Reforming the Electoral College

[SidewinderX]

I'm curious as to what ya'll (well, us yanks) would do to reform the EC. reform Don't say "get rid of it". That won't happen period. Why not? Well, the smaller states will never agree, because they have some power now, and without it they wouldn't. So just don't say that please. If you do say it, it will be considered spam and deleted.


Anyway... I think the EC should be changed so that votes are tallied by congressional district, not by state. I know some states do this, but I think ALL states should. For example, say in virginia we have 21 districts (I think). Say 15 of them vote (R) and the other 6 vote (D). Under the system now, Bush would get all 21 votes. Under the way I'd like it, Bush would get 15 votes, and Kerry would get 6. Yea, Bush still gets more, but this system would give more incentive to politicians to campaign everywhere, even in states that are generally more for one party (like Virginia). It would also give individual voters more power, and hopefully encourage more people to vote.



comments? concerns? own ideas?

 

[PunisherUSA]

I would tend to agree. In the end this wont have a substantial effect on most elections. It will be good for clearing up very close elections, but this brings the election to a purer form of democracy, as opposed to representative democracy.

Also, it strikes even because dense states (California, New York) are now divided to approximately (im making these numbers up) 70% democratic, 30% republican. Normally these republican votes would be lost, but now they are factored into the voting. Likewise, all the central American states (Nebraska, Utah, etc.) have democratic votes factored in which would have previously been ignored. So in the end, these numbers will be about the same.

The major change to this would be that in close elections, it would be much more difficult to blame the electoral college for skewing results.

EDIT: O yeah, a map so you can see what I mean
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm

 

[DarkStar]

Sorry, I know this is against the rules but I say abolish it.

Why would the small states object to abolishing it? The number of electoral votes up for grabs in any particular state is based on population anyway, so its not like the senate where it's a level playing field for every state. Plus, were talking about electing the president, not representatives from a state, so I don't see how state's holding on to power comes into play at all.

It's an antiquated institution, a relic from the 18th century. It's about time that whoever gets the most votes automatically gets to be president. It just makes sense.

 

[Dalamari]

Im a yank, so like most actual americans anything witty or interesting I say comes from CNN or a book. I say we take out the whole voting thing and just have silent leaders (like The Patriots from Metal Gear Solid 2) and make a taco the leader of Belarus.

 

[Adidajs]

i like Sidewinderx143's idea. but it IS true that the electoral college is indirectly based upon the population. Sorry, but Rhode Island will never be that important. On the other hand, my home state of Texas will always be. One of the main reasons for the electoral college was the lack of technology to tally votes from the citizens - it just would take too damned long. that's no longer an issue. we should just disband it.

 

[PunisherUSA]

Sorry, I know this is against the rules but I say abolish it.

Why would the small states object to abolishing it? The number of electoral votes up for grabs in any particular state is based on population anyway, so its not like the senate where it's a level playing field for every state. Plus, were talking about electing the president, not representatives from a state, so I don't see how state's holding on to power comes into play at all.

It's an antiquated institution, a relic from the 18th century. It's about time that whoever gets the most votes automatically gets to be president. It just makes sense.

Yeah, I know. Who needs the bill of rights either? Nobody needs or listens to that 18th Century relic. [/sarcasm]


Also, there is potential for a representative to go against what the state says (or in this situation, county), the only reason it doesn't occur is because they won't get re-elected as representatives. So, technically (I know, I know, people hate that word), the electoral college does give the state representatives control of the vote, not the people.

3 people broke the rule already sidewinder

 

[SidewinderX]

Why would the small states object to abolishing it? The number of electoral votes up for grabs in any particular state is based on population anyway, so its not like the senate where it's a level playing field for every state. Plus, were talking about electing the president, not representatives from a state, so I don't see how state's holding on to power comes into play at all.

Game time!

Ok, say you're a nominee for the presidency, and there is no electoral college. What would your platform be based on? If I were running, and there is no electoral college, I'd try and say, get votes from california and states like that. So my platform/campagining would focus on them. Why think about a small/low population state when I can get as many, or more, votes from one city in california?

Don't try and tell me that wouldn't happen. Politicians are trying to get elected. They're not gonna take a stand on something unless it will get them more votes.

 

[DarkStar]

Game time!

Ok, say you're a nominee for the presidency, and there is no electoral college. What would your platform be based on? If I were running, and there is no electoral college, I'd try and say, get votes from california and states like that. So my platform/campagining would focus on them. Why think about a small/low population state when I can get as many, or more, votes from one city in california?

But that happens anyway. You keep ignoring the fact that the electoral college is based on population. I would say the electoral college even exacerbates the problem you describe.

I'm originally from the tiny state of Nebraska. I think he last candiadate to even stop there on the campaign trail was Dwight Eisenhower 50 years ago. Why campaign for Nebraska's 5 electoral votes when you can spend that time campaigning for California's 54? Do you see what I'm saying? The amount of votes a state gets is based on it's population! If the electoral college did not exist, candidates would have to campaign for every American's vote, not just the jackpot states. It would also allieviate the problem we saw in 2000 of the candidate with the fewest votes actually becoming president.

Your post describes exactly what happens under the current system. Doing away with the electoral college would not allieviate the problem completely, but perhaps it would help a little bit. Please realize that the electoral college is based on population!!!

 

[blahblahblah]

But that happens anyway. You keep ignoring the fact that the electoral college is based on population. I would say the electoral college even exacerbates the problem you describe.

I'm originally from the tiny state of Nebraska. I think he last candiadate to even stop there on the campaign trail was Dwight Eisenhower 50 years ago. Why campaign for Nebraska's 5 electoral votes when you can spend that time campaigning for California's 54? Do you see what I'm saying? If the electoral college did not exist, candidates would have to campaign for every American's vote, not just the jackpot states. It would also allieviate the problem we saw in 2000 of the candidate with the fewest votes actually becoming president.

Please realize that the electoral college is based on population!!!

The point of the electoral college is this.

The state of Arizona has 9 electoral votes. If a candidate wins the state, that canidate will get 9 votes which represents the entire state regardless of who voted for who.

If the elections where done by popular vote, at most a canidate would get is 60% of the popular vote (realistically). This would turn out to be 5.4 electoral votes which is nothing in the grand scheme of things. With the electoral college, smaller states are given more weight. In the case of Arizona, an additional 3.6 electoral votes are put on the line. It may not be much, but smaller states have more weight.

 

[DarkStar]

Yeah, I know. Who needs the bill of rights either? Nobody needs or listens to that 18th Century relic. [/sarcasm]


Also, there is potential for a representative to go against what the state says (or in this situation, county), the only reason it doesn't occur is because they won't get re-elected as representatives. So, technically (I know, I know, people hate that word), the electoral college does give the state representatives control of the vote, not the people.

3 people broke the rule already sidewinder

Yeah, but the bill of rights is applicable today. The electoral college is not.

Also, you did know that it is special electors that elect the president right? Not the House of Representatives. Members of Congress are actually forbidden from serving as electors. But I'm sure you knew that.

 

[DarkStar]

The point of the electoral college is this.

The state of Arizona has 9 electoral votes. If a candidate wins the state, that canidate will get 9 votes which represents the entire state regardless of who voted for who.

If the elections where done by popular vote, at most a canidate would get is 60% of the popular vote (realistically). This would turn out to be 5.4 electoral votes which is nothing in the grand scheme of things. With the electoral college, smaller states are given more weight. In the case of Arizona, an additional 3.6 electoral votes are put on the line. It may not be much, but smaller states have more weight.

But your train of logic applies to large states just as it does to small states. A 60% vote in California turns out to 32.4 electoral votes. So in the case of California, an additional 21.6 elctoral votes are "put on the line." The electoral college is directly based on population!

It's just like the House of Representative, large states have the advatage. During the framing of the constitution, small states demanded that the senate include 2 senators from every state for this very reason. To balance things out. The electoral college give no more weight to the electoral votes of small states.

I guess I could be wrong though. Maybe I'm missing your point.

 

[Letters]

Ok, say you're a nominee for the presidency, and there is no electoral college. What would your platform be based on? If I were running, and there is no electoral college, I'd try and say, get votes from california and states like that. So my platform/campagining would focus on them. Why think about a small/low population state when I can get as many, or more, votes from one city in california?

I'm pretty sure candidates already do that.


Me, I don't care, but it does seem really out-dated now that everyone has such easy access to information through TV, internet, radio... the whole point was to keep the people from electing someone stupid because they didn't really know who they were, so they chose more edumicated people to choose for them... luckily, it has evolved and just serves to screw things up a bit like in the wanker 2000 election.

Sorry if I said when someone else said, but people were writing big paragraphs...

 

[SidewinderX]

Also, you did know that it is special electors that elect the president right? Not the House of Representatives. Members of Congress are actually forbidden from serving as electors. But I'm sure you knew that.

Yes I did. BUT electoral votes are based on congressional districts.

And about the population thing: Yes it is true that they are based off of population. BUT Everyone in the electoral college votes. only ~40% of the population votes. 5 electoral votes is a lot more important than 684,000 votes (~40% of the population of nebraska)

 

[DarkStar]

Yes I did. BUT electoral votes are based on congressional districts.

That actually wasn't directed at you Sidewinder.

 

[Tr0n]

I'm confizzled...so it's not really up to the peoples votes?Or what...