Electoral College Question

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Why are some so dead-set against the electoral college? It's an offensive concept--the average person is too stupid to vote directly, so we'll give them the illusion that they're directly electing the POTUS...

Eliminate it. You get anything above 50%, no matter how narrow--you're POTUS... The way it is now, 49.9% of a state's voters theorhetically have no voice. Winner takes all is just wrong.

Reply?

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

Why are some so dead-set against the electoral college? It's an offensive concept--the average person is too stupid to vote directly, so we'll give them the illusion that they're directly electing the POTUS...

Eliminate it. You get anything above 50%, no matter how narrow--you're POTUS... The way it is now, 49.9% of a state's voters theorhetically have no voice. Winner takes all is just wrong.

Reply?

The electoral is a very fair way to equalize the rural and urban voting power. There is one elector per member of congress, house and senate. This gives small states(low pop.) a greater voice per capita.
If the popular vote nationwide were to be used, a great swath of the country would be considered not viable. The East and West coasts would control politics in the U.S. The only reason both candidates are spending their time and money in Wis. Minn, and Ohio etc. is because those electors are important.

--------------------------

[wmw999 2,589]

I can see that, but it sure does dilute the vote of a number of people.

One thing to consider would be the possibility of having all of the states go to proportional voting -- the rural states still get the 2 elector based on the senators, so there is still greater rural power, but it's not quite as lopsided.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

I can see that, but it sure does dilute the vote of a number of people.

One thing to consider would be the possibility of having all of the states go to proportional voting -- the rural states still get the 2 elector based on the senators, so there is still greater rural power, but it's not quite as lopsided.

Wendy W.

That's the solution I would envision...

[mardigrasbob 0]

You may have a valid alternative however it would still require an amendment to the Contitution. 3/4 of the small states would have to approve, not likely.



--------

[PhillyKev 0]

No constitutional amendment necessary. The states can apportion their votes however they like. A couple split them now and CO is voting on doing just that in this election.

Why are you republicans always pushing for constitutional amendments for things the states should do on their own

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

The electoral is a very fair way to equalize the rural and urban voting power

So what you're really saying is that the Electoral College is kind of like Affirmative Action for rural voters?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PhillyKev 0]

BTW, if all states had split their votes in 2000, Gore would have had more electoral votes than Bush, but not the majority because Nader would have snagged 6. So the house would have picked the pres, and they would have picked Bush.

So, we'd have someone winning the plurality of direct votes, the plurality of electoral votes, and still losing the presidency.

2000 was a fluke, the electoral college usually works very well and very rarely contradicts the popular vote.

And besides, could you imagine nationwide recounts? Ughhhh....

[TomAiello 26]

It seems to me that the vast majority of disenfranchised voters (i.e. folks whose votes "don't matter" because their state is in no danger of swinging--meaning most of the voting population) are conservatives in liberal states (for example, how many Republican votes just don't count because they are cast in California or New York?). By contrast, the states where the liberals are disenfranchised tend to be places (Texas aside) like Idaho and Montana, where there are very few votes being cast anyway.

I wonder what effect changing the vote to a "proportional by state" electoral college would have? I'm guessing we'd see a major swing to more conservative executives. Anyone want to crunch the numbers from the last election and see?

Another thought: I'd hate to see either party seize on this as a tactic, and try to push through proportional electors in the name of "fairness", but only in states where their voters are the disenfranchised ones. In this case, it might actually be better to take care of this at the federal level, rather than letting it become a political hockey puck in the various states.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

No constitutional amendment necessary. The states can apportion their votes however they like. A couple split them now and CO is voting on doing just that in this election.

Why are you republicans always pushing for constitutional amendments for things the states should do on their own

Article II
Section 1

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

---------------

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

By contrast, the states where the liberals are disenfranchised tend to be places (Texas aside)

Well, um, I'm in Texas
And I completely agree that it would be terrible to have this turn into yet another political hockey puck, state by state, with committees trying to see which party would most be benefited by proportional vs. all-for-one voting.

Kind of like congressional redistricting in Texas

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Why are some so dead-set against the electoral college? It's an offensive concept--the average person is too stupid to vote directly, so we'll give them the illusion that they're directly electing the POTUS...

Eliminate it. You get anything above 50%, no matter how narrow--you're POTUS... The way it is now, 49.9% of a state's voters theorhetically have no voice. Winner takes all is just wrong.

Reply?

The electoral is a very fair way to equalize the rural and urban voting power. There is one elector per member of congress, house and senate. This gives small states(low pop.) a greater voice per capita.
If the popular vote nationwide were to be used, a great swath of the country would be considered not viable. The East and West coasts would control politics in the U.S. The only reason both candidates are spending their time and money in Wis. Minn, and Ohio etc. is because those electors are important.

--------------------------

A common misconception.

The electoral college gives the greatest say to voters in swing states. If you live in rural North Dakota or urban Chicago you won't have seen either candidate in this election season, because your vote is taken for granted. If you live in urban Cleveland you'll see them every week. Why? Ohio is a swing state and Dakota and Illinois aren't.

Secondly, voting power depends not only on the number of "electors" per voter, but also on the probability of those electors tilting the balance. The latter term is greater for large states. Putting it all together in a proper probability analysis shows that the electoral college actually favors large states.

Google on "banzhaf power index" for full details.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

You may have a valid alternative however it would still require an amendment to the Contitution. 3/4 of the small states would have to approve, not likely.



--------

Not true.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

No constitutional amendment necessary. The states can apportion their votes however they like. A couple split them now and CO is voting on doing just that in this election.

Why are you republicans always pushing for constitutional amendments for things the states should do on their own

Article II
Section 1

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

---------------

See the red part. No federal directive as to HOW the electors are chosen. If the States want proportional, they can have it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

I'd like to see every vote count. One person, one vote, doesn't matter where you live.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

Quote

You may have a valid alternative however it would still require an amendment to the Contitution. 3/4 of the small states would have to approve, not likely.



--------

Not true.

TRUE!

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments.
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.


www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

------------------

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

the electoral college usually works very well and very rarely contradicts the popular vote.

Only once in U.S. history (1888) has the winner of the popular vote lost the electoral college vote. So the odds of one not matching the other, are very slim.

In 1888, Benjamin Harrison became President, defeating Grover Cleveland, even though Cleveland had 100,000 more popular votes, but lost the electoral college.

Nevertheless, the electoral college is a proven, workable system. It should not be easily abandoned in pursuit of something else. Political changes do not always work as intended, and we could end up with something far more troublesome.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

You may have a valid alternative however it would still require an amendment to the Contitution. 3/4 of the small states would have to approve, not likely.



--------

Not true.

TRUE!

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments.
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments.
These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification.


www.usconstitution.net/constam.html#process

------------------

I am quite familiar, thank you.

However, since the Constitution does not prescribe HOW the electors are chosen, no amendment is needed for a state to change the method. If a state wants to go to proportional representation it can do so by the action of its own state legislature.

So your statement is false.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Only once in U.S. history (1888) has the winner of the popular vote lost the electoral college vote

Um -- wouldn't that be once before 2000? Or are you saying that a plurality wouldn't count as winning?

According to Information Please Almanac
Total Bush: 50,456,002 47.87% 271
Gore: 50,999,897 48.38% 266
Nader: 2,882,955 2.74%

That would give Gore a 543,895 popular vote advantage over Bush. Edited to add that the numbers after the percentages are the electoral college votes.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Nightingale 0]

I thought Gore won the popular vote in 2000, but Bush won the EC?

From http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

Al Gore (Democrat)
50,999,897 votes
48.38% of the popular vote

George W. Bush (Republican)
50,456,002 votes
47.87% of the popular vote

Bush received the Electoral College votes from 30 states (271 votes)
Gore received the Electoral College votes from 21 states (266 votes)
(Electoral College votes include District of Columbia; hence 51 'states')

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Only once in U.S. history (1888) has the winner of the popular vote lost the electoral college vote.

Nope.

In 2000, Al Gore had 50,996,116 votes versus 50,456,169 for George W Bush, thus "winning" the popular vote by 500,000 votes. The electoral college voted 271 Bush - 266 Gore.

Quote

Nevertheless, the electoral college is a proven, workable system. It should not be easily abandoned in pursuit of something else. Political changes do not always work as intended, and we could end up with something far more troublesome.

The electoral college is the least of our problems.

[mardigrasbob 0]

Wrong again!!
You seem to be confusing proportional allotment of electors by each individual state; and a national change to the electoral system, changing the allotment each state receives ie popular vote.
Under the current system a state like Montana or Alaska each receive 3 votes, how they apportion them is up to that state( for now all states winner takes all).
Under the straight popular vote allotment of electors: Those states would only get one. and the electoral system would not be required because the electors would exactly match the popular vote or 2 votes under Wendy's idea

Quote

One thing to consider would be the possibility of having all of the states go to proportional voting -- the rural states still get the 2 elector based on the senators, so there is still greater rural power, but it's not quite as lopsided.

That would require an amendment.

Quote

You may have a valid alternative however it would still require an amendment to the Contitution. 3/4 of the small states would have to approve, not likely.

Quote

However, since the Constitution does not prescribe HOW the electors are chosen, no amendment is needed for a state to change the method. If a state wants to go to proportional representation it can do so by the action of its own state legislature.
So your statement is false.

So under the context of the discussion my statement was right, your understanding of the statement, I believe, was wrong!
Peace!

------------------

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

for now all states winner takes all

Maine and Nebraska allocate electors based on congressional districts, with the state's overall winner taking the 2 senate seat electoral votes. So far this has not yet resulted in a split electoral vote.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Only once in U.S. history (1888) has the winner of the popular vote lost the electoral college vote.

Nope.

In 2000, Al Gore had 50,996,116 votes versus 50,456,169 for George W Bush, thus "winning" the popular vote by 500,000 votes.
[.

And to this day, there are still 2,000,000 votes missing from that election.

And just this week it was reported in Florida that a good portion of the first batch of early ballots never showed up at the given address. What did the election board say? "No problem - just show up with th early voting ballott and you can vote on election day." And how are they to do that if the ballot never even showed up?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

for now all states winner takes all

Maine and Nebraska allocate electors based on congressional districts, with the state's overall winner taking the 2 senate seat electoral votes. So far this has not yet resulted in a split electoral vote.

If states do want to switch away from the winner take all, this is the best way to do it. More effective in a larger state, of course, where you have urban and rural concerns. If every state did it, it would probably give 10-20EVs to the GOP from CA/NY/IL. Not sure how many districts in Texas would swing the other way.

Switching the nation to a simple vote count, otoh, will have unforseen consequences that do not justify abandoning what has worked for over 200 years.