How about doing this for the Electoral College?

[Blue Mountain]

I'm throwing this out for discussion. If the discussion ends up as "it's totally stupid and no one in their right mind would go for it," that's the risk I take . Also, it may be impossible to implement if it requires a change to the US constitution.

I propose the following for the Electoral College to allow it to do its job, which is choosing the person to become the next President:

1. The populations of the individual states don't vote for a candidate for President; instead, they vote directly for electors to the College
2. The number of electors is unchanged from the current system, which avoids problems with elections being decided by New York, Florida, Texas, and California.
3. The electors are specifically forbidden from saying "I will vote for the candidate that is nominated by a particular party." Instead, they run on a platform that describes what policies they would like their candidate to pursue. Of course that means it would probably be pretty transparent what party they would vote for, but doesn't bind the electors to any given party.
4. Electors are allocated based on the proportion of votes they get state by state, so there's none of this nonsense of one party getting all the electors if they get 50.1% of the vote. Remember, too, that electors are not allowed to state which party they intend to vote for.
5. The party candidates for president are chosen after the electors are in place. The primaries can be in progress, but the conventions to actually choose the candidate happen in the first two weeks of December.
6. At the appointed time, the Electoral College meets in a three day circus (sorry, convention,) does some horse trading with the candidates, and hopefully there will be more than two good ones to choose from, then through secret ballot wisely chooses the best person to become the next President of the United States of America.

But, some will say, this isn't democratic! To that I say (but only within the context of this proposal), "Democracy be damned! The US is a republic."

While I can think of several advantages and disadvantages of this proposal, I'll start with this:

Advantage: It could prevent the election from turning into a mud-slinging contest between the candidates for president
Disadvantage: There's no guarantee against one elector or any given group of electors being idiots

I'm interested in seeing what other advantages and disadvantages can be seen in this scenario, and how it could still be gamed to favour one party over another in any given state.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm throwing this out for discussion. If the discussion ends up as "it's totally stupid and no one in their right mind would go for it," that's the risk I take . Also, it may be impossible to implement if it requires a change to the US constitution.

I propose the following for the Electoral College:

1. The populations of the individual states don't vote for a candidate for President; instead, they vote directly for electors to the College
2. The number of electors is unchanged from the current system, which avoids problems with elections being decided by New York, Florida, Texas, and California.
3. The electors are specifically forbidden from saying "I will vote for the candidate that is nominated by a particular party." Instead, they run on a platform that describes what policies they would like their candidate to pursue. Of course that means it would probably be pretty transparent what party they would vote for, but doesn't bind the electors to any given party.
4. Electors are allocated based on the proportion of votes they get state by state, so there's none of this nonsense of one party getting all the electors if they get 50.1% of the vote. Remember, too, that electors are not allowed to state which party they intend to vote for.
5. The party candidates for president are chosen after the electors are in place. The primaries can be in progress, but the conventions to actually choose the candidate happen in the first two weeks of December.
6. At the appointed time, the Electoral College meets in a three day circus (sorry, convention,) does some horse trading with the candidates, and hopefully there will be more than two good ones to choose from, then through secret ballot wisely chooses the best person to become the next President of the United States of America.

But, some will say, this isn't democratic! To that I say (but only within the context of this proposal), "Democracy be damned! The US is a republic."

While I can think of several advantages and disadvantages of this proposal, I'll start with this:

Advantage: It could prevent the election from turning into a mud-slinging contest between the candidates for president
Disadvantage: There's no guarantee against one elector or any given group of electors being idiots

I'm interested in seeing what other advantages and disadvantages can be seen in this scenario, and how it could still be gamed to favour one party over another in any given state.

That would plug the holes in the current system. The leading parties have lived by those holes. It will not happen as long as they hold power.

 

[Dumb All Over]

It's totally stupid and no one in their right mind would go for it.

 

[Ray Brady]

So You Think You Can Dance has already provided us with the ideal voting system. We ignore their wisdom at our peril.

 

[Tero]

There would be no popular movement to support this. So no people, no politicians.

 

[Cain]

It's totally stupid and no one in their right mind would go for it.

Granted, I only read the first point, but I agree with this assessment.

Instead of polishing this turd institution, just abolish it (or render it effectively useless via something like the suggested interstate compact).

 

[psionl0]

If the discussion ends up as "it's totally stupid and no one in their right mind would go for it," that's the risk I take .

If I was tempted by this low hanging fruit then I have already been ninja'd.

1. The populations of the individual states don't vote for a candidate for President; instead, they vote directly for electors to the College.

What voting system do you recommend? FTFP or PR?

3. The electors are specifically forbidden from saying "I will vote for the candidate that is nominated by a particular party."

Awww heck. Let's just say "it's totally stupid and no one in their right mind would go for it".

 

[fromdownunder]

This reminds me of an Asimov story where elections were all based on only one person voting, and after he voted he still did not know who won.

Norm

 

[Brainster]

I propose the following for the Electoral College to allow it to do its job, which is choosing the person to become the next President:

1. The populations of the individual states don't vote for a candidate for President; instead, they vote directly for electors to the College

1. 
   
   Obvious problem here. Californians have to vote 55 Electors in which makes for a lot of work.
   
   

   [*] The electors are specifically forbidden from saying "I will vote for the candidate that is nominated by a particular party." Instead, they run on a platform that describes what policies they would like their candidate to pursue. Of course that means it would probably be pretty transparent what party they would vote for, but doesn't bind the electors to any given party.

   
   Pretty obvious First Amendment problem there.
   
   

   [*] Electors are allocated based on the proportion of votes they get state by state, so there's none of this nonsense of one party getting all the electors if they get 50.1% of the vote. Remember, too, that electors are not allowed to state which party they intend to vote for.

   
   How then do you "allocate" the electors? See the problem? You're still assuming partisan identification for the purpose of divvying up the vote, while denying it in the next breath.
   
   

   [*] The party candidates for president are chosen after the electors are in place. The primaries can be in progress, but the conventions to actually choose the candidate happen in the first two weeks of December.

   
   First, political parties are independent entities, and the government has no right to tell them what to do or when to do it. Second, your proposal has the odd effect of telling the people to vote in the general election without even knowing who the candidates are.
   
   

   [*] At the appointed time, the Electoral College meets in a three day circus (sorry, convention,) does some horse trading with the candidates, and hopefully there will be more than two good ones to choose from, then through secret ballot wisely chooses the best person to become the next President of the United States of America.

Seriously? Horse-trading with the candidates, and then the electors get to cast a secret ballot? Yeah, can't imagine how that might be prone to abuse.

 

[Meadmaker]

.
[*] Electors are allocated based on the proportion of votes they get state by state, so there's none of this nonsense of one party getting all the electors if they get 50.1% of the vote. Remember, too, that electors are not allowed to state which party they intend to vote for.

Brainster already noted it, but this goes against the idea of non-partisan electors. There's no way to actually make this work unless the electors run as a slate, and no slate of electors makes sense other than party affiliation.


Other than that, your proposal goes back to the spirit of the original Constitution, in which it was thought that people would not vote directly for president. They would vote for a group of people that they trusted, who would then vote for president. The same thing was true for senators. Senators were not elected by the people. They were chosen by state legislatures.

Whether it's a good idea or a bad idea, people want to vote directly for president and for senators. They don't want to vote for some sort of delegate who can change how he votes based on goodness knows what sort of deal he can cook up.

I hate to say it, but I think the best thing to do would be to keep electoral votes, but discard the concept of actual electors. State election officials would count the votes, and the winning candidate would get awarded the electoral votes. Get rid of "faithless electors", and since there's no real role for them if they cannot be faithless, get rid of electors entirely.

 

[WilliamSeger]

It's totally stupid and no one in their right mind would go for it.

A bit harsh, but I'd say it's the worst idea I've ever heard of, anyway.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This seriously sounds like a plan to somehow make the Electoral College even worse and remove what few (at this point totally theoretical) advantages it does have.

 

[stevea]

This reminds me of an Asimov story where elections were all based on only one person voting, and after he voted he still did not know who won.

Norm

Think I've read most all sci-fi Asimov wrote, but I don't recall that one.


There are two main problems w/ the OPs suggestion.

1/ The reason we have 535 electors and not 435 is b/c the US is a republic and not a democracy - how those extra 100 state electors vote is crucial. Despite what the average unthinking person imagines - democracies are truly awful - despicable - a basket of deploration (to coin a phrase) - a tyranny of the 50+%. I'm not particularly convinced that *this* republic form is any better, but at least it balances the mob-rule with some fraction of state-regional interests (an historically declining point IMO). Then there is the peculiar fact that over time the ratio of state to popular representation has considerably declined (and is now effectively fixed w/in tight limits as the number of states is unlikely to increase (Puerto Rico and Guam aside) and the number of population reps-electors was fixed ~1968 to 435 permanently).

2/ At best the electoral college system was intended as a fire-wall against egregious excesses and not an ideological (esp not partisan) litmus test. The ONLY decision process available to an elector should be quite similar to that of a court of competency - "is the candidate clearly incapable". As much as I think Trump a bum-weasel - he is not clearly incompetent, nor proposing worse than previous presidents, nor has demostrable influences against the public interest, nor has he made claims substantially more abusive of the office than his predecessors.

Aside from partisan political hatred - I see no cogent basis for an elector rejecting Trump. Yeah, he's awful, but that's not the test. The previous two guys were just as awful.

===

IMO the simplest improvement in the electoral college system would be for more states to apportion by House district - the way Nebraska and Maine do. It's a crime that a Rep in California or a Dem in Tx get zero electoral representation.

Of course the political calculus is very much against this. As much as winner-take-all states that go in a predictable manner lose attention from all candidates, the state senate generally support he same "predictable" party, and prefer that their party get all the votes. Such a state senate is unlikely to support a divided electoral vote. In the toss-up states (only around a quarter of states) they receive a lot of candidate attention, which they would partly lose on a by-Rep-district division, and presumably the state reps are equally divided uncertain about outcomes.- so no great motivation to do the right thing.

A 'fasir vote' (aka instant runoff) scheme would be strongly preferred as well.

===

The populations of the individual states don't vote for a candidate for President; instead, they vote directly for electors to the College
The number of electors is unchanged from the current system, which avoids problems with elections being decided by New York, Florida, Texas, and California.

Huh - how does this avoid the large states having more influence on the outcome. Makes no sense AFAICT.

The electors are specifically forbidden from saying "I will vote for the candidate that is nominated by a particular party." Instead, they run on a platform that describes what policies they would like their candidate to pursue. Of course that means it would probably be pretty transparent what party they would vote for, but doesn't bind the electors to any given party.

So we must buy a pig-in-a-poke electors - I'm not feeling the brilliance of this scheme yet. The fact is that any elector will necessarily espouse policies that overlap all candidates partly, yet disagree w/ all candidates partly. Then, after you vote the elector might reveal that his real and primary deciding-factor interest was issue X. You may as well select candidates by Ouija board or magic 8-ball.

Electors are allocated based on the proportion of votes they get state by state, so there's none of this nonsense of one party getting all the electors if they get 50.1% of the vote. Remember, too, that electors are not allowed to state which party they intend to vote for.
The party candidates for president are chosen after the electors are in place. The primaries can be in progress, but the conventions to actually choose the candidate happen in the first two weeks of December.

How do you allocate the votes that are NOT democratic - the ones that correspond to the Senate seats ?

How to you force these private entities (political parties) to schedule their selection as you choose ? Sort of a dictatorial and arbitrary system you have in that one respect.

At the appointed time, the Electoral College meets in a three day circus (sorry, convention,) does some horse trading with the candidates, and hopefully there will be more than two good ones to choose from, then through secret ballot wisely chooses the best person to become the next President of the United States of America.

They EC doesn't currently meet (which is a good thing, IMO). They just cast votes from their respective states. They vote precisely once - no runoffs or horse-trading. Your "circus" (an accurate correct term) is nothing more than an opportunity for these unknown/unknowable meat-sacks to sell your interest down the river. They are vote-aggregators with absolutely no allegiance to the voters interests. This is one major flaw. You've empowered a mostly-unknown entity to represent you in a negotiation. Unlike a lawyer, or auctioneer - they have no fiduciary responsibility to you or your interests. This scheme is designed for fraud & abuse.

 

[Cain]

This seriously sounds like a plan to somehow make the Electoral College even worse and remove what few (at this point totally theoretical) advantages it does have.

One advantage of making it worse is that it might become easier to destroy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

People here complaining about the idea should probably comment on the following. What is wrong with delegating someone to review and make the decision?

I still belong to a party that voted for delegates at the state conventions, and sends them to the national one to hear the candidates and pick. I rather like the system.

 

[Tormac]

Wouldn't it be easier and more direct if we just amended the constitution so that only people that we like are allowed to run for office?

 

[Craig4]

I'd rather see more states join the Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's at 165 electoral votes now. It comes into effect when enough states join that the members have 270 electoral votes. Under this system, member states pledge their votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote.

 

[BobTheCoward]

I'd rather see more states join the Popular Vote Interstate Compact. It's at 165 electoral votes now. It comes into effect when enough states join that the members have 270 electoral votes. Under this system, member states pledge their votes to the candidate who wins the popular vote.

Why should it be resolved by popular vote?

 

[Mader Levap]

As much as I think Trump a bum-weasel - he is not clearly incompetent, nor proposing worse than previous presidents, nor has demostrable influences against the public interest, nor has he made claims substantially more abusive of the office than his predecessors.

Were you under the rock last one and half of year? This sentence is completely, utterly false.

I won't bother with full debunk, since for all my effort it would be ignored anyway. One example is enough.

nor has demostrable influences against the public interest

Lolnope.

 

[Craig4]

Why should it be resolved by popular vote?

Because then, the person who the most voters want to be president wins.