Abolishing the Electoral College

[epepke]

Quite. How dare anyone devote even a moment to issues of such unimportance.

So, who do you think Brad should be married to, Jennifer or Angelina?

Nice sarcasm. Abolishing the Electoral College was my high school debate topic.

Almost 30 years ago.

Ain't gonna happen.

Funny how leftists in the US manage to be so superciliously concerned with such important issues but can't possibly be bothered actually to find a viable candidate for, well, anything.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Nice sarcasm.

Thanks! Did you expect your original comment to this post would provoke anything else?

Abolishing the Electoral College was my high school debate topic.

Bully.

Almost 30 years ago.

Ain't gonna happen.

And those pesky women ain't ever gonna be franchised, either.

Funny how leftists in the US manage to be so superciliously concerned with such important issues but can't possibly be bothered actually to find a viable candidate for, well, anything.

Is it in some way critical for you to be an ass?

 

[epepke]

Thanks! Did you expect your original comment to this post would provoke anything else?

Certainly not from you. I would be flabbergasted if you were to show signs of thought.

Is it in some way critical for you to be an ass?

Oh, dear. You can't even use English effectively.

 

[gtc]

Funny how leftists in the US manage to be so superciliously concerned with such important issues but can't possibly be bothered actually to find a viable candidate for, well, anything.

I wouldn't think it was necessarily a left wing thing.

It might appeal to Republicans in solid Democrat states (otherwise why even bother voting). Democrat voters in small swing states might be against it.

One thing I am interested in, is why people bothered to vote for Bush in solid Democrat states (and vice versa)? Is it to send a message?

 

[RandFan]

The Electoral college ensures that less populous states have an opportunity to effect the election. More populated states tend to be more liberal. If you did away with the electoral college then they could kiss their vote good buy. The liberals would be have an advantage. Yes there is a congress but the President carries a huge advantage.

There is no simple answer. No method will solve all conflicts but this one solves the most IMO.

But I understand the desire liberals have to eliminate it. It would certainly lock up the presidency for them.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Certainly not from you. I would be flabbergasted if you were to show signs of thought.

So...rather than address the topic at hand, you dive bomb in with what can only be deemed an inane comment vis-a-vis the tedium of a discussion about the Electoral College. And then, when called on it, feel the need to get into personal issues rather than...

Oh wait, you debated the topic in high school.

Are you well? Seriously.

Oh, dear. You can't even use English effectively.

Do tell.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

The Electoral college ensures that less populous states have an opportunity to effect the election. More populated states tend to be more liberal. If you did away with the electoral college then they could kiss their vote good buy. The liberals would be have an advantage. Yes there is a congress but the President carries a huge advantage.

Forgive me, but you're making a number of leaps.

There is no simple answer. No method will solve all conflicts but this one solves the most IMO.

Well, I'd say there is a simple answer. One man=one vote.

But I understand the desire liberals have to eliminate it. It would certainly lock up the presidency for them.

You mean like in Election 2004, when George W. Bush won the popular vote count?

 

[RandFan]

Forgive me, but you're making a number of leaps.

Wouldn't be the first time. Could you identify the leaps?

Well, I'd say there is a simple answer. One man=one vote.

You can say that there is a simple answer but it isn't. You might not think so but there was actually some logic and thought behind the electoral college. You could argue that one person=one vote is best but it isn't reasonable to suppose that it solves all problems.

Here is a very good link (pdf) for the history and pros and cons of the college.

You mean like in Election 2004, when George W. Bush won the popular vote count?

I thought Seybold swung the election for him. Damn.

Will the Dems win every election? No. So perhaps not a virtual lock but they would have the advantage.

 

[DSE]

One thing I am interested in, is why people bothered to vote for Bush in solid Democrat states (and vice versa)? Is it to send a message?

States change over time. What was once a Democratic state is sometimes now a Republican one. And even the solidly Red or Blue states are a lot more mixed with closer to 60/40 breakdowns.

 

[DSE]

Wouldn't be the first time. Could you identify the leaps?

You can say that there is a simple answer but it isn't. You might not think so but there was actually some logic and thought behind the electoral college. You could argue that one person=one vote is best but it isn't reasonable to suppose that it solves all problems.

Here is a very good link (pdf) for the history and pros and cons of the college.

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.

 

[Tmy]

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

 

[Moon-Spinner]

Voter Apathy – I live in New York State, and I’ve known a lot of Republicans that don’t bother to vote, because we live in a state that always goes Democrat, so why bother when their vote “Isn’t going to count anyway”. I suspect this may also happen in those solid Red States, where democrats don’t feel any urgency to vote either. If the Presidency depended on the popular vote, then every vote would matter and more people might be more interested in having their voice heard by voting (discounting, of course, those who are just too lazy to vote anyway, and I know a few of those too).



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).

 

[Beerina]

No more than in the current system that the Montana ranchers and Hawaiin beach bums have more say in how the Army and Coast Guard are run.

Why the implication that the views of concrete canyon dwellers are less important than those of the Montana ranchers?

Because the concrete canyon dwellers are merely a tool used, a vector to power by charismatic politicians to lord over things with an ever-extending hand of intrusiveness?

Oh, wait. When people fancy they are behind the politician extending the hand sliding into other people's pants, unasked, it doesn't feel wrong. Sorry, I forgot.

It's no different than Congressional district 1 voting for Candidate B, but the state prefers candidate A. Boulder County, CO probably voted 80% for Kerry in the last election, but all of CO's votes went to Bush. What's the difference?

Again, what politician wants to try to get elected touting a system where his state loses power? It should be effortless to get this swatted down by another, opposing politician (who, remember, also wants power) by simply portraying it, accurately, as such.

As described, it's in the interest of no state legislatures anywhere, big or small state.

Sure it is. It is in fact relevent to all the states that are not the "swing states." It makes the popular note matter, and if that is the case, then every single vote matters, regardless of the state.

This plan would give big states more voting power, and voting power more proportional to their population.

The popular vote does not matter to politicians. Only getting elected does. Some politicians will portray this as an awesome plan because they believe it will help them, or their party, at the next election or two. End of story. Don't pretend they're doin' somethin' fer good old democracy here.

And, given how governmental power grows in intrusiveness, how anyone can be pleased about giving massive states more power, I don't know. Unless, of course, you are a politician in said state, or a "useful idiot" who supports them, believing their positions are about the people rather than the power.

Be careful what you wish for. One thing that will disappear will be the appearances of massive landslides, giving presidents mandates, i.e. the ability to strike fear into the heards of Congress to try to get things accomplished. And remember presidential elections are frequently about the course the nation should take.

Just like the Republicans thinking about the "nuclear option" in the senate to get votes on judges to happen, the Democrats should think seriously about this before getting on board just because they lost one such election six years ago. In both cases, it may very well come back to bite them in the ass, hard and unforgivingly. Think about it, had Bush won with a sliver of the popular vote, and Kerry won the electoral, the shoe would be on the other foot, with both sides screaming the exact oppositie positions today.

(Gets out a bag of popcorn to watch politicos beat each other in their wars...)

 

[Random]

The popular vote does not matter to politicians. Only getting elected does. Some politicians will portray this as an awesome plan because they believe it will help them, or their party, at the next election or two. End of story. Don't pretend they're doin' somethin' fer good old democracy here.

Yeah. Republicans will complain about anything that doesn’t let them win. During the 2000 election, the Bush team had a media blitz plan ready to go if Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote. The goal would have been to put political pressure on the electors to change electoral votes that should have gone to Gore, and have them switch to Bush in order to “reflect the will of the people”. Funny how they never used that…

 

[The Don]

What would be the rule ? Candidate with the largest number of votes wins or do you have to have a majority of the votes cast.

Either way you'll still have disputes because you'd either have a President with a minority of the votes or a requirement to have a transferrable vote (in which case the bickering would be about how the transfer takes place)

How often has this been a problem anyway with the President not receiving the largest popular vote ?

edited to add....

Never mind 4 other times (The other times were the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and possibly 1960.)

from Wiki

 

[Bikewer]

I believe that Diane Rehm will have a discussion on this issue tomorrow.

 

[Ladewig]

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

The Electoral college ensures that less populous states have an opportunity to effect the election. More populated states tend to be more liberal. If you did away with the electoral college then they could kiss their vote good bye. The liberals would be have an advantage. Yes there is a congress but the President carries a huge advantage.

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

 

[Ladewig]

Funny how leftists in the US manage to be so superciliously concerned with such important issues but can't possibly be bothered actually to find a viable candidate for, well, anything.

Isn't that a bit of a false dichotomy? Being concerning with reforming the the electoral college has nothing to do with producing a viable candidate.

Also, why do you consider their concern over this issue to be supercilious? I would save that adjective for people claiming to be True Patriots while trying to pass anti-flag-burning legislation or people claiming that they are doing God's work by trying to pass legislation to save Teri Schavo's life.

 

[mumblethrax]

This isn't likely to succeed, since it presents a prisoner's dilemma similar to the one in the Colorado referendum.

Presenting electoral reform as giving an advantage to those in the more populous states would only make sense if our current electoral system were designed to provide reasonable solutions to the problem of distribution of power. Since it wasn't (but instead emerged after the original electoral system crashed and burned) and it doesn't (you can't introduce proportional representation to a representational body of one), there's not much point in treating it as some kind of baseline for fairness.

 

[luchog]

Well, I'd say there is a simple answer. One man=one vote.

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.