Elections and the Electoral College

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by red_jon
The only problem with a proportional system is it allows extremist parties to gain a firmer footing.

Nothing wrong with that. That just means the voice of minorities will be heard instead of ignored.

Originally posted by red_jon
I can see both sides of the argument here - it isn't fair that rural votes are worth more than urban ones. But then if they have very few votes, politicians will completely ignore them.

That's the bare essence of democracy, the tyranny of majority. Of course, some systems enable the minorities to be heard. Minorities can even band together to attempt to become the majority, like it happened in Japan a while back.

[Guest]

Or more likely, two roughly equal factions will have to vie for the minorities to form government or pass legislation, thus as in my country less than 1% of the population who voted for the minorities have more of a say than the 51% who voted for the party currently in power.

Real good idea that one!

[Rex Little]

My only real complaint about the electoral system--and this applies to most other elections as well--is that a candidate can win a state's electoral votes without getting a majority of the votes cast. In a number of states last time, the vote went something like Bush 48%, Gore 47%, Nader and others 5%. It's just not fair that Bush got those electoral votes handed to him. In such cases, there should be either a runoff between the top two, or a way for voters to indicate their second choice.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by leftover_crack
Keep it. Its a good system that makes rural areas and states actually count. I mean if it were all popular vote. Bush and Gore never would of went to Wyoming or South Dakota.

Just imagine how neglected alaska would feel?

And this is a good argument how? Why should I care that Wyoming and Alaska get ignored. They should in now way have more political clout than the city of Chicago, which has seven times the people of either state. The people of those states have no right to a vote that weighs more than someone living in Chicago.

[gorilonblanco]

Ethelred:

Perhaps the electoral votes should be determined by the number of registered voters each state has (for example, say 1 electoral vote per 10,000 registered voters), considering that only registered voters can vote. That would probably even things up. What do you think?

Oh, in my state alot of the census takers are volunteers (I have some doubts as to their integrity).

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by gorilonblanco
Ethelred:

Perhaps the electoral votes should be determined by the number of registered voters each state has (for example, say 1 electoral vote per 10,000 registered voters), considering that only registered voters can vote. That would probably even things up. What do you think?

It would make thing closer to an even vote for large and small population states. Wyoming and Alaska would still get a disproportianate vote because one electoral vote is kind of a minimum. Any system other than a literal one man one vote system must have some lack of uniformity due to round off errors.

That will always be the case in the House and I don't think it should be changed because the house with 435 members is allready unwiedly. The Soviet version of Parliment is hopeless due to the masses of members. Its like herding cats. The beurocrats have all the power under those conditions.

I may have a better chance herding cats. Just use a chute and lube the sides.

Oh, in my state alot of the census takers are volunteers (I have some doubts as to their integrity).

Well thats allways a consideration. I don't know how many are volunteers in California but there has to be a structured system of some sort with over 33 million people to count.

I remember thinking we were crowded with 20 million. My high school had 3000 students and wasn't even the largest in the school district. Lakewood and Millikan switched back and forth for that. Over 4000 students. One of the two was the largest in the country every year I was in high school and afterwards for a while as well. Our school district sent extra people to the state championships in some sports just to be sure the best six in the state could be there instead of losing at the Moore league Championships. Swimming and gymnastics were the ones I remember doing that.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by CICSMaster
Or more likely, two roughly equal factions will have to vie for the minorities to form government or pass legislation, thus as in my country less than 1% of the population who voted for the minorities have more of a say than the 51% who voted for the party currently in power.

Real good idea that one!

If less than 1% of the population can get one representative in, and that one person can make the difference, so may it be. If the votes are so close, the "swing" votes become a lot more significant regardless of the system.

[Ned]

I read through this entire thread and I don't recall anyone mentioning that the Constitution does not grant any citizen the right to vote for president. It gave the power elect electors to the state "legislatures." Originally the state legislature did pick the electors. Later, they had the people vote and awarded electors according to the vote in a variety of patterns over the years. Most states now award the whole slate of electors to the winner of the popular vote in the state. But this is not set in stone and any state legislature may change the method at any time prior to an election.

As to "one man one vote" consider that a minority of Californians, let us say 40%, can give all the state's electors to one candidate, e.g., Clinton. Do the math. 4% of the US electorate gave Clinton 10% of the electoral votes in 1992.

Now that is voting power.

[The Mad Monk]

I sometimes think that the election of Senators should have been left in the hands of the states. Perhaps people would pay more attention to 'off-year' elections, then.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Ned
I read through this entire thread and I don't recall anyone mentioning that the Constitution does not grant any citizen the right to vote for president. It gave the power elect electors to the state "legislatures." Originally the state legislature did pick the electors. Later, they had the people vote and awarded electors according to the vote in a variety of patterns over the years. Most states now award the whole slate of electors to the winner of the popular vote in the state. But this is not set in stone and any state legislature may change the method at any time prior to an election.

As to "one man one vote" consider that a minority of Californians, let us say 40%, can give all the state's electors to one candidate, e.g., Clinton. Do the math. 4% of the US electorate gave Clinton 10% of the electoral votes in 1992.

Now that is voting power.

Yes. I do seem to remember that during the Florida vote, the republicans said something along the lines of "Even if gore does win, we'll simply remove the slate and replace it with republicans." (in so many words).

How democratic

[Kepler]

Trash it and go with the popular vote. With the electoral college, the candidates more or less ignore half the states. The EC also motivates politically-minded giveaways that benefit particular states but screw over the country as a whole (e.g. Dubya's steel deal). Finally, it throws too much voting weight to rural, small states, which is a built-in advantage for populist policies.

The states have meaningful and sensible representation in the Senate. The EC has outlived its usefulness.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Tassadar5000


Yes. I do seem to remember that during the Florida vote, the republicans said something along the lines of "Even if gore does win, we'll simply remove the slate and replace it with republicans." (in so many words).

How democratic

T, Regardless of the wild talk, the Legislature was prepared to pick the Florida electors if neither the Bush nor Gore electors were certified by the statutory deadline, Dec. 18. There have been elections where a state so screwed up that they did not certify their electors and essentially disenfrancised the state. This happened to New York in the very first election.

In the Florida case, I believe they would have voted the slate to Bush because he won the most votes according to the first three counts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You have heard of Amendments haven't you? You know those things in the Constitution where it was changed.

Yes, I have. But if you think for one instance that 3/4ths of the states will give up their Electoral College power you are a moron.

The only reform that is even close to being on the table is one to split EC votes among the percentage of vote recieved in state.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You have heard of Amendments haven't you? You know those things in the Constitution where it was changed.

Yes, I have. But if you think for one instance that 3/4ths of the states will give up their Electoral College power you are a moron.

The only reform that is even close to being on the table is one to split EC votes among the percentage of vote recieved in state.

But, Imran, every state has the power to divide its vote proportionately today. This still is not a constitutional issue. Lobby your state if you want to change the system.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... Ned... I don't want to change the system, if you read carefully.