Elections and the Electoral College

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ethelred
So, Ming, why is an inhabitant of Wyoming deserving of a bigger vote than you have? You need to do something about you level of self-esteem.

You just happen to be looking at it the wrong way...

Try this example. If in Wyoming the vote is tied and the last voter casts his vote for Bush... Bush gets 3 crummy electorial votes.

Now in California, if the vote is tied, and the last voter casts his vote for Gore... Gore gets 60 electorial votes.

So I ask you... which state has the more important voter

My point being, the Wyoming voter is the one getting screwed under this system. No matter who he votes for, the best he can hope to contribute to the overall election is 3 crummy electoral votes. While a California vote can provide 60.

Now you can go ahead and change your question to "why should a California voter be worth more than a voter from Wyoming"

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Um... Ned... I don't want to change the system, if you read carefully.

Sorry, Imran.

I was just thinking how the debate would go in California:

Pro: Proportional is fair and gives small parties some electoral votes.

Con: Winner takes all gives California maximum impact. Elections will be decided by California.

As well: Small parties are the bane of other democracies and lead to instability because they end up being the decisive votes in a coalition government. To the extent a small party garners a sizable vote, they draw voters away from the major party candidate that is the most closely aligned with the small party. In other words, small party candidates hurt their own cause in a winner-take-all electoral vote voting system. This discourages small parties, enhances the two party system and promotes stability.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Ming


You just happen to be looking at it the wrong way...

Try this example. If in Wyoming the vote is tied and the last voter casts his vote for Bush... Bush gets 3 crummy electorial votes.

Now in California, if the vote is tied, and the last voter casts his vote for Gore... Gore gets 60 electorial votes.

So I ask you... which state has the more important voter

My point being, the Wyoming voter is the one getting screwed under this system. No matter who he votes for, the best he can hope to contribute to the overall election is 3 crummy electoral votes. While a California vote can provide 60.

Now you can go ahead and change your question to "why should a California voter be worth more than a voter from Wyoming"

Ming, you are absolutely correct. The arguments against the electoral college made by citing the greater voting power of Wyoming miss the mark entirely. The large states decide the election. The more electoral votes at stake, the greater the voting power.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ned
Ming, you are absolutely correct. The arguments against the electoral college made by citing the greater voting power of Wyoming miss the mark entirely.

Which is the point Ethelred needs to understand. I can't argue with him that certain people's votes are worth less than others... it's just the example he keeps using to support his argument is all wrong.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming


You just happen to be looking at it the wrong way...

Nonsense. Hang on for more.

Try this example. If in Wyoming the vote is tied and the last voter casts his vote for Bush... Bush gets 3 crummy electorial votes.

Now in California, if the vote is tied, and the last voter casts his vote for Gore... Gore gets 60 electorial votes.

So I ask you... which state has the more important voter

Which was the voter? If you can't tell me which was the ONE voter than it must be spread to all the voters in the state. In which case we are back to my point.

If you CAN tell me which was the voter I sure we can provide you with an appropriate place to stay for a long time for election code violations.

On top of which changing to a popular vote makes everyones vote equal in ALL states and in the US overall.

So we are back to why should some one IN ANY state have more voting power than others when a popular vote makes us all equal?

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming


Which is the point Ethelred needs to understand. I can't argue with him that certain people's votes are worth less than others... it's just the example he keeps using to support his argument is all wrong.

Unfortunatly for you and Ned it works just as well in a generalized form except that some people (Ming and Ned perhaps but certainly others) can't handle generalizations well based on their inability to see that no one should be more equal than otherss in the vote for the President.

[Ned]

Ethelred, The current system is just fine because it seems to work. I, like most Americans, would like to really understand the downsides to a completely "national" election, one man, one vote. If this would somehow fundamentally change America, we are against it.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ned
Ethelred, The current system is just fine because it seems to work.

Remarkable statement that is. It failed in the last election.

It doesn't work. It has failed more than once.

I, like most Americans, would like to really understand the downsides to a completely "national" election, one man, one vote. If this would somehow fundamentally change America, we are against it.

Well you aren't most Americans Mr EveryNed. You are just one person. Yet you are taking on speaking for everyone. Were you elected to the position. Do you have poll perhaps that supports that. Perhaps I am mistaken but I thought a heck of a lot Americans would like a national popular vote instead of the Electoral College. I could be wrong on this of course. After all I still hate the designated hitter rule like many Americans so tradition does count.

Well it end the situation that we presently have where a man can become President while not even getting a plurality of the votes. We literally have a loser for President and its at least the third time.

If that seems a fundamental change to you then perhaps you should reconsider what you think is wrong with making a fundamental change when many if not most would consider it a change for the better. There would still only be one President. He would be elected to represent all of us and not particular states. Everyones vote would count the same. There would still be nothing to drive the US to a multiparty system as we don't have a Prime Minister elected by the majority of a parliment which is what makes multiparty systems possible.

Of course if we had a popular vote in the last election then we would still have a loser for President but it would only be metaphorical instead of both metaphorical and literal as is the present case. Hard to avoid the metaphorical part when ALL the candidates where losers.

[Dom Pedro II]

I remember reading something some where (don't remember where) about if the this country had switched to "national" elections way back at the beginning, most of the elections that have taken place would have resulted very differently. Not always for the better either, but I suppose that depends on your politics.

Food for thought.

I really don't have an opinion on this one way or another. I'm a Fascist...




(not really)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Ethelred
So we are back to why should some one IN ANY state have more voting power than others when a popular vote makes us all equal?

Did I ever say I disagree with you that one state's voters are more important than others? No... I didn't.

But what I am disagreeing with you on is which states voters are screwed. Your use of math is correct, but your conclusions are totally wrong.

It is nice to see you "NOW" saying "IN ANY STATE" vs

So, Ming, why is an inhabitant of Wyoming deserving of a bigger vote than you have?

That hopefully means that you now realize that Wyoming voters are just plain screwed. They will (with rare exception) NEVER have an impact on who is president. Talk about your vote being meaningless.

While California voters have the power to put somebody in the White House with their 60 electoral votes.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The electoral colege is a stupid stupid thing.
First of all, it igonres the vote cast by up to 49% of the voters. Then it give all of the electoral college votes to the candidate who won more than 50% of the vote. Those EC votes do not represent the other 50% of the people who cast their votes for the other guy.
Some representational democracy

For those who say that the candidates will ignore the farmers of america, when was the last time you saw any presidential candidate go to some rural town in Alabama? They don't have time . They will stick to the major population centers.

[Ned]

Ethelred, Bush was able to win the election because he took 10 more states (IIRC) than Gore. Those two extra votes for each state's senators were decisive in the last election.

But, our founding fathers intended these two extra votes to be decisive in a close election. Now, you may assume your ideology of one man one vote is preferable to the plan given us by the founding fathers, but I am reluctant to rush into change for the sake of change.

Your statement that system did not work in the last election is pure crap. It worked perfectly as intended. Apparently, though, you disagree with the result. But the conclusion you draw that the wrong man was elected president is simply elevating your personal choice for president or your personal preference for one man one vote into a constitutional principle.

The founding fathers deliberately set out to establish a system of checks and balances. They deliberately chose the electoral college to have two extra votes for a state's senators to assure that the election for president would be a balanced mixture of people power an state power.

This system has stood the test of time and should not be changed, IMHO.

Besides, George Bush has proven to be one the greatest presidents this country has ever had. I doubt Gore would have done even half as well considering his known cowardice.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

The electoral college was established as a voting club. Since travel time took a long time back in the day, no candidate could reach out to everyone. (no media, no airplanes, no trains )Therefore, the Electoral College was designed to vote for the people of that state. There is no more need today of this system.

[MBD]

There's another another big advantage to the electoral college system. Every candidate wants to get a 'mandate' -- the more votes, the bigger the mandate to enact whatever the candidate advocated. But while the popular vote is usually very close, the electoral college rewards broad support, and thus enlarges the winner's mandate. Look at Kennedy in 1960 -- won the popular vote by .1%. No mandate there. Won the electoral vote something like 320-200 even with a third party candidate, and thus had a solid mandate.

And to those who advocate giving an electoral vote based on the winner of each congressional district, with the remaining two votes awarded to the candidate who wins the statewide vote -- it actually benefits the Republicans. According to a recent article, if that system had been in place, Bush would have beaten Gore by a bigger margin and Ford would have beaten Carter in 1976.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Ming


Did I ever say I disagree with you that one state's voters are more important than others? No... I didn't.

Then why do support the Electoral College?

But what I am disagreeing with you on is which states voters are screwed. Your use of math is correct, but your conclusions are totally wrong.

It was an example chosen only to emphasize the disparity. Your example was faulty in that it depends on a exceedingly unlikely event while mine happens in every election.

It is nice to see you "NOW" saying "IN ANY STATE" vs

Sorry that overestimated some people's ability to generalize. My mistake. Esecially since the inhabitants of Wyoming DO have 3.8 times the voting power per person despite your red herring about a case where the result depend on one vote.

That hopefully means that you now realize that Wyoming voters are just plain screwed. They will (with rare exception) NEVER have an impact on who is president. Talk about your vote being meaningless.

They always have three votes. No one person has ever had an impact. One state has on two occasion. Your state the first time but that is because it was counted last, while Mayor Daley rigged the election for Kennedy. At least it sure did look that way. And now we have the Florida case where again there a lot of irregularities even without a recount.

Neither cases would have happened in a national popular election of the President. Of course cheating could still occur but that is happening now.

While California voters have the power to put somebody in the White House with their 60 electoral votes.

Just like Florida huh. It was fifty-four in the 2000 election by the way. I think its 59 in the next not 60. Either way its putting the state over the individual voter.

Ah found it. We get screwed again. Its not 60 its 55.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G04/ElectorAllocation.phtml?sort=Alph

California 55 electoral votes

10.22% of the the electoral votes

33,930,798 - 12.03% of the US population.

So Californian instead of getting 12 percent get only 10.2 per cent.

And since I mentioned Wyoming before here are the numbers for it.


Wyoming 3 electoral votes

0.56% of the electoral votes

495,304 - 0.18% per cent of the population

A popular vote would end the disparity. It would also help end this silly State vs. State crap since we are a single nation and the President is supposed to represent all of us.