Electoral College

Post Reply New Topic

I may agree that this is not a perfect system, but given especially how most of the Democrat falls into New England, Cal, NY, and a handful of large cities, while the Republicans swept everywhere else, I cannot agree to get rid of it and go for a strictly popular election. That was the reason the college was created in the first place, to prevent any one region or state from taking an unfair share or advantage in elections. Elections should based on regions and population. If one region feels it never gets a voice that could cause problems. I don't really think there is enough unbiased information for the general population to make intelligent election descisions anyway. Think about it, most of us still vote for the "lesser of two evils" as opposed to someone we really like and know well. Unless something better comes along, we should keep the Electoral College as flawed as it may seem.

Example: If the Gronge county has 10,,000 people and the Frank county has 1200 and they need say a water filter and a damn. But the Gronge win every election all the time, do you think the Frank county won't feel left out and perhaps vote for their own government that represents their needs?

I create this example to demonstrate that equal representation should not just be about who has the most people. It should be equal across multiple spectrums, so that regions, groups, and what get a voice. I am not what would be the best solution, but I know it would be bad if the elections were decided by Just New York City or the State of California or the Western States. Looking at the map of the last election by county, it appears maybe as high as 95% of the nation is read. If all the tax money is used strictly to help cities expand at perhaps the expense of aid to farmers, would we then have enough food? Would that prompt them to form two independent nations?

I don't think it should be just a popular vote as that could leave out two many minorities, regional interests, and other such subgroups.

I used to agree with the Electoral College, it gives small states a bigger voice, which I support. However, once it was decided which states were toss-ups, the candidates put all their efforts there, and the other states were ignored.

The Electoral College was designed long ago before instant communication... If it did not exist, it would take ages to count all the votes and get everything sorted out across the nation. These days it has no purpose...

Actually, it was created in order to give certain states unfair advantages. Particulary, slave states. Under a popular vote, a state would get as many votes as voters, but under the Electoral College, 3/5 of slaves counted towards the state's electoral votes, even though they didn't vote.



Completely irrelevant. We still have the same voters whether we have the EC or not.



I did that this year. I don't like Bush that much, but he's better than Kerry.

Anyhow, our two-party system is a direct consequence of having plurality elections. We need to change the system in order to give people more real choices.



These issues are usually addressed on the state level. But guess what: Every state uses the popular vote to elect its governor!



And this would be worse than having elections decided by Florida or Ohio because...?



This is the perfect argument against the EC.

Under the EC, California is pretty much guaranteed to give 55 electoral votes to the Democrats. The Republicans need 270 of the other 483 votes, or 55.9%, to outvote California.

But under a popular vote, the Republicans in California would actually get to have their votes counted. It would become relevant that Californians did not vote 100%-0% for Kerry, but only 55%-45%. Now, California has about 12% of the national population, so California Republicans account for 5.4%. To counteract California's "blue" lean, the Republicans need (50-5.4)/88=50.7% of the vote in the rest of the states.

So it would be easier to outvote a large state under the popular vote than it would under the EC.

I don't mind the electoral college. The idea, I thought, was that the states elected the President, rather than the people directly. This is why you vote on the slate of Electors from your state, rather than the actual candidate (although most ballots no longer list the Electors, I bet). It seems a popular misconception these days that you are actually voting directly for the candidate.

Abolishing the Electoral College will not, by itself, address the problem of two-party rule we have in the US. Ballot-access laws are at the root of the biggest obstacles facing any candidate who is not Republican or Democrat. It is harder to get on the ballot in Georgia(USA) than it is to get on the ballot in the Ukraine. That's a real problem when you have more election freedom in the former Soviet Union than anywhere in the USA.

They don't here in Texas. Of course, that's probably because we have 34 electoral votes, and there's just not enough room on the ballot for all those names.



Not suprising, considering that the people you're actually voting for aren't on the ballot. Which only serves to demonstrate the absurdity of the system.



Ballot access laws are just a symptom. The root of the problem is the plurality election system -- it only works for 2 candidates.

For example, consider an election for the Governor of Texas. Suppose that there are 2 candidates: a Democrat and a Republican, and that 60% of the voters prefer Republicans to Democrats, an 40% prefer Democrats to republican. If everyone votes sincerely, the Republican wins, 60%-40%. So far, nothing surprising.

Now, suppose that the Constitution Party gained ballot access. (In 2004, they weren't on the ballot in Texas; The Libertarians were the only third party that made it.) Their platform appeals to conservatives, so most of the people who vote for the Constitution Party would have the Republicans as their second choice, and vice versa. Suppose that the voters preferences are:

21%: Constitution>Republican>Democrat
39%: Republican>Constitution>Democrat
40%: Democrat>Republican>Constitution

If everyone votes sincerely, the Democrat wins. For the Constitution Party voters, this is the least desirable outcome. So they vote for the Republican instead. "Our candidate can't win, but we can at least keep the Democrat from getting elected."

Thus, we end up with only 2 viable political parties.

But suppose that instead of having a plurality election, we used a Condorcet method instead. That is, use ranked ballots to break the election down into all the possible 2-candidate contests. If everyone votes sincerely, then

• Republican beats Democrat, 60%-40%
• Republican beats Consitution, 79%-21%
• Constitution beats Democrat, 60%-40%

The Republican wins. But more importantly, none of the Constitution Party voters have to cast an insincere ballot to keep the Democrat out. So the Constitution Party actually gets their 21% of the first-choice vote.

But what about the Electoral College?

In 2008, the Ohio Democrats have an effective get-out-the-vote campaign, so the Democratic presidential candidate is expected to win 272-266.

But California, having just also adopted Condorcet voting for its electors, awards its 55 electoral votes to the Green Party candidate. This causes the Republican candidate to win 266-217. (This isn't an absolutely majority, and so Congress would vote for President, but the Republican would be likely to win anyway.)

So even if states use a third-party-friendly election method for choosing electors, the Electoral College still has the plurality spolier problem, and therefore is conducive to a two-party system.

Last edited by Dan on 03 Feb 2005, 10:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That sounds inaccurate to me, since Virginia was one of the most populated states at the time. And one of their Representatives proposed popular vote alongside his "Virginia Plan". A representative from New Jersey (I did not think that was a slave state at the time, especially since it is in the North), proposed equal representation by state to counter the popular vote idea. The New Jersey delegate, William Paterson, feared that the large states would improve themselves at the expense of the small states and it would make a monarchy seem less apprehensible under that condition.

The issue over slavery relating to this was not that such forms of election be adopted but how vote population and taxes were decided within these forms of election.

Yes, but they also had the most slaves. This means that they benefitted the most by having slaves count towards their representation.



I thought the Virginia Plan wanted Congress to elect the President.

There was a third option considered by the founding fathers aside from the popular vote and electoral college, and that was to have the state legislatures decide who the president would be. I think that is an option that has some merit even today.

The Virginia Plan was what became the House of Representatives, or popular vote by those of the greatest population, and the New Jersey Plan was the Senate, or equal shares of representation by each state.

I understand what you are saying, Epimonandas, but I disagree. I don't think the electoral college serves a real purpose any longer. I think elections should be about a popular vote, what the majority of the citizens want. If that means that every election were to be swept away by California and New York, then so be it. The majority of the country has spoken. My beliefs may not seem fair to some, but I don't think it's fair for fewer votes to have more sway in the outcome of an election. One of the basic principles of democracy is majority rules. The electoral college doesn't (always) allow that.

Presidential candidates should be elected through a bareknuckle fight to the death over a vat of boiling lard.

Looking across at the American system from here in the UK, I can say that it seems bizzare!

I know we have some problems here what with an unelected Lords but still.

Back in november the tv news was full of Peter Snow leaping around a multicoloured map instead of using a proper swingometer .
(the UK people will get that reference)

To be fronk, it sometimes shocks me about how you run elections.

Voters have to register woth a party, is that right?
then at government expense you hold "primaries" in different states for the Parties to chose their candidates (though some states hold caucuses insted), though not all the candidates stand in each state

they are held at different times so the result of early votes infulence later ones, even causing candidates to drop out.

Why dont the parties hold internal elections by postal ballot at their own expense?

When it does come to voting, you dont allow people who have a SPENT conviction to vote, but those who havent been caugth yet do. and there is no central list to prevent fraud or letting people vote miltiple times in different states..

The presidential polls are held over a number of time zones, but the New York results are announced befor Alaska has stopped voting, again allowing them to be influenced.
(a similar sitution exists he for elections to the European Parliament. In UK we vote on the Thursday, other counries on the following Sunday. We have to wait until the last polls close before we can even begin to count)

You use machins which as we all remember from the 2000 vote were so reliable and now you replace them with electronic amchines which are vunerable to outside attack and insider fraud
Whats wrong with a pencil and paper? its low tech, but difficult to tamper with.

And Who do you elect?

I dont mean Dubya although......

I mean you elect people who should never be elected.

like judges or police cheifs or DAs

All people who should be applying and implementing the law with total impartiality, not deciding to pursue a course of action because its an election year.

And then you allow those who do hold "political" offices to intervene in individual criminal cases. signing the death warrents, granting pardons etc.

A few years ago here a Home Secretary had to resign from the cabinet because he tthreatened to over rule the head of the prison service in order to sack a prison govener.
Yes just for threatening it!

and speaking of cabinets, who elected yours?

ours has to be drawn from the Houses of Parliament, but you get people like Rumsfeld and Cheney because Dubya wants them.
They exercise huge power but have no mandate from the electorate or the electoral college.

this has turned into a bit of a rant, and I apologise for that, but I still feel all my points are valid.

So now I guess I have to sit back and accept the criticism of the UK system.

The UK system stinks for many reasons (one party being granted total power with generally only around a third of the popular vote being one of them - better than the quarter of the vote it takes in the US though), but it is infinitely better than the US one - the UK system at least has a veneer of democracy to it - and only people with considerable mental faculties are capable of getting into positions of power in the UK (and without the need for 100s of millions of financial backing from shady interest groups), unlike the massively bankrolled, mindless dummies who always seem to roll into the US Presidential office.

The fact is, there is no such thing as either "democracy", or a "fair" electoral system, but the UK system is pretty much as close to either as there is or as is possible at the moment. It always irks me to hear Americans crowing about how great their "democracy" is, when in truth Chairman Mao presided over a system with about the same level of "democracy" to it........



Don't worry neotopian - we'll fight them together on the beaches.

Hell, I am an American, and I think it's bizarre!



Not exactly.

In states with "closed primaries", registering for a party allows you to vote in their primary. You don't have to register with either party, but if you don't, you can't vote in the primaries.

Other states, including mine (Texas), have "open primaries". On the primary election day (it's the same day for both parties), you're allowed to go into either party's election room. When you get your ballot, they stamp your voter regstration certificate with their party's name, to make sure you only vote in one primary.



Excellent question.

But the more important question is, why don't we use an election method that doesn't split votes, so that the parties can safely run all of their candidates without bothering with primary elections?

The answer, of course, is that such a decision would have to be made by the same politicans that got elected under the current system, and they aren't eager to change it.



And don't forget that there are states that are split by time zone boundaries. In 2000, there was a controversy over Florida's results being announced while the polls were still open in Pensacola.



The Supreme Court is even worse. They exercise even more power, but they can serve as long as they want to.

Neotopian
Voters have to register woth a party, is that right?

No. Voters can register, but it is not required. They do have to registar to vote in primaries though. As far as party system goes, I have already mentioned a better system which was only the most popular parties get government funding, that way we are paying for what we want.

Neotopian
better than the quarter of the vote it takes in the US though), but it is infinitely bet

What are you talking about? It takes better than half for most of our processes.

TAFKASH
Chairman Mao presided over a system with about the same level of "democracy" to it......

Don’t be ridiculous. We don’t get tread over by tanks when we protest.


TAFKASH
and speaking of cabinets, who elected yours?

Cabinets are NEVER elected. Cabinets are appointed by the president as they are his assistants. They serve as advisors in different fields and act with presidential authority. Whatever gave you the idea they were elected. They are not supposed to be elected. We vote for the president and appointing a cabinet that the president can trust is part of his job.

Are you implying that none of our presidents are ever any good? I don’t like the implication. How can you so easily critisize a system that has worked for 200 years plus? Anyway Bush’s performance is subjective, since there are as many Americans who think he is doing a good job as those who critisize if not more that like him. Anyway, this argument is arbitrary as he was elected for four more years, and seeing how he has four more years, it is too early to dismiss his total effectiveness as president. Elections were held in Iraq. He has done some things well.

Not all politicians are professionals or lawyers or political science majors, example, Harry Truman. My local school board, they are obviously too dumb to have any college degree since they couldn't manage a small local budget to save their lives nor find successful ways to change their mistakes. I am voting all the incumbents out of office next election regardless of party affiliation. As individuals we can't scratch the surface to make improved changes, but if enough form up, then it can happen, that can not be said in all parts of the world, including China, at least for now (re: Tieneman Square).