Electoral College: Can it be changed?

[Glengoyne]

I'm not sure if anyone has pointed this out yet, but we do not live in a democracy. We live in a democratic Republic. There is a difference.

While it is a popular notion that the electoral college was put in place because the elite didn't believe that the unwashed masses could be trusted with the responsibility to elect the president, it really isn't all that simple. That was a concern for at least a couple of the participants, but the main reason for the creation of the electoral college was that a compromise was needed. A compromise between the Urban and Rural states. It was an extension of the compromise between the states on the makeup of the Congress. In order for the States to unite together into a single nation, the compromise was required. The smaller rural states simply weren't going to join the union if the large population centers were going to dictate the course of government.

I think it works rather famously. Look at how close Kerry came to winning, while only carrying a fraction of the landmass or acreage of the country as a whole. I'm not trying to say that acreage counts in any meaningful way, but I think it illustrates the beauty of the compromise worked out all those years ago.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Georgia went decidedly for Bush. If you had no interest in trying to win some hearts and minds of the Electors, selected by the GOP for Georgia, by voting for Kerry, I have little idea what purpose the vote served (other than a personal one for each voter).

I had not done any research on the local races, so I did not vote in them. In everything I did vote for, I knew in advance what the result would be, and I knew the result would be by a wide, wide margin. Yet I waited in line for 45 minutes anyway, cast my vote against bush, against Isakson, the US House seat was unopposed in my district, and I do not want an amendment about men and women marrying on the constitution.

So why did I wait in line 45 minutes when none of these things had a prayer of going my way? Well, perhaps there's an advantage in getting as many democrats out and keeping the race as close as possible. Perhaps if I get out there and make it a little bit closer, more democrats will get out and vote next time in Georgia. Other than that? Just voicing my ideal opinions, knowing there is no logical hope behind them given how our system works today.

[rdo]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

The system described by Jag is used here in Australia but it has its problems also. What's more the results are no different - the decision in the end still comes down to a choice between the party of capital and that of labour with the candidates THEY choose to put forward. In the end everyone finishes up voting for one of these.

The results are much the same in the lower house were the 2 major parties dominate with a few independents making up the numbers, there was a green party member in the house of reps but that was from a by-election and that member lost his seat in october. Where it makes the most difference is in the senate (which has a much more complicated preferential voting system) where a lot of people vote differently to how they did in the house of reps and quite a few senators from the minor parties get elected to provide "checks and balances". The Australian Democrats, who mainly just contest senate seats had a slogan for many years of "Keep the bastards honest".

The best aspect of the preferential system (IMO) is that you can send a message with your vote and still have it "count". So I can have say in which of the 2 major parties I want to govern while making it clear that neither were my first choice.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I think it works rather famously. Look at how close Kerry came to winning, while only carrying a fraction of the landmass or acreage of the country as a whole. I'm not trying to say that acreage counts in any meaningful way, but I think it illustrates the beauty of the compromise worked out all those years ago.

It makes for interesting television. It's a horrible way to elect the leader of the free world.

I cannot stand George W. Bush. I still can be impartial enough to see that if Kerry had won Ohio by 50,000 votes that there is no way it would be 'fair' for Bush to lose this election.

[fantastic flying froggies]

1 person = 1 vote. Whoever gets the most votes win.

Democracy, pure and simple.

(and as a foreigner, i am completely free from any sort of partisanship...)

[cuervo72]

Wow, I'm always amazed that we could have survived for over 200 years with names such as Washington, Franklin, Hamilton and Madison on the Constitution rather than luminary thinkers such as mtaystl03, Tigercat, Jag and Chubby.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

1 person = 1 vote. Whoever gets the most votes win.

Democracy, pure and simple.

(and as a foreigner, i am completely free from any sort of partisanship...)

Republic > Democracy

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Republic > Democracy

How so?

[Dutch]

FFF,

How does voting work in the European Union?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

How so?

Well off the top of my head, I think I simply regard the composition of our government superior to most other forms I have looked at.

It really does work. A true democracy boils down to majority rule, and I don't think you can really accomplish anything under that system. The Republic/representative Democracy system we have seeks to promote leaders to guide the country, and sometimes make tough decisions that the population as a whole would not agree with. <--not a reference to Bush in any way shape or form.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Dutch

FFF,

How does voting work in the European Union?

I started answering you, but it is so complex that the bottomline is, I don't really know...

[Dutch]

For instance, a true democracy would have failed the USA in the 1860's.

A true democracy would have failed Germany in the 1940's.

Nothing's perfect when you are dealing with decision making.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

Well off the top of my head, I think I simply regard the composition of our government superior to most other forms I have looked at.

It really does work. A true democracy boils down to majority rule, and I don't think you can really accomplish anything under that system. The Republic/representative Democracy system we have seeks to promote leaders to guide the country, and sometimes make tough decisions that the population as a whole would not agree with. <--not a reference to Bush in any way shape or form.

OK, i think i understand what you're saying.

But if you have the popular vote, you can still elect the leader you're seeking, can't you? Whoever gets the most votes by the people is elected the leader and his government then rules for the given period of time it's elected for.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

OK, i think i understand what you're saying.

But if you have the popular vote, you can still elect the leader you're seeking, can't you? Whoever gets the most votes by the people is elected the leader and his government then rules for the given period of time it's elected for.

It could certainly work that way. I mean if the constitution were to be drawn up today, that would be a very plausible option. Especially with the Tricameral makeup. The executive branch is somewhat limited in power in any case. The current system was chosen as a compromise between (high population)Urban and (low population)Rural states. There is essentially no way to change it other than an amendment, and I don't see all of those low population "red" states giving up their current status. Besides, I believe it still works very well.

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

OK, i think i understand what you're saying.

But if you have the popular vote, you can still elect the leader you're seeking, can't you? Whoever gets the most votes by the people is elected the leader and his government then rules for the given period of time it's elected for.

Because when it was drawn up it was to give the very rural states a say they would not have with a popular vote. Right now, the smallest states have 3/538 of the total vote(.6%), and 3/270(1.1%) of the vote needed to win. A state like Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. However, Wyoming only has a voting age population of 350,000, compared with about 215 millionvoting age people nationwide. So, if there was a popular vote, Wyoming's residents would count for 350,000/215,000,000(.15%) of total vote. Obviously it benefits the states that are small, increasing their say in the matter, while it still favors the big states, who still have the biggest say.

[wbatl1]

Well, glengoyne beat me to the punch some when I was researching my stats.

[Wolfpack]

Why vote in a unwinnable state? I can attest having to live in the wonderfully diverse town of Ann Arbor (diversity of skin color, not of thought, please) that I got sick and tired of seeing the bumper stickers that said "Re-Defeat Bush" or "We didn't elect him before, let's not vote for him again this time, either." I was in a deep blue area of a blue state, but I wanted more than anything for Bush to at least win the popular vote on top of the electoral college so all the "peace-loving" individuals around here can shut up once and for all on the matter.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Desnudo

One vote for one voter with popular vote deciding the outcome is how nearly every other election is decided from elementary school to the US Senate.

Originally, the Senators were appointed by the legislatures of each state (they were supposed to represent state interests, while the House represented the people), but this is another step we've taken towards Democracy and away from the well-crafted Republic that we were intended to have.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Radii

I had not done any research on the local races, so I did not vote in them. In everything I did vote for, I knew in advance what the result would be, and I knew the result would be by a wide, wide margin. Yet I waited in line for 45 minutes anyway, cast my vote against bush, against Isakson, the US House seat was unopposed in my district, and I do not want an amendment about men and women marrying on the constitution.

I can sort of understand that point of view. I have a hard time understanding the purpose of a vote for a Democrat as a message to other liberals. Surely they know that Democrats are out there and are possible choices after the millions of dollars they spend each election year, nevermind the fact that they have a part in designing ballot access laws and can make sure they always qualify. It's a different ballgame for anyone not part of the two corporate political parties.

I voted for my first choices, the Libertarians, in order to help them get on the ballot next time as and prove that those votes actually are counted (despite claims from Republicans and Democrats that they aren't).

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by lynchjm24

It makes for interesting television. It's a horrible way to elect the leader of the free world.

We aren't electing the "Leader of the Free World." We're electing the President of the United States of America. Semantics, maybe...but what he is known as in the press, or around the world, does not carry with it a requirement that we change a fundamental building block of our nation. What other powerful country in the "free world" gives their populace a say in their head of state? It isn't the UK, France, or Germany, as I recall. Am I wrong?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

1 person = 1 vote. Whoever gets the most votes win.

Democracy, pure and simple.

(and as a foreigner, i am completely free from any sort of partisanship...)

Too bad we aren't a pure democracy. That's why it was not designed that way, and why it is not currently handled that way. It's a popular misconception that we are a democracy. We are not, and have never been, a democracy.

[Dutch]

Does the European Union count every single last vote of the people when they have a motion to pass or fail?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Too bad we aren't a pure democracy. That's why it was not designed that way, and why it is not currently handled that way. It's a popular misconception that we are a democracy. We are not, and have never been, a democracy.

It's a popular misconception that we do not vote in the naming of our President, but ultimately, if the people had not cast one single vote for George Bush, George Bush would not be President. It is truely up to us to name the next President of the USA.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Dutch

It's a popular misconception that we do not vote in the naming of our President, but ultimately, if the people had not cast one single vote for George Bush, George Bush would not be President. It is truely up to us to name the next President of the USA.

We vote for the Electors, who then select the President. That is fact. Historically, they tend to vote the way the people in each state ask them to through the votes...but they do not have to, and if they submitted 270 electoral votes for Kerry he would legally be the next President.

[Dutch]

I'm not so sure that the electoral college has ever gone against the popular vote in their state/district. Even in Florida last year, I don't recall any drama over the "elector" was going to vote for Bush regardless.

I'm not even convinced their is an "elector".

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

I started answering you, but it is so complex that the bottomline is, I don't really know...

Fair enough!

I remember at one point a very controversial issue in the EU where Ireland had a big referendum and had the people vote. But I have no idea why the people were voting. Perhaps to produce the singular Irish vote?

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm not even convinced their is an "elector".

Do some reading.

Here is just one easy example that I found using news.google.com...

hxxp://www.californiaaggie.com/article/?id=6187

Here are some relevant portions that may educate you a little bit :

According to Professor Carlton Larson at the UC Davis School of Law, each state is allocated a certain number of electoral votes. Each state gets two electoral votes which represent the Senate plus the number of members in the House of Representatives.

"The Democratic and Republican Party in each state picks their electors," Larson said. "Generally these people are state-elected officials who have been around the parties. They are people who can be trusted for a long time."

Larson said that there are 538 electoral votes nationwide. A candidate must receive a majority of 270 electoral votes in order to win the presidency.

"When you vote, you are essentially voting for a slate of electors who are committed to a certain candidate," Larson said. "Generally those electors vote for the people they are committed to, but may sometimes switch their vote."

The Electoral College is based on a "winner-take-all" system, where the candidate who gains the most popular votes will also earn all of the electoral votes for that state. Nebraska and Maine are the only states that split their electoral votes proportionally between the two candidates.

[Young Drachma]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I believe D.C. has a non-voting member in the House, much like Guam and other non-states that are part of the USA. However, none of those other places get electoral votes. That is a perversion of the system. They should not have any.

I hate this argument about D.C. The only reason people have a problem with the District of Columbia having any voting rights, is because of the way they vote and because of their demographics.

Not saying either is unwarranted, but the citizens of no other capital city in the entire world has less fundamental rights than the people in the rest of the country.

D.C. is not Guam. It's the capitol of the country. There is a difference between the capitol city of the nation and say, a territory we won in a war.

Part of the reason it's run so "poorly" is not just because the city is damn near broke and they're never had control of their own budget - even back when things weren't as bad as they are now.

Who cares about "founder's intent" over 200 years later? It doesn't matter what they wanted, because the political reality is that our nation's capitol is a fiefdom of the legislators who work and live there most of the year. The citizens (and don't say, "Oh they should just move..seeing as D.C. is a lot older than some states in this country. Meaning that their people could plausibly be long generations of residents) of the District are full entitled to having their interests represented in Congress. Territories and Commonwealths like Puerto Rico and others not so much, though in reality foreign countries give their territories political representation, so I'm not sure what the big deal is - especially since they're considered citizens anyway.

But that's for a whole different thread.



DC Vote

Don't DC citizens already have representation in Congress?

District of Columbia citizens have no representation of any kind in the US Senate and only a nonvoting delegate to the US House of Representatives. US citizens who live in Washington, DC, have no voting representation on the national issues considered by Congress. Furthermore, since Congress also acts as Washington's "state" legislature, local citizens are also denied voting representation in a state legislative body-something that all other Americans enjoy.

Doesn't DC have self-government through its elected city council and mayor?

The District of Columbia does have a locally elected mayor and city council. However, all locally passed laws must be sent to Congress for review. Congress has frequently overruled decisions of the locally elected government and has even overturned citizen-passed ballot initiatives.


Is DC Vote arguing that the lack of representation in Congress is unconstitutional?

That is exactly our argument. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides all citizens equal protection under the law. That means that all citizens are entitled to an equal voice in selecting elected officials. DC residents share with all Americans the right to one equal vote for a U.S. House representative and one vote for each of two U.S. senators. Congress has denied that right for 200 years under the premise that the Constitution also allows Congress total power over Washington, DC However, Congress's power over DC residents does not allow for the abridgement of free speech rights or the right to a fair trial. Similarly, Congress's power over DC should not be used as an excuse to deny DC residents their fundamental right to vote.

Why not just make DC into a territory like the other 5 US territories and not require residents to pay income tax?

The people of Washington, DC, have always fulfilled all their obligations as citizens of the United States. They have paid taxes, served in foreign wars, and helped build a great nation. Although there are some who would be happy to have the District become a territory, the majority of citizens want to contribute fully to the nation and to be treated as full citizens.

[Dutch]

Do some reading.

Tough crowd.

But isn't the electoral college "voters" just semantics? I mean, California is a winner take all state. When the people voted for Al Gore in 2000, there wasn't any drama over how the 55 electoral college votes would be cast. Gore got all 55 of them. (or whatever number it is, I'm sure I could look it up on google.)

The 55 "electors" were selected post-popular vote by Al Gore and the Democratic Party.

So the real voters are the people, not the electors.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I hate this argument about D.C. The only reason people have a problem with the District of Columbia having any voting rights, is because of the way they vote and because of their demographics.

The people in the District of Columbia could promise to vote for my candidate of choice on every single ballot and I would still maintain they deserve no electoral votes until they become a state. There is no other non-state that is allowed to have them.

Not saying either is unwarranted, but the citizens of no other capital city in the entire world has less fundamental rights than the people in the rest of the country.

Perhaps you could share how many of these capital cities are in non-states, and how many of them are nations that select their president by the state rather than direct vote of the populace? If the people of D.C. are unhappy that they do not live in a state, there are 50 of them to choose from. Or they can stay there and fight for statehood. Once they become a state, I agree that they are entitled to all the rights/privledges/powers delegated to all other states.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Tough crowd.

But isn't the electoral college "voters" just semantics? I mean, California is a winner take all state. When the people voted for Al Gore in 2000, there wasn't any drama over how the 55 electoral college votes would be cast. Gore got all 55 of them. (or whatever number it is, I'm sure I could look it up on google.)

The 55 "electors" were selected post-popular vote by Al Gore and the Democratic Party.

So the real voters are the people, not the electors.

As I understand it, each party has a slate of electors they have named prior to the election. I believe in some states the name of each district's elector is listed along with the candidate's name. To be selected as an elector you really need to be part of the Party machine. Believe it or not, I am not near partisan enough to be an elector.

So yes California is a winner take all state, and the slate of electors from CA will be the very partisan bunch of Democrats the party appointed before the election. Those 55 people could vote for whoever they wanted to though. CA does not have a law binding those electors to vote along with the popular vote of the state.

So yes the real voters are the people, they are just electing a very partisan bunch of people to cast their collective vote for president. In other words it is splitting hairs to maintain that we don't vote for the President.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

In other words it is splitting hairs to maintain that we don't vote for the President.

There always remains the chance that something could happen that convinces them to vote for a different candidate when the time comes. As long as that possibility exists, the populace is not directly electing the President. They may be 'effectively' doing it, but they are not directly doing it.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The people in the District of Columbia could promise to vote for my candidate of choice on every single ballot and I would still maintain they deserve no electoral votes until they become a state. There is no other non-state that is allowed to have them.

I counter by saying that no other non-state is given an electoral votes by the Constitution, well an amendment, but it is still the Constitution. More people live in D.C. than live in Wyoming(and a number of other states) so I don't see a reason not to give them electoral votes. I'm guessing that is why the amendment was ratified.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I counter by saying that no other non-state is given an electoral votes by the Constitution, well an amendment, but it is still the Constitution. More people live in D.C. than live in Wyoming(and a number of other states) so I don't see a reason not to give them electoral votes. I'm guessing that is why the amendment was ratified.

I can see how the amendment is a reasonable sort of compromise, considering that D.C. would otherwise not have any. It does break the system, though, which is the election of the President and Vice President by the states. It's interesting to note that this amendment was not passed until 1960-61. I should read about what caused this to finally happen then, as opposed to 10, 50, or 100 years before.

[duckman]

Personally, I think that changing the number of electors to one (1) per state is a sound idea. That forces the candidates to go to every state to help them win elections. In theory, anyways.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

DC residents share with all Americans the right to one equal vote for a U.S. House representative and one vote for each of two U.S. senators.

I didn't read this sentence well enough before. They are wrong in their argument here. I believe that members of the House and Senate were specifically allocated to states. Since the Constitution does not spread this to Districts, Territories, Protectorates, etc, they do not currently have the same "right" as people living in states. They may wish to argue that they SHOULD be able to share that "right", but I don't think they currently do.

I, personally, find it strange that anyone would live there given that state of affairs. Given the unlikelihood, some 200+ years later, of gaining full statehood, I might just move on. What better way to protest than by abandoning the District altogether? It may make the biggest point of all, or just bring in more commuters from the surrounding states...

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by duckman

Personally, I think that changing the number of electors to one (1) per state is a sound idea. That forces the candidates to go to every state to help them win elections. In theory, anyways.

Hmmm. So, unless someone gets at least 26, it would go to the House of Representatives...or whoever gets the most automatically wins regardless of majority?

[duckman]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Hmmm. So, unless someone gets at least 26, it would go to the House of Representatives...or whoever gets the most automatically wins regardless of majority?

Yes. It's not a perfect system, but maybe a fairer (is there such a word?) system. It would still give the less populated states the leverage in who gets to be President.

[Sharpieman]

Better yet, why do we have an election DAY and on a weekday. Why don't we have a 7 day election?

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by duckman

Yes. It's not a perfect system, but maybe a fairer (is there such a word?) system. It would still give the less populated states the leverage in who gets to be President.

Giving Wyoming and other low population states gives the citizens there a slight advantage in that their individual votes carry a little bit more weight than a citizen in any of the large population states. If you assign CA a single electoral vote, the disparity isn't slight. Each Californian would have only a fraction of the "voice". Each person in Wyoming would have about 60 times more say in who wins the presidency than each person in California.

Really I think the current system is a great compromise between large and small population centers.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

We aren't electing the "Leader of the Free World." We're electing the President of the United States of America. Semantics, maybe...but what he is known as in the press, or around the world, does not carry with it a requirement that we change a fundamental building block of our nation. What other powerful country in the "free world" gives their populace a say in their head of state? It isn't the UK, France, or Germany, as I recall. Am I wrong?

I can't say for the others but in France, we do. We definitely vote directly for our President. And it's a popular vote, with all voters being equal. The only added twist is that it is in 2 rounds. In the first round, everybody can run. The first two move on to the 2nd round and whoever wins that one is elected president for 5 years.

[Dutch]

Just like us FFF. The difference is we are the United States of America and you are the United State of France. We are a collection of states like the European Union or the old Soviet Union.....just much more closely knit.

[fantastic flying froggies]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Just like us FFF. The difference is we are the United States of America and you are the United State of France. We are a collection of states like the European Union or the old Soviet Union.....just much more closely knit.

Right.

But please, do not compare the European Union with the USA, they should not even be used in the same sentence! Right now, the EU is a union just in name, it is not much more than a glorified trade agreement. I really hope it will one day become a true federal state or confederacy, but it is still in the far distant future.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by Sharpieman

Better yet, why do we have an election DAY and on a weekday. Why don't we have a 7 day election?

I've wondered it myself, but with everyone screaming "FRAUD" on both sides, I don't know that it's doable. How do you secure every precinct in the country for that long a period to make sure ballots don't "appear" or "disappear" during non-polling hours? I wouldn't think they'd want to be open 24/7 during that period.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by fantastic flying froggies

Right.

But please, do not compare the European Union with the USA, they should not even be used in the same sentence! Right now, the EU is a union just in name, it is not much more than a glorified trade agreement. I really hope it will one day become a true federal state or confederacy, but it is still in the far distant future.

I think I was fair when I said the USA was much more closely knit than the EU. But the foundation of the EU in it's infantcy is not Democracy but a Republic of Nations. That was the only comparison I wished to make.

200 years ago, New Hampshire could not give a rats ass what New Yorkers thought and were not interested in New Yorkers telling them what to do.....just like I'm sure France would not be too interested in a true EU where Germany or Turkey called all the shots.