Abolish US Electoral College?

[Vlad Antlerkov]

The EC has given the small states too much power in proportion to their population. Unfortunately, abolishing it and not replacing it would make the small states irrelevant, which is just as bad. (Consider that the Boston metro area more population than VT, NH, and ME combined.)

My proposal for EC reform?

-- Get rid of the concept of "winner-take-all." Divide the EC votes a candidate gets from a state in proportion to the % of the vote they got in that state. (Example: You have three candidates, A, B, and C. A gets 55% of the votes in state X, with 20 EC votes, so he gets 11 EC votes. B gets 40%, so she gets 8 EC votes. C gets 5%, so it gets 1 EC vote.)
-- Base representation in the House on voting population, rather than actual population. (Would give an incentive to increase voter turnout.)
-- Cut the number of senators per state in half. (Cuts into the power of the smaller states without making them completely irrelevant.)
-- Require that a candidate win both the popular and EC vote to become president. (If the top candidate does not have a majority in the popular vote, have a revote two weeks later, between the top two finishers.)

Now, if I were living in Boston right now, I'd be advocating the total abolition of the EC.

[Sava]

It needs to be ditched, but popular vote is not the way to go. Even though Gore was the popular vote getter, and I'd rather see him than Bush in the office, true Democracy like that is not good. You can't have mob (majority) rule. People won't vote consistently on their beliefs, they vote solely on the hotly debated political issues that never get resolved. IMO, a true leader shouldn't be a politician.

[KrazyHorse]

You can't have mob (majority) rule. People won't vote consistently on their beliefs, they vote solely on the hotly debated political issues that never get resolved. IMO, a true leader shouldn't be a politician

Sava, what does that mean?

It's an indictment of any democratic form of election, not just straight popular vote.

[Sava]

Partisan politics has progress bogged down in the US government. The whole Ken Starr/Clinton thing is a perfect example. While everyone was worrying about who Clinton was screwing, al Qaida was planning 9-11. Even now, as Republicans and Democrats argue amongst each other, our borders remain open to terrorists, security has taken a backseat to profits and politics, and instead of solving security problems Dem's want to blame Bush for 9-11. And on the flipside, Bush is using the whole terrorism thing to work his own agenda too.

The large majority of people in America are not informed or intellegent enough to make decisions on who is the best to lead our nation. Popular vote is just a popularity contest whose outcome is largely dependent on who gives the best speeches and who spends the most money getting TV exposure.

Politicians constantly sacrifice the greater good for compromise on smaller issues and bureaucratic nonsense. It sickens me. Our nation is stuck in a cycle of bi-partisan rule. Do you think Americans actually decide their leader? They don't. They are given a few candidates in the primaries, chosen and endorsed by the parties. Then they each send the most popular of the respective groups to a runoff vote. It's stupid. The problem is, the parties won't allow any change to take place.

[Wraith]

The electoral college system should remain in place, but it should be restored to its original functioning.

It always amazes me how few Americans realize that the US President was not always elected by popular vote...
One of the main reasons of the Electoral College was to provide the states with a way to check federal power. When that went away, things started getting worse faster.

--"The US' system of checks and balances has been carried so far that they have difficulty doing anything at all."

Well, that was the original point. And for a few decades there it was working great. Unfortunately most of these checks and balances you're complaining about are being ignored these days, which is why there's such a mess.

There was a reason we weren't designed as a democracy, people. The systems being advocated here are more open to the "three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner" problems than the Constitutional system.

--"You can't have mob (majority) rule."

As I've said way too many times on this forum, the US system was designed to prevent mob/majority rule. It's just been mispresented to the public for so long (both through the media and in government schools) that most people don't seem to realize it.

Wraith
Why be difficult when with a bit of effort you can be impossible?

[Boris Godunov]

Yes, down with it. It's un-Democratic, as the last Presidential election shows.

The rights of the small states are protected against "abuse" of the larger states by the Senate and the Constitution.

I agree with KH that the EC effectively makes the votes of people in certain areas count more, and that's wrong. Why should I be penalized for living in an area with large population when it comes to my vote?

Every president elected should have a popular mandate, not an electoral one, to insure legitimacy.

[Sava]

"three wolves and a sheep voting on dinner"

That's the best quote I've heard that sums up why true Democracy is wrong. I think that the electoral college is the best method of choosing a leader at this point. But like many things in this world, it doesn't always go as planned.

[Ned]

Actually, if one thinkis about it, the EC enhances the power of one's vote. In states which are going to one candidate by large majorities, it makes little difference if you vote at all. However, if the election in a particular state is "too close to call," we have found that every vote counts. Just a few votes won Florida and those few votes gave the whole 25 EC votes to Bush. Now that is real voting power.

The way the EC is structured and implemented by the states causes American elections to be focused in so-called battle-ground states where both sides have a chance. Of course, no candidate spends much time in Wyoming. But they will also spend very little time and money in New York and California if those state's races are not close, as they were not in the last election. Rather the election is contested in states where the public is evenly divided.

Here the issues are really joined and the contest focused. The voter knows that their vote counts.

It is an amazing system. I have no idea if the founding father knew that this would be the outcome of their design. But it is unique in the world and the world's history.

Also, if it an't broke, don't fix it.

So I say, keep the EC just the way it is.

[Lincoln]

The EC works pretty well but it probably needs some tweaking. Europe is basically doing the same thing that we did when we formed a union of sovereign states. If the system is so bad why is Europe emulating it?

Absolute rule by the majority is not fair as has already been stated. There is no perfect system but the idea that is being followed by Europe at least makes an attempt to correct the abuses of mob rule.

Gore lost the election because he did not relate to rural America. We cannot let only those politicians rule that can appeal to the masses couped up in New York and Los Angeles and other big cities. A just society considers the voice of its weaker members. This system is about the best we can do considering the current corruption that will destroy any system.

edit: changed "he did" to "he did not". Gore pretty much lost the rural vote.

[Vesayen]

It should be abolished, but it never will be as it makes it easier for people campaining for high office.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ned
Actually, if one thinkis about it, the EC enhances the power of one's vote. In states which are going to one candidate by large majorities, it makes little difference if you vote at all. However, if the election in a particular state is "too close to call," we have found that every vote counts. Just a few votes won Florida and those few votes gave the whole 25 EC votes to Bush. Now that is real voting power.

Sure, if Bush had really won Florida. The problem this shows with the EC is that if it comes down to one state deciding the election, a candidate can easily get elected by fraud and other illegal means.

While fraud takes place on both sides, certainly, the EC helps make it a deciding factor, and increases the incentive for politicians to pursue fraud in large states where the polling shows it will be close.

Without the EC, the small-scale fraud campaigns carry out would be pretty much a useless strategy.

There is no way that selection of the president by purely democratic means is tantamount to mob rule. Remember, the checks and balances of the Senate and SCOTUS will prevent this from being the case. Any president who gets elected and tries to ignore the congressional clout of the small states will find himself paralyzed.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Snapcase
I've no problem with votes being adjusted so that all states matter,

I do. The US is based on the power of the people and not the state. Why should a non-person (the State) get a vote?

[Sava]

Wrong Eth. The US is based on the power of the people which elects representatives. The US is a Republic because a true Democracy is mob rule, and then founding father's did not want the average citizen to directly elect the president, nor do I.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Asher


The idea of the Senate is to have rule of the majority while respecting the rights of the minorities. Comprende?

The Senate is in no way about that. That is what the Bill of Rights is for. The Senate was specificly created to give smallers states more say. Thats not all that bad but it really should have nothing to do with the election of the President as he is represents the People overall and not the several States. The Senate is more than enough.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Sava
Wrong Eth. The US is based on the power of the people which elects representatives. The US is a Republic because a true Democracy is mob rule, and then founding father's did not want the average citizen to directly elect the president, nor do I.

The US has the Bill of Right for protection from mob rule. The US is not a true Republic. Rome was a Republic.

[KrazyHorse]

Exactly, Eth.

The Constitution guards against Wraith's three wolves scenarion. The EC's setup was just a sop to the small states to get them to join the US in the first place...

[Ethelred]

After getting beyond the first half of the first page of this thread I am strongly reminded of line in a Star Trek episode.


ThreadJack
ThreadJack
ThreadJack

Thank you Canada for stuffing the US ballot box.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The US' system of checks and balances has been carried so far that they have difficulty doing anything at all.

That's the point .

I also think election of Senators should go back to the way they were. That is election of Senators by the State Senate, and not directly by the people.

I think the EC should stay, but instead of winner take all, have the electoral votes be divided up proportionally. Therefore it is a bit more democratic, but you still have to win states .

After all, the best position between two hardline positions, is the middle ground .

[Gatekeeper]

The last time I checked, presidential candidates generally ignored small 3-electoral vote states such as my own in favor of, oh, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas. For some insane reason, they find the 50-something, 30-something and 20-something electoral votes those states have as being more important to them than the measly 3-electoral votes my state has.

It's a rare day indeed when our puny three votes sway a presidential election. It's a rare day when when get more than one perfuctionary presidential candidate visit during election years. Most of the time our future leaders are too busy wooing the likes of California, Texas and New York to give a real damn about what goes on in the heartland. The coasts rule in our nation. The only freaking reason it seems the small states have an inordinate amount of influence right now is because the federal government is closely divided. Any other time we hardly show up on the freaking radar screens.

So don't tell me I wield too much power with my vote, because you could've fooled me.

You folks on the coasts and in the big states want reform? I have no problem with proporational dividing of electoral votes, because it won't mean a damn thing for my state. It'll just focus even more attention on the coastlines, 'cause then a state's entire electoral votes won't necessarily be locked up early in a campaign. IOW, we won't really be affected ... we're mostly ignored now and would be mostly ignored under any proportional EC system.

But if reform means weakening what little we have now in the heartland, you're going to have trouble on your hands. You might not think much of the heartland until all the states from the Dakotas west to the Pacific coastline and throughout the Rocky Mountains secede from the Union and the "United States of America" ends up with a big, rugged hole where its heart once was. That's a worst-case scenario of course ... never happen ... then again, they said the Civil War wouldn't happen.

Touching on farm subsidies and Canada, it's my understanding that the Canadian Wheat Board does a fine job of protecting farmers north of the border, too. So, KH, don't yelp too much about subsidies until you look at your own farmers. Same goes for the EU.

Gatekeeper

[markusf]

I have a really radical idea..

1 vote = 1 vote. The person with the most votes wins!

[markusf]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper

Touching on farm subsidies and Canada, it's my understanding that the Canadian Wheat Board does a fine job of protecting farmers north of the border, too. So, KH, don't yelp too much about subsidies until you look at your own farmers. Same goes for the EU.

Gatekeeper

Having actually lived on a farm in canada i can tell you, that you don't have a clue what your talking about. The thing is canada doesn't subsidize its farms but the US and the EU do.

The reason the US and EU do it is so they can starve the 3rd world countries and force them to buy grain. If there where no subsidies most 3rd world countries could grow massive amounts of crops competitively. Because if there where no EU or US subsidies the price of grain would rise world wide.

[KrazyHorse]

Touching on farm subsidies and Canada, it's my understanding that the Canadian Wheat Board does a fine job of protecting farmers north of the border, too. So, KH, don't yelp too much about subsidies until you look at your own farmers. Same goes for the EU

IIRC, we spend ~30% per capita of what you do on farm subsidies. The EU is one of the biggest offenders, but I don't care as much because we aren't as much in direct competition with them (shipping costs provide natural tariff barrier).

The US mouths off about free trade then turns around and runs protectionist rackets for its own citizens.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
The last time I checked, presidential candidates generally ignored small 3-electoral vote states such as my own in favor of, oh, New York, California, Pennsylvania, Florida and Texas. For some insane reason, they find the 50-something, 30-something and 20-something electoral votes those states have as being more important to them than the measly 3-electoral votes my state has.

It's a rare day indeed when our puny three votes sway a presidential election. It's a rare day when when get more than one perfuctionary presidential candidate visit during election years. Most of the time our future leaders are too busy wooing the likes of California, Texas and New York to give a real damn about what goes on in the heartland. The coasts rule in our nation. The only freaking reason it seems the small states have an inordinate amount of influence right now is because the federal government is closely divided. Any other time we hardly show up on the freaking radar screens.

So don't tell me I wield too much power with my vote, because you could've fooled me.

You folks on the coasts and in the big states want reform? I have no problem with proporational dividing of electoral votes, because it won't mean a damn thing for my state. It'll just focus even more attention on the coastlines, 'cause then a state's entire electoral votes won't necessarily be locked up early in a campaign. IOW, we won't really be affected ... we're mostly ignored now and would be mostly ignored under any proportional EC system.

That's a silly argument. Where are you from? For argument's sake, let's say you're from a state with a population of 750 000. You complain that the presidential candidates ignore your state? That's like someone living in a 10-block section of Detroit complaining that the candidates ignore them because they haven't visited their little neck of the woods.

Why should 750 000 people living in Farmland USA get more of the president's time than 750 000 people living in Downtown USA?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because the President doesn't represent only urban areas? That's a start .

[KrazyHorse]

Imran, did you even read what I wrote?

[KrazyHorse]

The President is supposed to represent everybody equally, but because of the rigging of the EC, he has to care more about a million Iowans than about a million New Yorkers.

[Imran Siddiqui]

but because of the rigging of the EC, he has to care more about a million Iowans than about a million New Yorkers.

Which is how I prefer it, actually. He has to give equal time to different portions of the country to succeed. He can't spend all his time in New York. Iowans are important too.

[DarthVeda]

Small states rights. You know whats after the college? The senate.

"Why do we need a senate! The majority should rule!"

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

but because of the rigging of the EC, he has to care more about a million Iowans than about a million New Yorkers.

Which is how I prefer it, actually. He has to give equal time to different portions of the country to succeed. He can't spend all his time in New York. Iowans are important too.

750 000 Iowans are important. They're exactly as important as 750 000 New Yorkers. The current system makes the Iowans much more important than the New Yorkers, and that's stupid.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
Small states rights. You know whats after the college? The senate.

"Why do we need a senate! The majority should rule!"

Exactly.