Abolishing the Electoral College

[pgwenthold]

There would be no reason to consider any other states at all;

As opposed to the current situation, where Ohio, Michigan, and Florida are all that get any attention?

In one person/one vote, EVERYONE's vote matters.

If you can gain 10000 votes by going to Texas, you go to Texas, regardless of whether it is solidly red or not. Similarly, it is worthwhile for a democrat to campaign in Nebraska, and for a Republican to go to California.

They don't need to turn the entire state, just gain some ground.

 

[Jocko]

They should dump the whole winner takes all system. Why should my vote be stolen from me?

It's not like you were using it responsibly anyway.

 

[Random]

The problem with "one man=one vote" is that you effectively disenfrancise half the country. What that would do is give roughly one third of the states near-total control over Presidential elections. After compensating for Texas, Florida, and Georgia, who traditionally vote Republican/conservative, the rest of the top 15 largest states still make up more than half the voting population of the US, and are traditionally Democrat/liberal, or swing states with strong liberal leanings. There would be no reason to consider any other states at all; and all but the top third could effectively be ignored on any matters of policy and funds allocation. Those in the bottom third, the poorest in the nation, might as well not exist at all.

You make it sound like every person in the blue states votes democrat every time. That's just not true. Even here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Dumbya got over a third of the vote. But since Kerry was a shoo-in to get a majority in Massachusetts, both candidates pretty much ignored the state (except for that stupid convention which I can gripe about for hours).

Bush got a million votes in Mass, and in the elctoral system those voters might as well have stayed home. If there was a one-man/one-vote system...

Yes, the top fifteen states have more than half the voters, but they don't all vote the same way any more than the voters in the smaller states.

 

[rwguinn]

You make it sound like every person in the blue states votes democrat every time. That's just not true. Even here in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, Dumbya got over a third of the vote. But since Kerry was a shoo-in to get a majority in Massachusetts, both candidates pretty much ignored the state (except for that stupid convention which I can gripe about for hours).

Bush got a million votes in Mass, and in the elctoral system those voters might as well have stayed home. If there was a one-man/one-vote system...

Yes, the top fifteen states have more than half the voters, but they don't all vote the same way any more than the voters in the smaller states.

So? 1 million is very nearly the entire population of Montana and wyoming combined- not just voters. There are several other states with populations of voters in the 1000000 range. So they might as well stay home.
Easterners think that nothing exists beteen the Hudson River and Los Angeles , except maybe Dallas and Chicago. One or two will admit to hearing about Denver
As a Westerner, I have lived in DC and Philly--they have absolutely no concept of what the world is like outside the Eastern Seaboard. And they think they are more important than anyone else and ought to run the place.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't follow what you were trying to say because of all the pronouns.

Who are you referring to with "they" and "their vote"?

My apologies. My prose goes south on me from time to time. Forgive my rhetoric and ignore the post all together.

I should have said that people in less populous states would become marginalized with the abolishment of the electoral college. The president could ignore less populous states since they would likely have no bearing on the outome of the election.

 

[RandFan]

Doesn't the original logic behind the electoral system depended on the facts that:

1. There weren't national parties like there are now
2. There weren't declared candidates at first
3. States were seen as largely independent entities that would not vote for someone outside their own state

Seems like these issues no longer apply today.

Did you read the link?

1.) Your points were not the only issues.
2.) The college evolved because of national parties.

Could you read the link and give me your impression then?

 

[wastepanel]

California-55 electoral votes (12 million voters)
Alaska-3 Electoral Votes (220,000 voters)

Alaska voters were worth about 5% of California's voters in 2004. However, if total votes are counted, Alaska is only worth less than 2%.

The electoral college allows for smaller states that may not represent the same interests as larger states more of a say. What this does is make the country effectively represented, without giving the middle finger to smaller states.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The charge (being repeated here) that a popular vote election for the presidency would result in shortchanging less populous states along with a corresponding bonus for the more populous, seems to me to be faulty reasoning. The chief executive is not the president of the states, he/she is the president of the people.

As I've suggested before, whether someone lives amongst the prairie dogs or above the crowded subway tunnels, their choice of address should have no bearing on the issue, either positive or negative. Congress is designed to compensate for population variances. Too, each state exists in large part to serve its residents and their "interests" (never mind that state boundaries are artificial constructs in the first place).

And once again, the situation as it presently stands results in massive campaign efforts directed toward the handful of swing states and next to no activity in the locks.

One man=one vote is logical, sensible, and perhaps most of all...American.

 

[Random]

California-55 electoral votes (12 million voters)
Alaska-3 Electoral Votes (220,000 voters)

Alaska voters were worth about 5% of California's voters in 2004. However, if total votes are counted, Alaska is only worth less than 2%.

The electoral college allows for smaller states that may not represent the same interests as larger states more of a say. What this does is make the country effectively represented, without giving the middle finger to smaller states.

Well, I will ask the obvious questions and then head for bed. Why should the vote of a man in Alaska be worth more than the vote of a man from California? Should we care more about a certain state because it has fewer people? And isn't disproportionate representation what the Senate is for? That's how we ended up with a Republican majority in the Senate even though more Americans voted for thier Democratic counterparts.

 

[RandFan]

The charge (being repeated here) that a popular vote election for the presidency would result in shortchanging less populous states along with a corresponding bonus for the more populous, seems to me to be faulty reasoning. The chief executive is not the president of the states, he/she is the president of the people.

As I've suggested before, whether someone lives amongst the prairie dogs or above the crowded subway tunnels, their choice of address should have no bearing on the issue, either positive or negative. Congress is designed to compensate for population variances. Too, each state exists in large part to serve its residents, never mind that state boundaries are artificial constructs in the first place.

And once again, the situation as it presently exists results in massive campaign efforts directed toward the handful of swing states and next to no activity in the locks.

One man=one vote is logical, sensible, and perhaps most of all...American.

Presidents direct legislation, appoint judges and lead the nation. One person=one vote means that the President represents everyone but only has to answer to populous states. Not sensible, and certainly not American.

 

[rwguinn]

The charge (being repeated here) that a popular vote election for the presidency would result in shortchanging less populous states along with a corresponding bonus for the more populous, seems to me to be faulty reasoning. The chief executive is not the president of the states, he/she is the president of the people.

As I've suggested before, whether someone lives amongst the prairie dogs or above the crowded subway tunnels, their choice of address should have no bearing on the issue, either positive or negative. Congress is designed to compensate for population variances. Too, each state exists in large part to serve its residents and their "interests" (never mind that state boundaries are artificial constructs in the first place).

And once again, the situation as it presently stands results in massive campaign efforts directed toward the handful of swing states and next to no activity in the locks.

One man=one vote is logical, sensible, and perhaps most of all...American.

sorry- wrong. Verry Wrong.
The title is "President of the United States of America".
It is the United States of America--not The United People of America.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

sorry- wrong. Verry Wrong.
The title is "President of the United States of America".
It is the United States of America--not The United People of America.

Semantics.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Presidents direct legislation, appoint judges and lead the nation. One person=one vote means that the President represents everyone but only has to answer to populous states. Not sensible, logical and certainly not American.

RandFan, I like you.

First: "Presidents direct legislation." Agreed. And there are checks and balances in place to temper this activity.

Second: "Appoint judges." Yes. See, again: Checks and balances.

Third: "Lead the nation." Non sequitor. Insofar as "the nation" is a term to indicate its collective citizens, it gets "led" wherever its inhabitants happen to plant their mailbox.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, I like you.

First: "Presidents direct legislation." Agreed. And there are checks and balances in place to temper this activity.

Second: "Appoint judges." Yes. See, again: Checks and balances.

Third: "Lead the nation." Non sequitor. Insofar as "the nation" is a term to indicate its collective citizens, it gets "led" wherever its inhabitants happen to plant their mailbox.

Hey, I like you too Regnad.

Checks and balances won't ensure that the interests of all are considered. And where the nation gets "led" to is important to everyone and not just the citizens of the most populous states. I'm not sure how that becomes a non-sequitor.

This issue isn't new and you and I are not likely to resolve it. I understand your zeal for your position but I respectfully disagree for the reasons stated.

 

[UserGoogol]

I don't see what makes geography so special. If a politician tried to "just campaign in New York," he would end up appealing to people outside of New York as well. A politician who took a liberal position to appeal to New Yorkers would appeal more to some hippy living in Montana more than a libertarian who lives in Queens. And anyway, in the world of mass-communication, all campaigns are national no matter where the politician actually goes. Even in the current system, a presidential candidate could spend the whole campaign season in an underground bunker and still get his message out the people, it's just that it would make for bad PR.

Admittingly, some issues are more intimately linked with geography. People who live in Texas have more of an interest in border control than people who live in Kansas. But there are many demographic issues like that. Men and women have different interests, young people have different interests from old people, Christians have different interests from atheists. Computer programmers have different interests from factory workers. We do not skew the voting system so that any of these demographics are more evenly represented, so what makes geography so special? (Besides the historical reasons.)

Of course, I suppose there might be a certain benefit in trying to give geography a more even representation so as to encourage that states maintain their fair share of the whole federalism game, but that really seems like what the Senate is supposed to be for.

 

[DSE]

On a related issue: I know a few people who, knowing the democrat candidate will win this state, will cast their vote for a third party member (such as Nader) as a political statement. I would venture to guess that without the Electoral College, they would be less inclined to toss their vote at a third party candidate (if they really REALLY didn't want Bush to win a second term, as in the last election).

Well, if we're changing the system, we could also put in instant runoff voting. That way you get viable 3rd party candidates without them being spoilers.

 

[DSE]

Presidents direct legislation, appoint judges and lead the nation. One person=one vote means that the President represents everyone but only has to answer to populous states. Not sensible, and certainly not American.

Right now things are pretty evenly split Republican / Democrat. Bush won by one of the narrowest margins in history. Doesn't the one person = one vote idea mean that it's no longer about states, but about individuals? If it's exactly 50/50, and 1000 people in Alaska have an issue they care about, that could turn the vote.

 

[RandFan]

I don't see what makes geography so special. If a politician tried to "just campaign in New York," he would end up appealing to people outside of New York as well. A politician who took a liberal position to appeal to New Yorkers would appeal more to some hippy living in Montana more than a libertarian who lives in Queens. And anyway, in the world of mass-communication, all campaigns are national no matter where the politician actually goes. Even in the current system, a presidential candidate could spend the whole campaign season in an underground bunker and still get his message out the people, it's just that it would make for bad PR.

Admittingly, some issues are more intimately linked with geography. People who live in Texas have more of an interest in border control than people who live in Kansas. But there are many demographic issues like that. Men and women have different interests, young people have different interests from old people, Christians have different interests from atheists. Computer programmers have different interests from factory workers. We do not skew the voting system so that any of these demographics are more evenly represented, so what makes geography so special? (Besides the historical reasons.)

Of course, I suppose there might be a certain benefit in trying to give geography a more even representation so as to encourage that states maintain their fair share of the whole federalism game, but that really seems like what the Senate is supposed to be for.

Right now things are pretty evenly split Republican / Democrat. Bush won by one of the narrowest margins in history. Doesn't the one person = one vote idea mean that it's no longer about states, but about individuals? If it's exactly 50/50, and 1000 people in Alaska have an issue they care about, that could turn the vote.

Valid points.

There is no perfect sytem. With that in mind the question becomes can we improve the system and should we?

I think the reasons for the college are as valid today as they were in times past. I can't imagine a system that caters to many different demographics. This one does that in a way. People who live in a particular state can influence local reginonal and state elections. States are more likely than not to reflect the people of that state. The college can respond to a degree.

At the moment I can see the argument that it is more about people than votes but that is for the moment.

I don't think the college will or should change. Hey, I'm a republican living in a state that is not likely to go Republican in a long, long time.

 

[Kerberos]

There is a third possibility, you could abolish the electoral colledge but keep the weighted vote system. Basically you multibly the votes each candidate get from a given state with a certain factor, so that an Alaskan vote still counts for 3-4 times what a Californian do, and then ad it all together, and say the guy who gets the greatest weighted vote total wins.

It doesn't addres all concerns, but it makes sure that small states get disproportional representation and that your vote counts, even if you don't live in a swing state.

 

[Random]

There is a third possibility, you could abolish the electoral colledge but keep the weighted vote system. Basically you multibly the votes each candidate get from a given state with a certain factor, so that an Alaskan vote still counts for 3-4 times what a Californian do, and then ad it all together, and say the guy who gets the greatest weighted vote total wins.

It doesn't addres all concerns, but it makes sure that small states get disproportional representation and that your vote counts, even if you don't live in a swing state.

I don't think that a system which explicitly states that a vote in California or Texas is worth less than one from the Dakotas is gonna fly politically...