Electoral College

[eppie]

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.
[right][snapback]58901[/snapback][/right]

But, as the presidency is something from the whole US, it does not make sense to do the voting via this system, just adding all the votes in teh whole country would be the only good system. But as often, it is difficult to change things.

I heard there are allready major problems in Florida with the voting. There are even international inspectors to see that everything goes correctly. (but there are only 100 of them, which is of course by far not enough to check everything)

[Cryptic]

Go Amendment 36! (Here in Colorado we’re trying to change the electoral college to a proportionate system and set a precedent)

The problem with the electoral college is disenfranchisement. If you don’t vote with your state’s majority, your vote has no value. You could be in a state of 5 million people, but if 2.6 million make a hairline majority and you’re not counted among them, you’re a nonentity for voting purposes.

It also fuels voter apathy. If you know your state is very partisan and always landslides to the party you don’t want to vote for, why even bother to show up at the polls? All you’re doing is wasting the majority’s time and space with your weightless, pointless, basically ignored protest vote.

The college does not reflect the will of the people. One person does not equal one vote. That is a problem in a sophisticated superpower touting itself as a representative democracy.

[Chaerophon]

...as the presidency is something from the whole US, it does not make sense to do the voting via this system, just adding all the votes in the whole country would be the only good system. But as often, it is difficult to change things.

Netherlands, area: 41,526 sq km
Equals? Slightly less than twice the size of New Jersey.

The USA, area: 9,631,418 sq km
Equals? About two and a half times the size of what is typically recognized as "Western Europe".

Now. Consider the differences in perspectives and attitudes that have developed in Europe over the centuries. Then, consider that the U.S. is quite comparable in size. While it is certainly true that ethnic and social differences among European countries have had a lot more time to "harden" than have those in the U.S., it is foolish to suppose that there are not significant differences in perspective and attitudes across the U.S. If "Western Europe" was to become a single country and the Netherlands, as a subordinate 'province' was not going to be distinguished as a unit, but, rather, was to have their votes included as a part of the general whole, with no balancing for representation of the region and its distinct interests against population concerns, would you think that that was fair? If anything, I think that the electoral college should become slightly (stress on that) more regional in its representational scope, in that many states in the midwest, while statistically 'overrepresented' according to population, are largely, if not completely irrelevant in terms of the representation of their interests. IMO, there's a bit more to fixing the American electoral system than eliminating the college. In many ways, I think that the college could, in fact, be modified in the other direction so as to better help balance regional and population interests. YMMV. :D

[eppie]

Netherlands, area: 41,526 sq km
Equals?  Slightly less than twice the size of New Jersey.

The USA, area: 9,631,418 sq km
Equals?  About two and a half times the size of what is typically recognized as "Western Europe". 

Now.  Consider the differences in perspectives and attitudes that have developed in Europe over the centuries.  Then, consider that the U.S. is quite comparable in size.  While it is certainly true that ethnic and social differences among European countries have had a lot more time to "harden" than have those in the U.S., it is foolish to suppose that there are not significant differences in perspective and attitudes across the U.S.  If "Western Europe" was to become a single country and the Netherlands, as a subordinate 'province' was not going to be distinguished as a unit, but, rather, was to have their votes included as a part of the general whole, with no balancing for representation of the region and its distinct interests against population concerns, would you think that that was fair?  If anything, I think that the electoral college should become slightly (stress on that) more regional in its representational scope, in that many states in the midwest, while statistically 'overrepresented' according to population, are largely, if not completely irrelevant in terms of the representation of their interests.  IMO, there's a bit more to fixing the American electoral system than eliminating the college.  In many ways, I think that the college could, in fact, be modified in the other direction so as to better help balance regional and population interests.  YMMV.  :D
[right][snapback]58943[/snapback][/right]

So what are you saying?? It seems more that you are discussing if there should be one presidency of the USA, or instead each state his own president.
As you said the electoral college has its disadvantages. The USA has chosen to have one president (despite the large size of the country, cultural differences etc.), so then it would be better to give every person a vote that counts exactly the same as the vote from any other person, or not?. Europe did not decide yet that it should have one president, so your comparison does not work here.

The system in the US looks like tennis...you can win without having made the most points. For a game that can work, for a presidency it seems rather wrong.

[Zarathustra]

The system in the US looks like tennis...you can win without having made the most points. For a game that can work, for a presidency it seems rather wrong.
[right][snapback]58944[/snapback][/right]

No, you have to win the majority of the electoral votes in order to win the election. So within this system the winner does indeed score the most points. It's the method of scoring this tennis game that is being questioned.

[Saxywoo]

I know who I'm voting for, I'm just not looking forward to people who are allowed to vote complaining about the election outcome when they didn't vote. That's something that I have very little tolerance for. I have a philosophy - don't complain if you didn't vote.

Of the people that are not allowed to vote, such as people that are trying to get thier citizenship or people that are between 15-17, I strongly advise you to watch carefully what happens in the next 4 years, because if you don't like what the person that is elected does or policies that are put into effect, the next time the political circus swings through the country, you will have THE RIGHT to do something about it, and voice your opinion.

I understand that the originator of this thread didn't want the thread to spark a huge political debate. I really do. But such a debate is inevitable, considering how closely the elections tie to our daily lives. But the key thing in a debate about politics is that when you argue for or against something, you could very well be butting heads with someone with the opposite view. We all want something that works better for us. Probably the biggest tabboo topic is abortion. The Republicans are against it, Democrats are for it. Here is where women are being told whether or not they have the right to abort a pregnancy (from a legal standpoint - I'm leaving the moral and religious aspect out of this). Stating that you're for something may mean that you are saying that someone else doesn't have the right to something that may or may not be important to them, as in the example above.

As for who I'm going to vote for in the lesser offices? I'm going to probably vote for the person that would best do the job, not simply based on what political party I'm voting for in the presidency. I know that I'm going to vote for Republican and Democrat alike. I'm going to vote for the person that I trust the most out of the people that I don't trust at all.

[vor_lord]

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.

[right][snapback]58837[/snapback][/right]

For those who are interested in various election methods, check out Election Methods

Some very interesting things to read there, particularly in regards to instant runoff voting (the system used in Australia, which sounds similar to what you're describing above).

Be forewarned the Condorcet method requires some real math to understand (although not to vote with it).

[kandrathe]

So what are you saying?? It seems more that you are discussing if there should be one presidency of the USA, or instead each state his own president.
As you said the electoral college has its disadvantages.  The USA has chosen to have one president (despite the large size of the country, cultural differences etc.), so then it would be better to give every person a vote that counts exactly the same as the vote from any other person, or not?. Europe did not decide yet that it should have one president, so your comparison does not work here.

The system in the US looks like tennis...you can win without having made the most points. For a game that can work, for a presidency it seems rather wrong.
[right][snapback]58944[/snapback][/right]

Generally, we don't have a direct democracy. We have a republic, which uses representative democracy. When we elect a president, it also needs to account for the positions of all the states, not just the interests of the most populated state. If you look at electoral representation;
California(55),
New York(31),
Texas(34),
Florida(27) = 147 electoral votes out of 538 (27%)

Compared to population(in millions) representation;
California(35),
New York(19),
Texas(22),
Florida(17) = 93 out of 291 (32%)

You can see that things are slightly skewed in favor of smaller states. For instance North Dakota has 3 electoral votes for a population of 633837 people (1 vote per 211000 people), whereas California has one electoral vote per 645172 people. I think this is good in many ways so that the smaller states do not become marginalized and irrelevant. I think the misconception is that United States is one entity. We are actually 50 states, the District of Columbia, and a handful of protectorates all operating as separate units but organized and led by a federal establishment.

In many ways, the Netherlands should be able to relate in a Europe dominated by France, Germany and Britain.

[jahcs]

The problem with the electoral college is disenfranchisement.  If you don’t vote with your state’s majority, your vote has no value.  You could be in a state of 5 million people, but if 2.6 million make a hairline majority and you’re not counted among them, you’re a nonentity for voting purposes.

It also fuels voter apathy.  If you know your state is very partisan and always landslides to the party you don’t want to vote for, why even bother to show up at the polls?  All you’re doing is wasting the majority’s time and space with your weightless, pointless, basically ignored protest vote.

The college does not reflect the will of the people.  One person does not equal one vote.  That is a problem in a sophisticated superpower touting itself as a representative democracy.
[right][snapback]58941[/snapback][/right]

An election, by definition is an all or nothing enterprise. The most the loser will get is a blurb in the newspaper whenever they step back into the public spotlight. It does not matter whether you came in second or fifth, you get nothing.

By your logic and the fact that it's winner take all then only one vote matters.
So only one person should vote.
But if you don't agree with that vote then you get a few people that share your position on the issue to vote with you to counteract that vote... and voila! A democracy is born.

[Chaerophon]

In many ways, the Netherlands should be able to relate in a Europe dominated by France, Germany and Britain.

Which was, in fact, exactly my point. :) Perhaps a more succinct version will work to better effect.

[Cryptic]

By your logic and the fact that it's winner take all then only one vote matters.
So only one person should vote.

[right][snapback]58966[/snapback][/right]

Thank you. I just remembered why I stopped coming here.
:rolleyes:

[jahcs]

By your logic and the fact that it's winner take all then only one vote matters.
So only one person should vote.
But if you don't agree with that vote then you get a few people that share your position on the issue to vote with you to counteract that vote... and voila! A democracy is born.
[right][snapback]58966[/snapback][/right]

When quoting sarcasm it is important to not take the item out of context. I like a spirited debate, please continue to visit the forums. If I have slighted you please accept this appology.

Kandrathae brought up a good point about not marginalizing the smaller states votes. Our nation, being formed as a collection of states under a federal establishment, is the electoral process in a nutshell. Thanks for the excellent point Kandrathae

[Minionman]

in that many states in the midwest, while statistically 'overrepresented' according to population, are largely, if not completely irrelevant in terms of the representation of their interests. 
[right][snapback]58943[/snapback][/right]

Just to get this meaning clear, is this he great lakes midwest or the Kansas Nebraska Dakotas midwest? The second one makes more sense with what you said so I'm just making sure.

[Nystul]

Hi all. I just spent a couple hours waiting to cast my votes in the great "battleground" of Columbus, OH, and when I got home my internet connection had finally been fixed after some weeks of problems.

Anyways, here are some thoughts about the Electoral College. First, many feel that this system gives disproportional voting power to less populace states over the more populous ones. In theory, that is true. But in reality, the disproportionate power in this system goes to relatively large states that are politically moderate. This is why Bush made a stop here in Columbus today to thank his volunteers at the phone banks; a difference of 1% either way in Ohio can make a swing of 4% in the electoral vote for the entire nation.

If this were a national race, it would change the way candidates campaign and the people they pander to. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing probably depends on where you live and what you believe. Being a country boy, the last thing I would want to see is a candidate spending the entire last week of a campaign in NYC and L.A. trying to get his vote out. I'm not sure I would want to see is candidates who spend all of their time and money in states where they are popular trying to get people into the polls.

In any case, the biggest pragmatic advantage of the Electoral College right now is that it splits the election into manageable contests. It is becoming clear that 48-48 type elections are not only possible but quite likely in this country. If you have a national election that is too close to call, do you recount the entire country, with different polling laws and mechanisms in every state? The United States does not currently have an interstate election for *anything*, and an awful lot of election reform and national standardization would need to be done before we can even consider starting, in my opinion.

[eppie]

Generally, we don't have a direct democracy.  We have a republic, which uses representative democracy.  When we elect a president, it also needs to account for the positions of all the states, not just the interests of the most populated state.  If you look at electoral representation;
California(55),
New York(31),
Texas(34),
Florida(27) = 147 electoral votes out of 538 (27%)

Compared to population(in millions) representation;
California(35),
New York(19),
Texas(22),
Florida(17) = 93 out of 291 (32%)

You can see that things are slightly skewed in favor of smaller states.  For instance North Dakota has 3 electoral votes for a population of 633837 people (1 vote per 211000 people), whereas California has one electoral vote per 645172 people. 


I think this is good in many ways so that the smaller states do not become marginalized and irrelevant. 

-----but we talk about people here not about states....looks to me that the people in california get marginalized.



I think the misconception is that United States is one entity.  We are actually 50 states, the District of Columbia, and a handful of protectorates all operating as separate units but organized and led by a federal establishment. 

In many ways, the Netherlands should be able to relate in a Europe dominated by France, Germany and Britain.
[right][snapback]58964[/snapback][/right]

Thanks for the info. I heard about this before but seeing it in numbers clarifies a lot. I still think the same though. Unlike other political bodies in the US the presidency is there for every person..no matter where he comes from. Bush has just as much tom say in California than he has in North Dakota. Th e only fair way I can think of is every person one vote. I do understand senate votes etc. so there I don't see the problem with amount of seats in congres per state.

Another question: do the number of electroral votes change in the years (when population changes??)

[FenrisWulf]

Another question: do the number of electroral votes change in the years (when population changes??)
[right][snapback]59020[/snapback][/right]

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that number of electoral votes per state would change at the same time as amount of representation in the House changes: every 10 years, based on the Census.

[kandrathe]

Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that number of electoral votes per state would change at the same time as amount of representation in the House changes: every 10 years, based on the Census.
[right][snapback]59021[/snapback][/right]

That's right. One vote for each representative + 2 for the states senators.

Edit: oh, and DC get 3 votes.

[Occhidiangela]

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]

eppie: Who cares what you think about how we elect a president? Seriously.

I hope you are pleased with how your elected officials are chosen, since the Netherlands is where you live.

Contrary to the belief of some, there is no world government. The UN is made up of a gaggle of sovereign states, each with its own approach to leadership and rulership. Before you comment about American electoral procedure, I'd suggest you pay a great deal of attention to the "electoral habits" of the dozens of countries where the right to vote, where franchise, where open elections, are still a dream.

Then, when you have them sorted out, come talk to us about American elections.

*sniggers at the latest EU political fun and games*

Occhi

[eppie]

eppie:  Who cares what you think about how we elect a president?  Seriously. 

I hope you are pleased with how your elected officials are chosen, since the Netherlands is where you live. 

Contrary to the belief of some, there is no world government.  The UN is made up of a gaggle of sovereign states, each with its own approach to leadership and rulership.  Before you comment about American electoral procedure, I'd suggest you pay a great deal of attention to the "electoral habits" of the dozens of countries where the right to vote, where franchise, where open elections, are still a dream.

Then, when you have them sorted out, come talk to us about American elections.

*sniggers at the latest EU political fun and games*

Occhi
[right][snapback]59032[/snapback][/right]

Aaa you are starting again Occhi?? Listen, why don't you just make certain topics on the lounge "just for american citizens" so you and your american friends can have a nice and quiet discussion about how you think things should be done without being hassled by those nasty europeans.

I know I have explained you this before, but maybe the uranium coated ammunition is doing damage to your memory. :D


So what do you want me to contribute on a thread like this?? Something like "okay guys I know that in a modern country it is a bit strange that international inspectors have to be present, that certain peoples votes get put aside and later it is decided if they count etc.etc. but let's stop talking about it because the situation in the Congo is much worse" If you want me to talk about other countries, start another topic....maybe start a topic about the netherlands...than we see what all you americans really know about us ;) .

I think this "killing of" of discussion here on the lounge does not help much. If I talk nonsense, please tell me so, make a fool of me in front of other lurkers, I deserve it, but don't start saying things like we don't care what you think.

The impact of the US on the world is rater big, so it is not strange that foreigners have an opinion on that. Plus I think I have seen more of america than most rightwing midwest farmers...that should earn me the right to vote as well :D

[Occhidiangela]

Aaa you are starting again Occhi??  Listen, why don't you just make certain topics on the lounge "just for american citizens" so you and your american friends can have a nice and quiet discussion about how you think things should be done without being hassled by those nasty europeans.

I know I have explained you this before, but maybe the uranium coated ammunition is doing damage to your memory. :D

So what do you want me to contribute on a thread like this?? Something like "okay guys I know that in a modern country it is a bit strange that international inspectors have to be present, that certain peoples votes get put aside and later it is decided if they count etc.etc.  but let's stop talking about it because the situation in the Congo is much worse" If you want me to talk about other countries, start another topic....maybe start  a topic about the netherlands...than we see what all you americans really know about us ;) .

I think this "killing of" of discussion here on the lounge does not help much. If I talk nonsense, please tell me so, make a fool of me in front of other lurkers, I deserve it, but don't start saying things like we don't care what you think.

The impact of the US on the world is rater big, so it is not strange that foreigners have an opinion on that. Plus I think I have seen more of america than most rightwing midwest farmers...that should earn me the right to vote as well :D
[right][snapback]59035[/snapback][/right]

eppie:

That you are disappointed in the long term prospects based on your perception of President Bush makes no difference to me. I am disappointed at the Dutch fighters, F-16's, in support of ISAF in Afghanistan showing up without enough air to air refuellers to fly their missions without leaching from teh already stretched thin American tankers. So be it, it was a political decision to carry your guys' bacon once again, all in the aim of making your folks look good. Since your government showed up when the going got tough, it was a good decision.

As to other nations and their elections, I was bummed when Prodi lost power in Italy, as he was a moderate who made some headway in a rapidly changing world. That said, it was Italy's decision to make, and America's, and every other nation's, position to "deal with it, the Italians have chosen their latest Prime Minister for their own reasons."

That you feel qualified to comment on how we do it, particularly given your location, is laughable.

As to the midwest farmers, they have been feeding quite a few people outside the US for quite some time. How about you show some respect for your betters? The urban elite attitude affected by an awful lot of folks is beyond narrowminded and rude: it can get downright insulting.

Occhi

(Full disclaimer, I am not a Midwest Farmer. Indeed, I am a lot closer to an "educated, urban elite" than a Midwest Farmer by about an order of magnitude.)