Electoral College Question

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

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.

Unforseen consequences, like the person that the most citizens vote for becomes the president. Yes, I can see that would be a problem.

...

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

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

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!

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

This is the original statement by Wendy that we are discussing:

"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. "

Since there's no change in the number of electors, no amendment is needed, just a change to proportional instead of winner take all. A couple of states (ME and NE) have already done this. YOU ARE WRONG. All states can go to proportional allotment of electors simply by having their legislators approve it. See www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#ProportionalAllocation

...

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

[jimbarry 0]

Quote

The East and West coasts would control politics in the U.S.

Well sure, because that's where more of the people are!

Ok, so it's more important that the needs of lightly populated rural states have more of a vote?? But it's not important at all that with our current system 40 some-odd non-swing states, including CA, NY, IL, TX are ignored because they're "in the bag"??

In just those 4 states alone, there are close to 25 million eligible voters who's votes simply don't count in the electoral college system because they happen to vote in that state's "losing" party.

While there are only 7 million eligible voters TOTAL in the smallest 10 states combined.

So sure. Let's ignore the votes of 25 million so that we're sure we don't count out the desires of 7 million.

--Signed, a California Republican who's vote doesn't count.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

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.

Unforseen consequences, like the person that the most citizens vote for becomes the president. Yes, I can see that would be a problem.

Forseeable consequences are the marginalization of the citizens of 20 or 30 states. A decreased mandate after the election. Runoffs should a 50% threshold be set. Unforseeable are the ones we can't (duh) see.

You can't project this rule back to 2000 and say Gore would have won, because the rules would have changed. Bush would have campaigned in CA. Gore would have gone to Texas. With the narrow margin on the popular vote, it could have swung either way.

And ignoring that this country was founded with units called states seems a bit daft. We even had a Civil War over it. To abandone it just because you didn't like the last election is poor science at best. The only positive I believe we'd see with certainty is an increase in voting rates. But that could also be accomplished with a simple lottery - a proposal I've read has been floated about.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Quote

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.

Unforseen consequences, like the person that the most citizens vote for becomes the president. Yes, I can see that would be a problem.

Forseeable consequences are the marginalization of the citizens of 20 or 30 states. A decreased mandate after the election. Runoffs should a 50% threshold be set. Unforseeable are the ones we can't (duh) see.

You can't project this rule back to 2000 and say Gore would have won, because the rules would have changed. Bush would have campaigned in CA. Gore would have gone to Texas. With the narrow margin on the popular vote, it could have swung either way.

And ignoring that this country was founded with units called states seems a bit daft. We even had a Civil War over it. To abandone it just because you didn't like the last election is poor science at best. The only positive I believe we'd see with certainty is an increase in voting rates. But that could also be accomplished with a simple lottery - a proposal I've read has been floated about.

Citizens of 30+ states are already marginalized. We haven't seen any significant campaigning in Illinois, for example, and we have 11M people here.

One person one vote doesn't marginalize anyone. You have heard of democracy?

...

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

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Citizens of 30+ states are already marginalized. We haven't seen any significant campaigning in Illinois, for example, and we have 11M people here.

Do you feel marginalized because the candidates haven't physically campaigned there? Hell, I'm 2 blocks from city hall and across the street from the Kimmel Center where they usually have the rallies. Both candidates have been within a couple of football fields of me several times in the past few weeks. And you know what? If I didn't read it in the news I wouldn't even know it.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Citizens of 30+ states are already marginalized. We haven't seen any significant campaigning in Illinois, for example, and we have 11M people here.

The dead of Illinois settled the 1960 election. You want to be front and center every time?

And sorry, 30+ states aren't marginalized. I believe it was 31 states that voted for Bush in the last election.

[wmw999 2,589]

This is one of the remnants of a more federalist era; when the states supposedly had an identity that transcended the national identity.

I don't really think that's the case any more -- I have a feeling that most people would rather have their vote count on a national basis. If the situation were reversed, and a Democrat had won a close election the same way (like, maybe, 1960?), I have a feeling there would be a lot more "one person, one vote" talk coming from the Republicans.

Voters in every state that is convincingly for one candidate or another are marginalized, whether they vote for or against the eventual winner. They are not given the same (or even close to the same) amount of contact with the candidates, and personal contact is a huge factor in many people's decisions.

Just a thought. I still like the proportional, with the 2 extras being assigned to either the overall winner, or proportionately, whatever's consistent.

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)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

This is one of the remnants of a more federalist era; when the states supposedly had an identity that transcended the national identity.

And that's not true anymore? Texans have a very strong sense of who they are. Most of the country thinks California does, but outside of San Fran few give a shit about the other 49 states. I guess that's an identity. The few states where one doesn't exist are the states not worth living in.

We pick Representatives on a district basis, assigned by the portion of the population each state has. That's not really proportional either, but it's what we've done for centuries. Were the situation reversed in 2000 (I thought it could - Bush lead on polling), true Republicans would not rush to change the establishment on a single event upset. But they likely would have been drowned out by the kind that wants flag burning and gay bashing amendments added.

[Capt36 6]

Ahhh Sunday morning reading..... After seeing the various views...the most obvious is the simple fact that an amendment would be required. And, that requires a 3/4 vote of the state legislatures, another feat.... That's why there are not 200 amendments. That 'simple' requirement...generally weeds out the crazy amendments.... such as the 'flag burning', (free speech, though I might just want to kick the burner's ass... IMHO), or the men-women only get married amendments, (separation of Church, and State....IMHO). BTW, I could care less about the idea of who marries who. Marriage is a joke! When the vow to God is, "'til death do us part.", and, at a 50% divorce rate....and, single motherhood, by choice... marriage is a no longer 'sacred'..... Once again, IMHO.
The Constitution is a living document. But, it moves very slowly. Personally, I would like to imagine my one vote..would be equal to anyone else's vote. It is simply not the case. Worse yet, the 'electors' CAN vote differently from what the results would seemingly dictate. I don't think that has happened....yet. But, it could! As is.... the 'rural states' people...have greater power in their vote for POTUS, than I do....(again, IMHO). I really hate that. I really hate that over ONE BILLION dollars has been 'wasted' on this Prez campaign. I really hate that Dubya has been flying that damn 747 all around the nation, rather than getting OBL. Maybe a billion dollar bounty would entice the death of OBL... But, probably not.... Why? Because his followers are as religiously convicted, as the "Far Right/Far Left" zealots in this country. Seems that 'damn what the facts are' is the war cry of each side.
IMHO, the last three months of campaigning, should 'restrict' every candidate to, at maximum, two 737-size planes. One for the candidate, and one for the 'Zoo Load', (press corps), both paid by the 'party'. Because, no matter who you vote for.... YOU are paying for the incumbent's travel, as well as the 'support team' planes that accompany him/her.... That's a big freebie for the 'party in power'! (But, of course, the security of the Prez issue will be raised..hmmmm).
Well, I feel better now, with that off my chest... Ya'll vote!..hear?

BTW... Concerning the electoral college system, a decent link for reading might be this one......
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Practice random acts of kindness, and senseless beauty...

And, give money for Mr Douglas! www.mrdouglas.org

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Worse yet, the 'electors' CAN vote differently from what the results would seemingly dictate. I don't think that has happened....yet. But, it could!

It's happened several times, but never been more than a protest statement. Happened in 2000 with the D.C. elector. Since with few exceptions the electors are selected from each party's most faithful, their vote really does reflect the results accurately.