and interesting electoral college bit of information, I've read that in the 1860 election that if all of the votes against Lincoln were for one person, he would have lost the popular about 40% to 60%, but still won in the electoral college because he won in most of the northern states by a lower percentage than he lost in most of the southern states, and the northern states had more people.

[kandrathe]

Some interesting ideas Assur.

Would anyone involved in this thread also support mandatory voting?
I would like to see everyone capable of voting exercising that right and privilege but mandatory voting I'm not so sure.&nbsp; A democracy's strength relies on informed voting.&nbsp; Mandatory voting might bring a greater percentage of the uninformed into the process.
[right][snapback]58846[/snapback][/right]

I was listening to a radio program this week where they were discussing the voting fraud practiced in old aged homes where many senile and incompetent voters ballots are cast, filled out by the workers in the nursing home. In many states, this counts up to millions of votes.

As for mandatory voting. No. The US doesn't work that way. I think a 5% threshold is too low, and many states like California would have 10-20 candidates. It would not be simple as each state in the union is still sovereign, and can determine its laws independent of the federal system.

As it is, my sample ballot for president looks like;

() David Cobb and Pat LaMarche (Green Party)
() George W. Bush and Dick Cheney (Republican)
() John F. Kerry and John Edwards (Democratic-Farmer-Labor)
() Bill Van Auken and Jim Lawrence (Social Equality)
() Roger Calero and Arrin Hawkins (Socialist Workers)
() Thomas J Harens and Jennifer A. Ryan (Christian Freedom)
() Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo (Better Life)
() Michael Peroutka and Chuck Baldwin (Constitution)
() Micheal Badnarik and Richard Campagna (Libertarian)

It is hard enough to get anyone to seriously consider term limits or campaign finance reform, so I doubt any of what we are talking about would amount to more than pipe smoke.

[jahcs]

Sorry to be confusing things. To clarify my question about mandatory voting: I posed it more as a sidebar to the electoral debate. I wasn't tying it to Assur's post, although his post did inspire the question to some degree.


As Minionman stated the electoral college is part of the U.S.'s system of checks and balances. Our electoral votes are based on the direction the majority of voters, state by state, have voted. When the system was started it was because communication was much slower and because State Governments were honestly worried about the Federal Government getting too much power and overriding the individual voice of each state.