Convince me the Electoral College is still valid

[Wickerman]

Last time out we (the Dem side, natch) won the popular vote. However, we actually go by the electoral college vote and Bush* (the evil side) won that (insert the tales of woe of thrown elections, Brooks Bros rioters, corrupt justices in the SCOTUS, etc).

You may or may not recall that the Bush* camp, anticipating a close election, had predicted the opposite. They were going on the assumption that they might win the pop vote and get stuck with less electoral votes. They had their legal team(s) ready to go to court to attempt to overturn that outcome.

This time out, no one seems to be worrying about the 'college. Has it suddenly become valid? More valid because it worked to the Repug's favor? What reasoning could you use to say it is archaic and should be scrapped? One the other hand, why might you argue in favor of it?

Please note that I did not mention Nader once in this... errr, D'oh! :argh:

[liberalhistorian]

1. The Electoral College has

been an antiquated relic for a very long time, now, and has long since outlived any necessity. The sooner it's gotten rid of, the better. It only came about due to a constitutional compromise, anyway, between those who wanted direct elections by the people and those who didn't trust the people and didn't fully trust democracy (they're the ones who wanted the electoral college).

[DU9598]

3. Smaller states

Doesn't it help keep politicians visiting and campaigning in smaller, competitive states? Otherwise, the politicians would never campaign in any place but a big metro area.

[Wickerman]

4. thats the one I was thinking of

You've got low populations in some huge states - they don't get representation, one could argue.

[LiberalFighter]

70. It was intended to offset the larger states

it is based on the makeup of each state's representation. Number of representatives plus number of senators.

As a balance against the House membership based on state population it was conceded that the Senate would each have two Senators so that large states such as New York would not dominate.

From that the electoral votes were devised to elect the President and Vice President. Most likely, it was considered a better method of determining the outcome of the election due to the time schedule and difficulty in compiling a true account of the votes. During that time the election was not held on the same day. Each state had the election on a different date and the time from the first to the last was about 5 to 8 month period. In addition, the citizens did not elect the president by direct election. They voted for state legislators that voted as a body for the president.

[Ediacara]

67. they don't ever visit small states

With or without the electoral college.

[leyton]

109. It just means they don't visit the safe states.

Despite the fact that a Democrat could conceivably pick up votes in Texas by campaigning there, they will ultimately come to nothing since the GOP will carry Texas anyway. So nobody campaigns in Texas, or the Deep South, or Wyoming, or Indiana, etc. And nobody campaigns in Connecticut or Massachusetts or Vermont or New York.

[liberalhistorian]

11. Actually, that's not really the case,

because most of the smaller states, and states low in population, have few electoral votes and politicians don't pay nearly as much attention to them as they do the states with higher populations and far more electoral votes.

[teach1st]

2. Some arguments for the electoral college

Well, since cities are generally more progressive, relying on a purely popular vote might sweep into office candidates more in line with my own views, and therefore I guess I should be for eliminating the Electoral College in favor of popular vote. I don't think that would be fair to rural voters and that's one argument for the balance that the Electoral College provides. A big problem with the EC in my opinion is that it tends to favor a two-party system.

Without the EC, candidates might spend most of their time on and tailor much of their platform for the populated coasts and the few large cities inland, giving little thought to our rural and outlying regions. In addition, some argue that the EC gives more weight to individual votes, as seen in the 2000 Florida election, where I think official results had only a few hundred votes separating the candidates.

I like that each candidate has to get out there in all fifty states. Just as a sports playoff spanning a best of seven games can yield a winner who scores fewer points overall (go 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates!), as we saw in the 2000 election, the 51 game Electoral playoff can yield a winner who scored fewer points. It's part of the game.

Actually, I'm undecided about this. I just thought I'd throw out some arguments in favor of the EC.

[HydroAddict]

5. Those are good arguments, BUT...

From what I've read (maybe wrong about this), the number of electorial votes a state gets is out of proportion to the population break down of the states.

I think some mid-west states get 1 EC vote per 100,000 folks, whereas Califonia only gets like 1 vote per 500,000 voters. (Again, I can't recall exact figures).

Fix the proportions and remove the "winner take all" BS, and I'm all for keeping the EC. But this essentially the same as a straight popular vote, only someone could win do to number rounding, which would suck.

[strategery blunder]

9. The college counts 1 vote in WY 4 times more than 1 vote in CA

Figures rounded off to 3 digits;

Population by state (courtesy of <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/> ) with electoral votes per state (courtesy of <http://www.edwardsforprez.com/map.html> )

WY 494,000/3 votes=1 vote for every 165,000 people
CA 34.5 million/55 votes=1 vote for every 627,000 people

This is the most extreme contrast in the Union; one WY voter can effectively cast 3.8 votes relative to a CA voter.

[RichardRay]

88. Unfortunately, we're still not able to change a darn thing

I live in Wyoming. My congressional district went for Gore in 2004 and has historically sent Democrats to the state legislature. Unfortunately, Teton County has most of the trees and all of the Democrats in the state, so it doesn't really help. Heck, we've got a Democrat for governor and he's still to the right of most Republicans!

[Ravy]

39. It was meant to favor the small states.

It prevents the candidate from trying to appease large population areas with promises at the expense of lower populated areas.

Winning California by 1 vote is as good as winning by a 90 percent margin. This makes a candidate spread their effort around a bit more.

The inequity in the electoral vote numbers is not a malfunction. It is taking into consideration that each state, by simply being being a state, has equal stake in the process. Population of a state should also be taken into consideration.

The numerical inequities are the result of the number of congressional representatives (which are based on population) being added to the number of senate positions (2 for every state regardless of population) becoming the electoral votes each state is allowed to cast.

[pmbryant]

19. These arguments do not hold water.

I don't think that would be fair to rural voters and that's one argument for the balance that the Electoral College provides.

Why do you think the EC is more fair to "rural" voters. Wouldn't a simple popular vote (one person, one vote) be the most fair to everyone, whether rural, urban, or suburban?

Rural voters in California, Texas, Florida, New York, etc are extremely plentiful, and get screwed by the EC just as much as the urban voters in those states do. And plenty of small states are not particularly 'rural' at all: e.g., Hawaii, Rhode Island, Delaware, etc.

A big problem with the EC in my opinion is that it tends to favor a two-party system.

That is a problem with the plurality voting system, not with the EC.

In addition, some argue that the EC gives more weight to individual votes, as seen in the 2000 Florida election, where I think official results had only a few hundred votes separating the candidates.

It gives more weight to individual votes in certain states. Why should the people of Florida have their votes count in a hugely meaningful way, while those in, say DC or Utah or California or Texas (lopsided wins for one side of the other) be virtually meaningless?

I like that each candidate has to get out there in all fifty states.

This is completely untrue. Dem candidates don't 'get out there' in states like Utah, Texas, the Dakotas, etc, because they have no chance. Similarly GOP candidates don't 'get out there' in states like DC, Rhode Island, New York, Hawaii. Any votes they win there will be utterly meaningless.

In a popular vote system, on the other hand, votes the Dem candidate wins in Utah, Texas, the Dakotas, etc will count towards his victory; same for votes the GOP candidate wins in New York, Rhode Island, etc. So candidates will actually have more incentive to campaign more broadly in a popular vote system than in the EC system.

Why the myth persists that the EC encourages broad campaigning when it clearly and obviously encourages campaigning in only 'swing states' is baffling to me.

--Peter

[northzax]

50. There is a difference between swing states

and regional candidacies. As the polarisation of America continues, and redistricting, by both sides, continues to make safe seats and safe states, there will be more and more contested Electoral Colleges. but that doesn't mean the college is broken, it means that the system from the roots up is broken. The system is led by radicals on both sides, through the primaries, and off-year elections that lead to concentration of power away from the mainsteam. Don't try to fix the college, it's not broken, the rest of the system is broken.

By the way, can you name one country where the chief Executive is elected by direct election?

[pmbryant]

53. I don't see how this is relevant

Redistricting is irrelevant to the Electoral College and to Presidential elections, both in the current system and in the popular vote alternative.

Yes, it needs to be fixed, but that's a completely separate issue.

And who cares what other countries do? Why should we forfeit our drive for a better system of Presidential elections just because no one else has blazed the path before us?

--Peter

[northzax]

60. because peopel have blazed the path

and it doean't work.

And no, redistricting is not irrelevant. It shows how a party in control of the apparatus of government in a state can marginalize the other party to extremes. Because the path to higher office usually starts locally, if you prevent democrats (or republicans) from having a decent shot at getting elected to School Boards, or city councils, then you reduce the candidates for house seats, then senate seats, then governorships. And then that party falls more and more under the sway of radicals, and when the time comes to switch parties (which always happens, eventually) you end up with the Modern Day republican party in charge, freaks and wingnuts who do not represent more than about 25 percent of Americans. But they control the local apparatus, so they control government. People are raised to be democrats, or republicans, since everyone else is, and the old habits die hard.

[pmbryant]

63. Redistricting is way off the topic of this debate

We essentially agree on the flaws of redistricting, but that is not what this debate is about. Redistricting is completely irrelevant to the debate over whether Presidents should be elected by direct popular vote or by the current Electoral College system.

--Peter

[karabekian]

79. ~

"Why do you think the EC is more fair to "rural" voters. Wouldn't a simple popular vote (one person, one vote) be the most fair to everyone, whether rural, urban, or suburban?"

Its fair because if it was popular vote, 5 of the largest states will be able to determine the outcome of national elections.

[Wwagsthedog]

6. The EC seems to me to be somewhat more fairly representative...

...than the Senate. CA gets two for millions of people. WY (home of dick) gets two for a few hundred thousand. Sure, I'm talking about apples and oranges but your questions started me thinking about more than the EC.

[Ravy]

64. It is the other side of the same coin.

Electoral votes are your Senators added to your number of Representatives. One takes into account that all states are equal in some things, and the other takes into account population and that population matters too.

[kodi]

7. its the federalist nature of our government.

its not only citizens that have rights under this form of government, states do too in relation to the national government and remember, the presidency is a national office, so states should have some say.

the electoral college is a balancing of these facts.

first, citizens of each state vote for their choice for president, then these votes are weighed in relation to the inherent power each state possesses in national affairs, which is itself determined by a mixture of population and the equality found between the states in our form of government...thus the electoral college delegates of a state are determined by the number of federal districts (population based) plus the two senators each state holds (state representation) in the national government.

one needs to question why in our form of representative democratic federal government that one would actually promote only citizens having rights in national elections and states having no rights in national affairs.

the founding fathers were damn smart. James Madison does not get nearly the credit he deserves as the midwife of our constitutional form of government.

[tobius]

31. You are right

I don't think it would be a good idea for a complete overhaul of our form of gov't.
Many people who haven't paid attention in civics class get a bit upset when they discover that we have a representative system. We don't have a national election for every piece of legislation, our votes put in our Senators and Congresspersons to do that for us.

[pmbryant]

32. The EC is about the Presidential election, not the Congress

So we could completely eliminate the Electoral College, go to a popular vote system for President, and we'd still have a representative system of government.

--Peter

[tobius]

35. yes, of course

The Electoral College is consistent within the representative framework.

Amending the constitution would be the only way to change it. I'm not sure that it would garner the necessary support.

[karabekian]

99. they can never change it

since there are a lot of small states and you need a large majority of these state legislatures to ratify.

[orwell]

8. College Flunkie

The EC should be abolished. It was a bone thrown to the small states to get them to sign on to the program.

The policies of the Federal Government affect all citizens regardless of state. So no individual should get more representation than another. It violates the principal of one person one vote.

A state already has considrable power to affect the lives of its citizens. They do not need the extra power afforded by the electoral college. It is an anachronism that has outlived its usefullness.

O

[Hammie]

17. Right

Now that they're in they're stuck and there is no reason not to change the terms of the agreement.

I'm sure that will be a very persuasive argument when you need their votes to pass the constitutional amendment eliminating their power in the presidential election.

[orwell]

28. American Ideal

I'm not asserting that it will be overturned, just that it is antithetical to the notion of democracy and one person one vote.

I don't expect the "special interest" states to give up their perks. That doesn't make the current regime logical, just politically expedient. This is an idealistic observation, not a pragmatic one.

O

[Poiuyt]

10. Proportional Representation

I'm in favor of Proportional Representation. It really makes a lot of sense:

http://ed.labonte.com/pr.html
http://www.fairvote.org/pr/

[InkAddict]

12. I thought the Electoral College

was in place to protect the "vote" from the uneducated and "crazy" women who vote for the "hunks." Of course, according to Greenspan, public and private education in the US has been a failure and those w/degrees should retool for more prominent positions as burger flippers and wasn't Rumsfeld touted as a senior women's (older but wizer, like fine wine)hearthrob at one time. <sarcasm on>

[Yupster]

13. When the electoral college was set up, there

was no reason to think the "uneducated and crazy women" would ever have a vote that would need protecting. In fact, the electoral college does not assume a vote by anyone for president.

The Constitution says the electors should be picked by the state legislatures by whatever process the state legislatures choose. Then the electors elect the president.

No popular vote for president, no winner take all for electoral votes. These things were all put in by state legislatures later.

The Constitution was agreed to by the states, not the people. There were great powers left to the states, including electing the president and senators. The fact that these powers have since been taken away doesn't change the fact that they were there originally.

[ithacan]

16. it was set up to strengthen slave-holders

because slaves counted as 3/5 of a person for purposes of congressional representation, the House of Reps overrepresented in an enormous way the power of the white slaveholders (for example, South Carolina's population was majority black).

The Electoral College ensured that this outrageous overrepresentation was replicated in the selection of the President.

So it's all about strengthening the most reactionary elements in the country.

[andyjackson1828]

101. That's not right.

Represenatives from the northern states did not want to count slaves for representation at all, not out some high mindedness, but to limit the power of the South. Southerners wanted to count slaves as a whole person, not because they believed they were people with rights and dignity, but because they wanted more representation. Both sides were playing for power and didn't care about the slaves. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

[JanMichael]

14. If you believe in "One Person, One Vote" it's never valid.

If you don't then you don't believe in Democracy and we can play a new game:-)

[northzax]

92. er, one person one vote, at all times is the only interpretation

of Democracy? You really need to realize that this is a republic, a representative democracy, and not a pure democracy. Or have you voted on an omnibus spending bill lately?

[JanMichael]

114. No shit. However when it comes to *choosing* our Representatives...

...it really should be ONE PERSON ONE VOTE.

I didn't expect to have to explain that one...Thanks.

[arewethereyet]

15. I'm fine with it

if the only problem is that its possible to carry the popular vote and still lose, that does not condem it but rather justifies it.

winning 5 or six states should not be all it takes to win. The president has to represent all 50 states... equally. EC has seen to that very well for a long time.

[pmbryant]

18. Presidents shouldn't represent states; they should represent people

Why should how your vote for President counts be based on what state you live in?

There are millions of "rural" voters in California, Texas, and Florida. There plenty of "urban" voters in Rhode Island, Delaware, and Hawaii. So the "rural vs urban" argument is meaningless as well.

Of course, why some people believe that "rural" votes should count more than "urban" votes is baffling to me. Unless, that is, it has something to do with the relative fraction of non-white faces in those categories.

--Peter

[Sparkle]

33. hear hear!

[Ravy]

48. Oooohhh.. the "race card"!

If everything were decided where a simple majority of the people was required, I am sure you would agree that the country would be far more screwed up than it already is.

Provisions should (and are) be in place to protect minority stakes in the process. That includes the non-white faces you alluded to, as well as smaller states and rural regions.

In the electoral college, the provision is to weight smaller states a bit more than the larger population states. It is a protection for the minority.

Presidents DO represent states. After all... it is the United STATES of America, not the United PEOPLES of America.

They also represent people who comprise those states.

The current electoral system which takes both population and number of states into account seems perfectly acceptable to me.

[arewethereyet]

77. OK I'm stumped. Where do I allude to race ?

[Ravy]

82. It was in a reply to your post.

"Unless, that is, it has something to do with the relative fraction of non-white faces in those categories."

My reply was to that comment.

[arewethereyet]

90. whew, had me going there for a minute

[pmbryant]

85. Meaningless minority

If everything were decided where a simple majority of the people was required, I am sure you would agree that the country would be far more screwed up than it already is.

Ah, but I'm not asking for everything to be decided by a simple majority. I'm only asking for the Presidential election to be decided by popular vote.

In the electoral college, the provision is to weight smaller states a bit more than the larger population states. It is a protection for the minority.

That protection is for a meaningless "minority". Why should voters in small states get their votes boosted relative to those in large states? What is so special about them? (Actually, though, it is only voters in 'swing states' whose votes are boosted by the EC.)

Furthermore, these small states are already vastly over-represented in the Senate. Why do they need any more protection than that?

(And yes, I think the argument, often used by Republicans, that the EC is justified so that "rural" votes are not drowned out by the hordes of "urban" votes, is based upon a residual racism.)

--Peter

[karabekian]

100. The EC and Bicameral Leg are good.

"That protection is for a meaningless "minority". Why should voters in small states get their votes boosted relative to those in large states? What is so special about them? (Actually, though, it is only voters in 'swing states' whose votes are boosted by the EC.)"


I posted above under your statment but you need to protect small states so that you don't get 5 states deciding elections. That would be the case right now.


"Furthermore, these small states are already vastly over-represented in the Senate. Why do they need any more protection than that?"

That is why the senate was made in the first place. Like the electoral college if we had a unicameral legislature based on population, then a few states could dictate the legislature and agenda of the whole country.

Regardless of how you feel about the EC or senate representation, the are in the consitution and they will not be changed. There are far more states that will lose out and their ratification would be necessary to change it.

[pmbryant]

102. If you had popular vote, "states" wouldn't decide anything

I posted above under your statment but you need to protect small states so that you don't get 5 states deciding elections. That would be the case right now.

From the 2000 election, the 5 states with the most votes (CA, NY, TX, FL, PA) voted this way:

Gore 17,800,866 
Bush 15,964,359 

These 5 states accounted for only about 1/3 of the total vote, and so can hardly be said to have decided the election. Gore and Bush both ended up with over 50 million votes.

Regardless of how you feel about the EC or senate representation, the are in the consitution and they will not be changed. There are far more states that will lose out and their ratification would be necessary to change it.

Well, it will be hard to change this, but it is not impossible. Somehow we got civil rights for blacks and voting rights for women added to the Constitution when both groups were completely disenfranchised.

--Peter

[arewethereyet]

73. hes president of the United States of America

not president of the united Peoples of America. Our Governors represent the people of their states.

When the Constitution talks about people it talks about their rights. When it talks about authority in talks states and federal.

[treepig]

20. if you want to get rid of the electoral college

do you also want to eliminate the current method of electing senators?

after, the voting disparity is much greater between wyoming and california than in the electoral college!!

[pmbryant]

21. Absolutely. The Senate disparity is atrocious.

But just because we are stuck with an incredibly undemocratic system in the legislative branch, doesn't mean we need to be stuck with one in the executive branch as well.

Of course, getting rid of the EC will be extremely hard, because it would need to get through state legislatures, and most states are (wrongly) convinced it benefits them.

--Peter

[treepig]

24. the EC does benefit most states

nationally, one EC vote represents a population of 540,539.

only the top ten states suffer an excess over this number, the next ten are statistically close to this number, and about 30 clearly benefit.

[pmbryant]

25. How does the EC benefit small states like Alaska, Utah, Rhode Island?

Presidential contests in those small states (and many other small ones as well) are so lopsided that no one ever campaigns there.

Individual votes in those states are essentially meaningless, as the outcome is a foregone conclusion.

So how exactly do these states benefit from the Electoral College?

Peter

[treepig]

27. the benefit i referred to was the proportion of voters per EC vote

as was discussed earlier to show the contrast between wyoming and california.

rhode island gets an EC vote per 262,079 people, alaska per 208,977, and utah per 446,633 people.

therefore, each person's vote is worth more than the national average of ~540K voters per EC vote.

the same arguemnent can be made for the two largest states, texas and california - individual votes (and there's a lot more of them) are essentially meaningless because neither state is seriously in play. the only attention these states gets is when candidates show up for fund-raisers and pander to their base constituencies.

[pmbryant]

29. That doesn't mean anything to individual voters

Common sense tells voters in Utah and Alaska and Rhode Island that they may as well stay home as vote for President. Their individual vote is meaningless, since the outcome is not in doubt, and the same number of EC votes goes to that pre-determined winner even if they stay home or even if they vote for Roy Moore or Ralph Nader.

Yes, the same can be said about large non-competitive states like California and Texas and New York. And that is part of my point.

The EC's real benefits go to the voters in 'swing states'. Those are the only states where individual votes make any difference. And those are a distinct minority of all the states.

Once the non-competitive states realize that their voters are being marginalized by the Electoral College, it may actually become politically possible to get rid of it.

--Peter

[northzax]

52. The non-competitive states

are happy to be that way. They have allowed their system to turn in that direction over periods of time. And it's not set in stone, either, there was a time, not so long ago, when every southern state was a lock for the Democrats, but they lost those states, just as the Republicans lost the West Coast. Different states are in play in different years, and after all, since everyone in State X is going to vote for the Republican anyway, why would removing the electoral college help that state? It would only help the oppsition in that state (think Utah is going to make it easier for Democrat votes to count more? Or Massachusetts for Republicans? nope.

[pmbryant]

57. The question then becomes, why is that is good thing?

You may be right in this: that which states are competitive and non-competitive change gradually, and that this fact would make it much harder to eliminate the EC by Constitional amendment.

But the question then becomes, 'Why is having the majority of states non-competitive in Presidential elections, and thus rendering virtually meaningless the votes of tens of millions of Americans, a good thing?'.

Why are you satisfied with this system?

Peter

[northzax]

65. There will always be millions of people

who's votes do not count. c'est la vie. If you don't like your state being non-competative, do something about it. Educate your neighbors, run for office, work to change things. Tell me, would you still believe this to be the right thing to do if the most populour states were republican? If Bush could count on winning California and New York by about 5 million votes combined, would you still support this? Knowing it would create a Bush presidency?

In fact, your system will make the non-compettitive states MORE irrelevant competitively, not less. Strongholds will be depended on for blowout victories now. Winning by ten thousand isn't good enough, now you need to win by 100,000. It will motivate the activist and radical bases EVEN MORE, not less.

You mention above that at a certain threshhold, we'd throw the election to the House, which is determined in exactly the same way as the Electoral College (geographical lines drawn by population set every ten years)

[pmbryant]

71. Democracy is democracy

If Bush were to win with a plurality of millions of votes, then at least he would be a legitimately-elected President.

My argument is not based at all upon who wins or upon how motivated radical bases are. It is based on the simple principle of "one person, one vote".

See post #68 for the continuation of this debate, so we have this all in one place.

--Peter

[Haruspex]

22. "Convince me the Electoral College is still valid"

You said:

"This time out, no one seems to be worrying about the 'college. Has it suddenly become valid? More valid because it worked to the Repug's favor?"

I don't recall the validity of the Electoral College coming into question when Bill Clinton was elected twice. I believe that an elected president not winning the popular vote but winning the election has only happened twice in 220 some years attests to the fact that the Electoral College is a valid system.

[pmbryant]

23. It's happened at least 3 times, and come close on at least 2 others

1824, 1876, and 2000. (1960 is an open question. And it almost happened in 1976. I believe the 1916 vote was another near miss.)

If you're going to measure the "success" of the EC against the popular vote, why not cut out the middleman and decide the winner based on the popular vote.

Then the success rate is 100%. :-)

--Peter

[Haruspex]

26. I should have been more clear

Yes it happened two times before Bush. And close only counts in horse shoes and handgrenades. :-) So I feel my statement on validity still stands.

[orwell]

30. Mr. Popular

Did Bill Clinton receive the most votes of any of the candidates in his victories? If so, this constitutes a popular vote victory.

O

[Poiuyt]

56. That's three times too many

[Ravy]

42. It is valid for the same reason that the US Senate is valid.

In the US Senate, each state gets two senators regardless of the population. This prevents the highly populated states from running roughshod over the smaller states should they want to.

Since the electoral collage is the number of Senators (2) your state has, plus the number of Representatives (which is based on population), it takes into account both population and governmental boundaries into the equation automatically.

[Sparkle]

34. Clinton did win the popular vote in '92 and '96.

Or am I wrong?

[Haruspex]

36. Don't remember

I don't remember, but it really doesn't matter because presidential elections are decided by the Electoral College. :-)

[pmbryant]

37. Yes, he did

He won by 43% to 38% in 1992, and by 50% to 41% in 1996. (These are rough numbers from memory.)

--Peter

[northzax]

40. ahh, but that'a a plurality

not a majority. The one thing the Electoral College does do, and this is something I want anyone who wants to eliminate it to solve, is that it allows someone to win without a true majority of the popular vote (that's 50%+1) eliminatying the need for runoffs. Someone has to win. That's the beauty of the system. The last president to win a majority of the popular vote was GHWBush in 1988, and I think it is unlikely to happen again. Everything else we do electorally is first past the post voting, the most votes wins. Do we really want a system of runoffs?

[pmbryant]

46. No runoffs are needed in a popular vote system.

Your argument doesn't make sense to me.

In a popular vote system where the top vote getter wins, no runoffs are needed. Clinton wins in 1992, 1996, and Gore wins in 2000. No majority in any of these case, but no runoffs are needed. Someone wins no matter what the result. Unless two people receive exactly the same number of votes, but that is so ridiculously unlikely, I think it can safely be ignored.

On the contrary, the EC system forces a majority of EC votes before declaring a winner. George Wallace almost threw the Presidential election to the House of Representatives in 1968 (the EC equivalent to a runoff) by winning a fair number of EC votes and thus causing the possibility the winner of the popular vote would not have a majority of the EC vote.

--Peter

EDIT: spelling, punctuation

[northzax]

49. so as long as

I win the popular vote, no matter what the percentage, you would accept me as president?

Allow me to paint a nightmare scenario for you now: in 2012, after the abolition of the Electoral College, there are 7 serious candidates for the White House, A republican, a democrat, a green, a libertarian, a conservative, a natural law, and Ralph Nader (of course) The Republican, running a Southern Strategy, wins the popular vote with 18 percent of the votes, nationwide, although they are strongly concentrated in the South-East. In fact, in no state outside of the SouthEast, did this candidate win more than 15 percent of the popular vote. But he is now president. that cool with you? Now there is no way a strictly regional candidacy can win the electoral college, where you have to win 270 votes, from across the country, to succeed. Yes, there are occasions when it doesn't appear to work, but that is, quite frankly, the beauty of the system. The Electoral college is, in my opinion, the single most brilliant electoral system the Founders came up with. It makes the presidency a national race, and deters regional candidates from ignoring most of the country. the fact remains that Al Gore could not manage to win enough votes, across the country, to win the election. His support was strongly concentrated in several states, populous states, certainly, but if he had won a single flyover state, he'd have been fine. But he didn't, and he lost.

[pmbryant]

51. Implausible scenarios are not an effective argument

The popular vote system can be modified to ensure that, say, if no one gets more than 35% (or 40% or 45%) of the vote, then the election is thrown to the House of Representatives (just like it is today if no one receives a majority of EC votes).

It makes the presidency a national race, and deters regional candidates from ignoring most of the country.

I made the case against this in post #19. The EC does not make the race a national race, but makes it a race only for the 'swing states'.

Why this concern about 'regional candidates'? That seems an extremely archaic worry.

--Peter

[northzax]

58. archaic? not at all.

Every single direct election state in the world deals with regional candidates. One of the reasons it appears to be an archaic worry to you is that the electoral college reduces that likelihood. (I detailed my case in reponse to your #19 above)

An this is not at all implausible, when direct elections are played, it encourages third and fourth party candidates. You may be running at 15 percent, and me at 5 percent, I promise that I'll tell all my people to vote for you, if I can be Secretary of Defense. It happens everywhere, the Electoral college reduces the power of these fringe candidates by marginalizing their power. THe odds are, that if I'm throwing my 5 percent to you, they are in states where you would win anyway. Do you really want George Bush pandering to Ralph Reed for another 2 million votes? If I build up a voter base of 500,000 people across the country, I have real power. I don't think that's a good idea, do you?

What would be your cutoff for throwing it to the House (funny that you'd rather have the House decide than those people directly elected by the people for the purpose, after all the House is much more malleable (vote for me, and I'll approve that bridge in your district, whatever.) And would that be a majority of votes cast, or voters in toto?

[pmbryant]

61. This is how democracy works

Do you really want George Bush pandering to Ralph Reed for another 2 million votes? If I build up a voter base of 500,000 people across the country, I have real power. I don't think that's a good idea, do you?

Uh, you don't think Bush is pandering to the religious right now? :eyes:

Why shouldn't coalitions have power proportional to the number of votes that they can deliver. That is how democracy works, and I am not scared of it.

What would be your cutoff for throwing it to the House (funny that you'd rather have the House decide than those people directly elected by the people for the purpose, after all the House is much more malleable (vote for me, and I'll approve that bridge in your district, whatever.) And would that be a majority of votes cast, or voters in toto?

And as a proponent of the EC, you cannot argue against throwing the election to the House of Representatives in the event of a non-clearcut winner. That is how the EC is set up, after all.

--Peter

[northzax]

66. of course the House decides eventually

but the College is set up to make this incredibly unlikely. Your direct elections will see it happen almost all the time. We cannot have direct elections without a run-off system. Somewhere, you need to get a majority, and right now that's in the EC. Direct elections for the Presidency had better require a majority mandate, or you will encourage fractionalisation of the electorate even further.

And no, Bush is not really pandering to them, the only thing he's given them is this unrealistic amendment. for the most part, they've been pissed off at him for three years.

[pmbryant]

69. I've taken this debate to post #68

I'll point out here though that if you think the only thing Bush has given the religious right is the marriage amendment, you have sure missed a lot of what has happened since 2001. Off the top of my head, he has also pandered to them on stem cell research, family planning policies overseas, and on judicial nominations. No doubt there is a lot more that hasn't gotten so much press.

--Peter

[Ediacara]

74. the electoral college doesn't keep third parties out

third parties keep themselves out. Seven serious candidates is an implausible situation.

[orwell]

47. Minority Report

The electoral college allows someone to win without even a plurality. Surely this can't be democratic.

O

[kiahzero]

116. No, we don't want a system of runoffs

Runoff elections are mathmatically inferior to good voting systems, such as Condorcet and Acceptance voting.

[northzax]

38. convince me it is not.

you want to change the constitution? well the burden of proof is on you to detail what will replace the current system, and why it will be better.

[pmbryant]

41. See posts #18, 19, and 29 for why a popular vote system is much better

Can the arguments I made in those posts be countered by those who still support the Electoral College?

--Peter

[northzax]

62. apparently yes, since I have done so

I am still waiting for anything except an emotional arguement against the College. And for a decent system to replace it, one that takes into account the fractionalisation of Presidential elections that will occur once the college is gone.

[pmbryant]

68. Let's summarize this here

My pricipal arguments:

* President's should represent people, not states.

* The 'rural vs urban' argument in favor of the EC is meaningless. There are rural voters in big states and urban voters in small states and vice versa. Anyway, why should any one person's vote count differently just because of some arbitrary lines on a map. (Cross the border from Texas into New Mexico and all of a sudden your vote's impact jumps tremendously.)

* The EC focuses the entire election into a contest for a small number of 'swing states'. No one else has any effective say in the election. Candidates thus only have to campaign in these few states. On the contrary, a popular vote system would make it worthwhile for candidates to troll for votes all over the country, as votes everywhere would count equally toward their total.

* The democratic principle of "one person, one vote," should be our guide.

Do you consider these "emotional" arguments?

You say "fractionalisation" will be an inevitable result of a popular vote system. I say this is a false assumption, based on nothing except speculation, and safeguards can be built in to ensure that no one wins with under, say, 40% of the vote. Anyway, if there is really a strong trend towards "fractionalisation" of the electorate, the EC cannot prevent it, as the elections of 1824, 1860, 1912, 1968, and 1992 demonstrate.

--Peter


EDIT: Added the 'one person, one vote' line.

[northzax]

76. yup., I do

Who said Presidents should represent people, not states? We live in a federalist, liberal representative democracy, the President represents the Several States, not individual people directly. Your congressperson represents you, your senator represents you, the President represents the United States of America, a collection of 50 entitites. If the President really was intended to represent individual people, we don't need a bicameral legislature.

I have never made the rural/urban arguement, as I agree it is useless. But just because one arguement that some people make doesn't work that does not equate to a q.e.d.

You argue that the EC focuses elections on certain states. This is probably true, but why does it do that? Maybe John Kerry-Edwards doesn't appeal to people in Georgia, he doesn't address the issues they find important in a way they find meaningful (or they're brianwashed zombies, of course) And Bush-Cheney doesn't speak to people in Oregon. How is this going to change?

[pmbryant]

81. That is philosophical, not emotional

If you disagree with the concept of "one person, one vote", that is a philosophical difference, not an emotional one.

The rural/urban argument was made by several early in the history of this thread, and that is why I felt it needed to be rebutted. I am glad you agree with me on it.

In your last paragraph, you are treating the electorate in each state as monolithic, when that is not the case. Your government philosophy is clearly "state-centric", while mine is "people-centric".

Note, however, that you can still have a very "state-centric" federal republican system (i.e., Congress as it exists now) and elect Presidents by popular vote rather than by the Electoral College.

Since you like the Electoral College system so much, would you support instituting similar systems inside large states such as California, Texas, New York, and Florida? In your philosophy, why should governors of those states be elected by popular vote rather than by some county-based electoral college-like system? Why shouldn't people in those states be worried about the "regional candidates" and "factionalisation" that you think would plague a Presidential popular vote system?

--Peter

[northzax]

83. indeed

the reason that states don't have internal electoral colleges is because the Governor of a state represents the people of that state. Plain and simple. Just as we don't directly elect the speaker of the House of representatives, he/she represents the members of the House, as well as his/her own district. THe President represents the States. That is the whole idea, if you want to change that, you are not simply eliminating the Electoral college, you are changing a fundamental pillar of our system, be aware of that, and tread carefully, the consitution is a finely blaanced document that doesn't take meddling well.

[pmbryant]

87. "Constitution doesn't take meddling well"?

I have to disagree. I think it's taken meddling quite well. We've "meddled" with it to add civil rights for blacks, voting rights for women, and much more. And I think it is much the stronger due to this meddling.

I don't understand why you make the distinction between the governor of large, diverse states like California, and a large, diverse nation like the US. It is an argument that seems more based on accidents of history than on any consistent philosophical principle.

--Peter

[northzax]

91. The philosphical Principle is called Federalism

and it's something that has served us well for 200+ years. I just don't see a pressing reason to change that.

[pmbryant]

94. Popular vote system would be consistent with "Federalism"

As I understand it, "Federalism" is simply the sharing of power between a central government and consituent state governments. So electing the President by popular vote would still leave us with a federal form of government.

The reason for the distinction between how the chief executive of large states are elected and how the chief executive of the entire country is elected still eludes me.

--Peter

[northzax]

95. again.

the chief executive of a state represents the people of that state. The chief executive of the United States represents those states. There is, in fact, a subtle difference

[pmbryant]

96. Ok, we've hit our philosophical divide with that

I just find the concept that the President represents states, and not the people in those states, rather perverse. If that is what our Constitution requires, then I want to "meddle" with it to fix it.

Thanks for your time.

--Peter

[ma4t]

113. I think this is the crux of the issue

"As I understand it, "Federalism" is simply the sharing of power between a central government and consituent state governments."

Here is the heart of the philosophical dispute here. (One which I've read with interest.) I think that pmbryant has a misunderstanding of the meaning of federalism, at least the context or our nation. The federal system was not intended to set up a system where the state governments were constituent parts of the central government. Just the opposite was true. The central government was a creature of the several states. That is the whole point, the states each agreed to surrender a portion of their sovereign power and authority to a central government but retained the bulk of it to themselves. That is why, under the original constitution, senators were elected by the individual state legislatures and presidential electors are to this very day chosen in the manner decided by each state's legislature. Surprising but true: New York, Idaho or any other state legislature could decide tomorrow to directly elect the presidential electors and not allow the people in that state to vote and it would be perfectly constitutional.

None of this means that pmbryant's arguments are wrong on philosophical grounds; however, it doesn't mean they are right either. That being said, understanding the historical context of the establishment of the Constitution may help in understanding why things were set up the way they were.

[pmbryant]

117. My argument is distinctly not historical

And my argument has nothing to do with "federalism." (That was northzax's argument.) My argument revolves around the simple principle of "one person, one vote".

I understand why, historically, the Electoral College was set up (as a ugly compromise, essentially), and I understand the original purpose of the Constitution was to bring together separate state governments as a single nation.

But 215 years later, the states are no longer independent entities that deserve their own "representation" in the vote for President. Most state boundaries were drawn up after the Constitution was written and are essentially completely arbitrary.

--Peter

[aldebaran]

43. It doesn't matter

It isn't going to change, it would take a Constitutional amendment. Even in the unlikely event that there aren't 34 Senators from small states to keep an amendment from getting out of Congress, there will never be the required 38 state legislatures ratifying.

[Liberal Classic]

44. Well the first thing I should say is

The burden of proof rests on those who argue against the status quo.

The first point to consider is one of human nature. Had the '00 election gone the other way there wouldn't be a hue and cry about the electoral college. The only time the electoral college is even an issue is in the closest races, and that is the time in which the weight towards the smaller states becomes important.

However, I'll try to answer your question by saying that the electoral college is weighted slightly in favor of smaller states, but for a very good reason. This goes all the way back to 1775 with the origin of our bicameral legislature. The short answer is that without it, candidates for president will only campaign in New York, Illinois, Texas and California -- and even then only in the largest cities. The framers knew this, and weighted Removing the electoral college will only hasten the distancing federal elected officials from the public.

Personally, I think it might be okay to have 10,000 people in the House, as set in "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand." If you ask me, 435 is an insufficient sample of the population to have any real bearing on who we are or what we want. While we're talking pie in the sky, we need to repeal the 17th amendment and go back to state legislatures electing federal senators.

(As an aside I am in favor of things like instant-runoff voting and the like. I'm not opposed to any change, but I am hestitant of change for change's sake.)

[Sparkle]

86. ...

"Had the '00 election gone the other way there wouldn't be a hue and cry about the electoral college."

Yes, you would. You would have heard it from the republicans.

[StopThief]

45. I think your memory is faulty.

As I remember, the Bush team was preparing to try and convince Gore elctors to switch based on that argument (much as Gore supporters lobbied Bush electors). I never heard of any plan to go to court. It would be utterly useless because the Constitution is crystal clear.

[recidivist]

80. I think that is correct.

As the prospect of a narrow Gore win in the Electoral College became topical, I recall Bush being asked a time or two what his response would be. IIRC, his answer was always that the Electoral College was decisive, so if that happened, Gore would win.

If some other Republican operative was planning a challenge to the Electoral College, it escaped my notice. But that doesn't mean there wasn't any loose talk about it. They have their share of grumblers too.

On the question of the Electoral College:

People here are making the casual assumption that Gore would have won in 2000 absent the Electoral College. Maybe, maybe not, but one can't make that judgment just by counting the votes that were, in fact, cast that year. The reality is that it would have been a very different campaign. "What-if" history is fun, but it's not a realistic analysis, with 20/20 hindsight, to change one variable in a dynamic situation and assume that everything else would remain the same.

The way it played out in 2000, the key battleground states coming down the stretch were all (1) big industrial states and (2) must-wins for Gore. Most of Bush's base was never seriously in play. That meant that Gore held the home court advantage at the end, and he very nearly pulled it out after trailing most of the way. Take away the Electoral College, however, and Bush could have spent more of his resources running up his margin in safe Republican states, which would probably have been an easier assignment than slugging it out in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida.

That is not to say that Bush would have won a popular vote victory without a preemptive Electoral College strategy -- just that it would have been a very different campaign. There's an awful lot of red on that famous red-blue map, but most of the historical campaign -- and most of the campaign dollars -- were concentrated in the blue zones. Absent the Electoral College, that wouldn't have been true.

The military history buffs will understand this immediately. How many times, for example, have we heard beer 'n pretzels discussions about how Lee would have won the Battle of Gettysburg IF any of a dozen confederate mistakes had been avoided? This kind of analysis, however, generally assumes that the Yankees were on some kind of cosmic autopilot and would have fought the same battle even had the Confederates handled things differently. In reality, of course, Meade was a capable commander and would probably have adjusted.

The same principle applies to Election 2000. Change the rules, and both sides would adjust. It would still have been very, very close.

[Ravy]

54. States have the right to say who gets to vote (within limits)...

so why should one state's population count be considered equal to another.

In Florida, for example, you cannot vote if you have been convicted of a felony. In other states, you can.

This limits the shenannegans of one state to just that state's votes, and not to everyone. Sure, that burned us in 2000.. but Katheryn and Jeb could have just as easily "found" an uncounted 2 million votes to have swung the popular vote as well.


What if the popular vote had been decided by 500 ballots? Would every vote in the US have to be recounted, using the standards set up by each state? How many court cases would THAT have generated.

[GreenPartyVoter]

55. On keeping the EC

"If we were to go to direct election of the president, citizens in sparsely populated states would never see a presidential contender campaigning in their area. Think about it. Where do most people live these days? In cities, often in big cities. Since candidates have only a finite amount of time to spend campaigning, why would they waste time in an area with a few thousand votes when they can spend the time wooing a few million?"

snip

"Today, the Electoral College is far more representative of the popular vote than it is of the interests of the individual states. As presently structured, it is possible for the voters in just 11 states — the most populous ones — to determine who will be president. That's why both Bush and Gore spent so much time in places like California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida and so little, if any time, in Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont. Citizens of those states with only a few Electoral votes are kidding themselves if they think their votes really matter all that much.

How can we change things to make it more fair? It is actually quite simple. Keep the Electoral College, but even out the number of votes for each state. If each state got one electoral vote, candidates would be forced to spend time campaigning in each state and whoever carries the state gets the vote. California would be no more powerful than Rhode Island. Each would have an equal say in who represents them.

Think winner-takes-all is wrong? That's okay. Each state can have three votes, with the top vote getter winning two votes and the runner-up winning one. Want to encourage third-party participation? Let each state have 100 votes with each candidate winning votes in relation to the percentage of the vote cast for him."


Full article here: http://www.backwoodshome.com/columns/delsignore001114.html

[pmbryant]

59. This article makes claims that are blatantly false

I just read your excerpts, but there are enough totally false statements there to convince me that reading the whole thing would be pointless.

That's why both Bush and Gore spent so much time in places like California, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Florida and so little, if any time, in Rhode Island, Montana, Hawaii, Alaska, Delaware, North Dakota, and Vermont.

Gore spent essentially no time in California and Texas, and probably extremely little time in New York. I suspect the same is true of Bush, who probably only spent time in Texas to rest at his "ranch", if he spent any time there at all. And any time he spent in California or New York, if any, was a stupid mistake.

--Peter

[Ediacara]

72. That article is completely absurd

Why should Wyoming get an equal say in voting for president as California.

Christ! It's bad enough that Wyoming has an equal say as a state more than double its population (Montana), but putting Wyoming's electoral votes on an even footing with a state 50x as populous!?

That's completely insane!

[GreenPartyVoter]

75. Didn't say those were the only ways to make the EC work better

But the article did say that there is some need for the EC, and also for a reform of it.

Have you a better suggestion?

[Ediacara]

78. uh, try the popular vote

Most other strong president republics use that system and it works just fine. The electoral college is NOT needed, and should have been abolished in 1866.

[northzax]

84. really?

could you be so kind as to name one successful democratic, non-parliamentary, state that uses direct election for the chief executive?

c'mon, just one.

please?

Okay, fine, I'll do it.

Poland.

now it's your turn.

ok, fine, I'll do another:

Russia. oops, not very successful, is it?

Now it's your turn.

[GreenPartyVoter]

89. I could consider ditching the EC and switching to full representation

[northzax]

93. you said, and I quote:

Most other strong president republics use that system and it works just fine. The electoral college is NOT needed, and should have been abolished in 1866.

I simply asked for an example of a "strong presidential republic" that works.

I'll give you another one: Haiti

your turn.

[Ediacara]

98. uh, sorry that's quoting me, not the poster you're responding to

And the only other strong president republic that uses an electoral college that I know of is Brazil, with results as lopsided towards rural areas as they are in the US.

[Ediacara]

97. Mexico

Finland etc

[northzax]

103. Uh, er, um

Finland is a parliamentary system, the President is a ceremonial figure, real power is in the Prime Minister.

Mexico was dominated by one corrupt party for 100+ years, hardly a functioning electoral system.

any others to justify the 'etc'?

[Ediacara]

105. how about this:

Name me a country beasides the US and Brazil that uses an electoral college system?

In any case.... The PRI was in control for around 75 years, not 100+ and no changes were made to the Mexican constitution before or after Fox took office, try again.

Oh and France.

[northzax]

107. France?

you mean that parliamentary system? where the president is a figurehead? that one?

Who said anything about changes to the constitution of Mexico? One party dominated politics for 75 years. And if you don't think they were corrupt, then you haven't been paying attention.

Frankly, I can't name a single country that uses the direct electoral college method, but then I can't think of a country that has a strong presidency that has had a tradition of peaceful transitions from party to party and back again, that does not have an electoral college system, can you?

[Ediacara]

110. France is a strong president republic with direct elections

And changes its government from party to party.

[northzax]

111. France is a parliamentary republic

the head of state is the President, but the head of the government is the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister actually controls legislation and the purse strings, the president has a largely ceremonial role.

Find me a Presidential Republic, where the head of state is the same as the head of government that works without an electoral college. That's all I ask, and no one has been able to do it yet.

[Ediacara]

112. dude

The French government is set up internally exactly like the US. In the US, the president is "largely ceremonial" too. France isn't like Italy, where the president actually IS ceremonial, but rather has a somewhat strong president, like the US (theoretically).

BTW, the President of the United States IS NOT the head of the government. That job is the House Speaker's.

[northzax]

115. dude-

according to the CIA world fact book (and you think they'd at least get the US right, eh?)

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html

chief of state: President George W. BUSH (since 20 January 2001) and Vice President Richard B. CHENEY (since 20 January 2001); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government
head of government: President George W. BUSH (since 20 January 2001) and Vice President Richard B. CHENEY (since 20 January 2001); note - the president is both the chief of state and head of government

THe US president is hardly a ceremonial role, he is the commander in chief of the armed forces, has a strong veto power and appoints his own cabinet, ambassadors and judiciary, with the advice and consent of the Senate. If France, the Prime Minister selects those people, and the military is under the direct control of the parliament, not the President. Don't you think a country with a history of dictatorship, like La France, would deal with that somehow?

want to try again?

[andyjackson1828]

104. My proposal.....

Keep the Electoral College with 3 changes:


1. Robot Electors.

Electors must vote for the candidate they are pledged to. You can keep the pomp and deremony of real electors if you want, or you can just turn it into a bookkeeping transaction. But i get shivers thinking about another real tight EC race, intimidation, accidents etc.

2. Odd number of Electors.

Right now we have 538 Electors. There should be no ties. 269-269 would be a worse nightmare than last time. Which leads to

3. Bonus Electors.

The winner of the popular vote gets bonus electors (maybe 31 or 51). This way it is almost impossible for the popular vote winner not to be elected. I consider this superior to a election where the candidate with the most votes wins, because this candidate might be just one with regional appeal who wil get 30% of the vote in a 4 man race.

[pmbryant]

106. The bonus elector idea would be a good modification of the current system

It would indeed make it, for practical purposes, almost the same as a popular vote system. And since it is a relatively slight modification, it would be a lot easier to accomplish.

The ideal would still be a true popular vote system, but I won't let "the perfect be the enemy of the good". :-)

--Peter

[Name removed]

108. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.