Do you like the Electoral College system?

[Monkeyshack]

I come from a small state, and I don?t think my vote matters one bit, we get 3 votes in the college, sure it can be a deciding factor in these head-to-head races, but 1 state with more votes means more, you still have candidates campaigning in the large states (just as you claim would happen without).

So my question is this, what if we evened the plain. 2 or 3 votes per state, but its the same number in all the states... or 1 vote for the whole state, 51 states, there would surely be a winner.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: Monkeyshack

I come from a small state, and I don?t think my vote matters one bit, we get 3 votes in the college, sure it can be a deciding factor in these head-to-head races, but 1 state with more votes means more, you still have candidates campaigning in the large states (just as you claim would happen without).

So my question is this, what if we evened the plain. 2 or 3 votes per state, but its the same number in all the states... or 1 vote for the whole state, 51 states, there would surely be a winner.

Not a good idea AT ALL. The minority could easily over rule the majority. I don't want 100K people in one state counting a much as 10M in another, that's worse than 1 person 1 vote.

You of course reasize there are less people in that state to persuade for those 3 votes in your state right?

Also, your plan would make the problem worse, and would only benefit people in your situation (surprise, surprise), those in low populace states.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer
yes, i would. political climates change. the swing states vary from election to election. the top 20 cities in account for roughly 60% of the vote. those will be the only places politicians would campaign or care about.

so you want a direct popular election right? many times in history, there hasn't been a popular majority. you probably think Bush shouldn't be President because he got 47.9% of the vote. Well, Clinton got just 43% of the popular vote in 1992. its only thanks to the electoral college that we had a clear winner (he won 370-168).

What a nonsense argument. He had 43% which was MORE than his opponent by far. Maybe you forgot that perot had 15-20% (somewhere in that range). Clinton won the popular vote. Even without the electoral system, he would have won. As far as I can tell, the electoral system only makes a difference in close elections.

[added for clarity]I doubt anyone is advocating that a candidate must have a MAJORITY of popular votes. More likely they are advocating a system where the candidate must have a plurality...

yes, but you're advocating a direct vote because you don't feel the will of the country is accurately represented. right? this is just an example: it is your contention that someone who conceivably has 43% of the popularvote is a more accurate representative of the country's will then someone who carried 40 out of 50 states?

I'm not advocating jack. I do not have much of an opinion on this matter one way or the other, except that I don't think it's that big of a deal in elections that are not close.

My whole purpose in posting was to note how stupid your point about bill clinton was. You seemed to want to use it as an example of when the electoral system provided a different result than the popular vote. Or maybe it was just some meaningless statistic that had no bearing on the debate. Either way, it was pointless. I love it when people put words in my mouth and assume I am disagreeing with their overall opinion just because i call them on some BS point.

its clear the point sailed way above your head. i was making a point as to the legitamacy of president based on popular vote. that the popular vote isn't everything. the electoral vote is a better indication of a president representative of the entire nation. i can't dumb it down anymore. you'll have to ask a friend to explain it to you if you still don't get it.

 

[Phoenix86]

One quick point about the close races/one where popular was less than electoral.

If the popular vote was the rule for those election how would it not have changed: The way the politicians campaigned, the number of people voting, and most obvious how close it was!!?!?! In other words, if the rules were different it would have had a different outcome, which may NOT have been close at all.

You can't apply different rule AFTER THE FACT, and say "AHHH HA! I got you there."

edit: OK, 58 votes to change the system, do we have 1 good reason standing? I don't think I have seen one good argument for change in this thread yet. Speak up folks. If you have something better...

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer
yes, i would. political climates change. the swing states vary from election to election. the top 20 cities in account for roughly 60% of the vote. those will be the only places politicians would campaign or care about.

so you want a direct popular election right? many times in history, there hasn't been a popular majority. you probably think Bush shouldn't be President because he got 47.9% of the vote. Well, Clinton got just 43% of the popular vote in 1992. its only thanks to the electoral college that we had a clear winner (he won 370-168).

What a nonsense argument. He had 43% which was MORE than his opponent by far. Maybe you forgot that perot had 15-20% (somewhere in that range). Clinton won the popular vote. Even without the electoral system, he would have won. As far as I can tell, the electoral system only makes a difference in close elections.

[added for clarity]I doubt anyone is advocating that a candidate must have a MAJORITY of popular votes. More likely they are advocating a system where the candidate must have a plurality...

yes, but you're advocating a direct vote because you don't feel the will of the country is accurately represented. right? this is just an example: it is your contention that someone who conceivably has 43% of the popularvote is a more accurate representative of the country's will then someone who carried 40 out of 50 states?

I'm not advocating jack. I do not have much of an opinion on this matter one way or the other, except that I don't think it's that big of a deal in elections that are not close.

My whole purpose in posting was to note how stupid your point about bill clinton was. You seemed to want to use it as an example of when the electoral system provided a different result than the popular vote. Or maybe it was just some meaningless statistic that had no bearing on the debate. Either way, it was pointless. I love it when people put words in my mouth and assume I am disagreeing with their overall opinion just because i call them on some BS point.

its clear the point sailed way above your head. i was making a point as to the legitamacy of president based on popular vote. that the popular vote isn't everything. the electoral vote is a better indication of a president representative of the entire nation. i can't dumb it down anymore. you'll have to ask a friend to explain it to you if you still don't get it.

I would submit that it is you who is missing the point. The point is that your argument is totally ineffective. No one with half a brain would think that a candidate must have a majority of votes in order for a popular vote to make sense. Nor would anyone with half a brain think your point about clinton "only" receiving 43% made any sense. It was at all not unclear who won the election by looking at the popular vote. Furthermore, this idea of uncertainty as to who actually won undermines the electoral process too, since you could just as easily argue that we need an electoral process within states too just to determine who actually won the state.

 

[Hammer]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Hammer
yes, i would. political climates change. the swing states vary from election to election. the top 20 cities in account for roughly 60% of the vote. those will be the only places politicians would campaign or care about.

so you want a direct popular election right? many times in history, there hasn't been a popular majority. you probably think Bush shouldn't be President because he got 47.9% of the vote. Well, Clinton got just 43% of the popular vote in 1992. its only thanks to the electoral college that we had a clear winner (he won 370-168).

What a nonsense argument. He had 43% which was MORE than his opponent by far. Maybe you forgot that perot had 15-20% (somewhere in that range). Clinton won the popular vote. Even without the electoral system, he would have won. As far as I can tell, the electoral system only makes a difference in close elections.

[added for clarity]I doubt anyone is advocating that a candidate must have a MAJORITY of popular votes. More likely they are advocating a system where the candidate must have a plurality...

yes, but you're advocating a direct vote because you don't feel the will of the country is accurately represented. right? this is just an example: it is your contention that someone who conceivably has 43% of the popularvote is a more accurate representative of the country's will then someone who carried 40 out of 50 states?

I'm not advocating jack. I do not have much of an opinion on this matter one way or the other, except that I don't think it's that big of a deal in elections that are not close.

My whole purpose in posting was to note how stupid your point about bill clinton was. You seemed to want to use it as an example of when the electoral system provided a different result than the popular vote. Or maybe it was just some meaningless statistic that had no bearing on the debate. Either way, it was pointless. I love it when people put words in my mouth and assume I am disagreeing with their overall opinion just because i call them on some BS point.

its clear the point sailed way above your head. i was making a point as to the legitamacy of president based on popular vote. that the popular vote isn't everything. the electoral vote is a better indication of a president representative of the entire nation. i can't dumb it down anymore. you'll have to ask a friend to explain it to you if you still don't get it.

I would submit that it is you who is missing the point. The point is that your argument is totally ineffective. No one with half a brain would think that a candidate must have a majority of votes in order for a popular vote to make sense. Nor would anyone with half a brain think your point about clinton "only" receiving 43% made any sense. It was at all not unclear who won the election by looking at the popular vote. Furthermore, this idea of uncertainty as to who actually won undermines the electoral process too, since you could just as easily argue that we need an electoral process within states too just to determine who actually won the state.

I didn't say it didn't make sense, i said that it is not as representative of the country as someone who won the electoral vote clearly. my point about clinton winning only 43% had to due with the people that think Bush didn't win the election and that the electoral college is at fault. the electoral college provides us with a someone who is a true representative of the entire country. There is always uncertainly and there will always be flaws in any system, but the electoral college system we have now is still the best.

 

[CrazyDe1]

Originally posted by: jadinolf

Originally posted by: yllus
Do you "one person, one vote" people have any idea what kind of imbalance would be affected by the largest urban areas on the rest of the country?

Thank you. Someone understands.

I'm trying to decide if we should split our electoral votes and from waht I've considered I'm going to vote yes so far.

Someone convinece me otherwise?

If all electoral votes in a state go to one candidate even though the states are split then the smaller minority doesn't get their vote heard anyways.

 

[SuperTool]

I like the Electrical Engineering College better than Electoral College

 

[kohler]

I'm trying to decide if we should split our electoral votes and from waht I've considered I'm going to vote yes so far.

Someone convinece me otherwise?

If all electoral votes in a state go to one candidate even though the states are split then the smaller minority doesn't get their vote heard anyways.

An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .


Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, a congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.


For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ." -- FairVote

 

[kohler]

I didn't say it didn't make sense, i said that it is not as representative of the country as someone who won the electoral vote clearly. my point about clinton winning only 43% had to due with the people that think Bush didn't win the election and that the electoral college is at fault. the electoral college provides us with a someone who is a true representative of the entire country. There is always uncertainly and there will always be flaws in any system, but the electoral college system we have now is still the best.

You've got it exactly backwards.

The Electoral College winner is not inherently as representative of the country as someone who won the national popular vote.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

In virtually every other election in the United States, every voter is equal and politically relevant. The winner and loser(s) are simply determined by the greatest number of individual votes.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

 

[IronWing]

An analysis of the whole number proportional plan and congressional district systems of awarding electoral votes, evaluated the systems "on the basis of whether they promote majority rule, make elections more nationally competitive, reduce incentives for partisan machinations, and make all votes count equally. . . .


Awarding electoral votes by a proportional or congressional district [used by Maine and Nebraska] method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness or voter equality. Pursued at a state level, both reforms dramatically increase incentives for partisan machinations. If done nationally, a congressional district system has a sharp partisan tilt toward the Republican Party, while the whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.


For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, both alternatives fall far short of the National Popular Vote plan . . ." -- FairVote

You realize that when this thread was created, W hadn't even been elected President yet?

 

[kohler]

The current electoral college system does NOT actually help PREVENT corruption.

Under the current system of electing the President, every vote in every precinct matters inside every battleground state. If it were true that an election in which the winner is the candidate who receives the most popular votes is “a guarantee of corruption,” then we should see today a wealth of evidence of rampant fraud in presidential elections inside every battleground state. Similarly, we should see evidence of rampant fraud today in every gubernatorial election in every state.

With the current system, a small number of people in a closely divided “battleground” state can potentially affect enough popular votes to swing all of that state’s electoral votes.

537 votes, all in one state determined the 2000 election, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

 

[kohler]

Recounts would be drastically LESS necessary.
You would NOT see a scramble to recount the entire country rather than just 1 state.
It would not be chaos.

The current presidential election system makes a repeat of 2000 more likely. All you need is a thin and contested margin in a single state with enough electoral votes to make a difference. It's much less likely that the national vote will be close enough that voting irregularities in a single area will swing enough net votes to make a difference. If we'd had National Popular Vote in 2000, a recount in Florida would not have been an issue.

The idea that recounts will be likely and messy with National Popular Vote is distracting.

No statewide recount, much less a nationwide recount, would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
“It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the minuscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state by-state winner-take-all methods.

The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.

We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

 

[kohler]

. . . The electoral college guarantees the individual rights of states. It is one of the many checks and balances built into the U.S. government. . . .

The electoral college, in itself, does not guarantee the individual rights of states.

The states have individual constitutional authority to decide how to award their electoral votes.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Now 48 states have winner-take-all state laws for awarding electoral votes, 2 have district winner laws. Neither method is mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs."

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

If a candidate wins the popular vote in states with 270 electoral votes, there is no reason to think that the Electoral College would prevent that candidate from being elected President of the United States

 

[kohler]

. . . A popular vote would be disastrous to the more rural states. The large population centers would dictate the direction of the presidency. As it stands now, at least the candidates have to, at minimum, pay lip service to those smaller states to get a majority of the electoral votes. . .

Support for a national popular vote is strong in rural states

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. Their states’ votes were conceded months before by the minority parties in the states, taken for granted by the dominant party in the states, and ignored by all parties in presidential campaigns. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

The biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

 

[kohler]

. . . It prevents a possible tyrannical stranglehold on the Presidency by the states with large populations.

. . . . [/QUOTE]
With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

 

[Ruptga]

You realize that when this thread was created, W hadn't even been elected President yet?

Right? You'd think a six year lurker would notice something like that.

 

[kohler]

There are several reason listed in this thread why popular vote is bad (Germany Nazi-Jews ex., top cities rule the rest of the county another, the list of these cities won't change much, etc.)

Every system has flaws, popular vote has more than electoral college. Just because the last election was flawed (won't argue that, lets just assume) doesn't mean the system needs to be ditched. It just shows the system isn't perfect, well, nothing is.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Adolf Hitler did not come to power in Germany as a result of a national popular vote.

The biggest cities are almost exactly balanced out by rural areas in terms of population and partisan composition.

16% of the U.S. population lives outside the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rural America has voted 60% Republican. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States. 16% of the U.S. population lives in the top 100 cities. They voted 63% Democratic in 2004.

Suburbs divide almost exactly equally between Republicans and Democrats.

With the end of the primaries, without the National Popular Vote bill in effect, the political relevance of three-quarters of all Americans is now finished for the presidential election.

Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .

In the 2012 general election campaign

38 states (including 24 of the 27 smallest states) had no campaign events, and minuscule or no spending for TV ads.

More than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states..

Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa).

Issues of importance to non-battleground states are of so little interest to presidential candidates that they don’t even bother to poll them individually.

Over 87% of both Romney and Obama campaign offices were in just the then 12 swing states. The few campaign offices in the 38 remaining states were for fund-raising, volunteer phone calls, and arranging travel to battleground states.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more federal grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, steel tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west.

 

[IronWing]

Right? You'd think a six year lurker would notice something like that.

I think the account data breach is beginning to bear fruit.

 

[smitbret]

Explain.

Well, the only time it mattered in my lifetime, it kept Al Gore out of the White House so I consider that a win.

 

[Ruptga]

I think the account data breach is beginning to bear fruit.

An intriguing theory.

 

[IronWing]

An intriguing theory.

I have to back away from it somewhat though. I looked at the poster's previous posts from 2010 and this is the only topic he/she wants to talk about.

 

[cbrunny]

wicked necro.

fwiw, EC is batshit stupid.

 

[CZroe]

Explain.

Yes. It gives states a reason to exist inside a union that would otherwise be working against it. States elect presidents, not people. That's because in the USA the federal government is not supposed to be meddling in the affairs of the individuals and should only be involved in concerns between nations and concerns between states unless it is enforcing a constitutional right granted to an individual experiencing an injustice in a particular state. All other matters are supposed to be up to the state and increasingly local governments where individuals can vote with their feet by moving to other states/cities.

 

[Stopsignhank]

I think the account data breach is beginning to bear fruit.

I have to back away from it somewhat though. I looked at the poster's previous posts from 2010 and this is the only topic he/she wants to talk about.

Yet this dingleberry has 61 points and I only have 49. So he is therefore a better forum member than me. There has to be some correlation to the Electoral College there. He has fewer posts than me, but more points.

I am going to sit here an pout now.