Abolishing the Electoral College

[Ladewig]

Presidents direct legislation,

Legislation that must be passed by the Senate which gives tremendous power to the states with 6-figure populations.

appoint judges

Again, the Senate must vote on these appointees.

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.

There are issues that will produce splits between heavily-populated states and sparsely-populated states (e.g. oil drilling in Alaska, water rights on western rivers) but the Senate already has influence on, if not power over, those issues. Can you give an example of how people in less populated states will be harmed by some president who is about to run for re-election? I don't mean harm such as the president will not campaign in the smaller states; I mean an issue and a particular stance on that issue.

As for what is or is not American, the Senate makes the states equal, the House of Representaives makes the people equal. Both are American - switching the model from one of those to the other is not unamerican.

I'd settle for proportional distribution of electoral votes within each state.

 

[DSE]

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.

I see your point. And I do understand why the college was created. And I think it made sense then. But, I feel like most of the reasons that made it a compelling idea 200 years ago are no longer valid. The main sticking point for me are:
Should the president be elected by the states or the people?

The college does 2 things. It 1) consolidates all of the people in a state into a single voice, and 2) increases the influence of smaller states.

For me, the first issue just seems like a negative. In a day when everyone knows the individual candidates' views extremely well, why is it advantageous for a state who's people vote 51%/49% for a candidate to quiet half it's peoples' votes? And if a state is 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, the Democratic voters don't have any way to get the attention of the democratic candidate. That candidate doesn't have to speak to any region-specific Democratic concerns. Is there any benefit for making everyone from the state speak with a single voice?

On the second issue, why should less populous states have more pull in presidential elections than larger ones? I think our issues are a lot more country-wide these days. We have congress to address state-specific needs (and they do it well). But the president makes decisions for the entire country.

I understand why the college was useful 200 years ago. But I can't defend it today.

 

[wastepanel]

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.

Why should a Senator in Alaska technically be worth more than a senator in California? We can pretty much agree that the lifestyle in California is different than the lifestyle in Alaska. The Electoral College was established because its founders did not want more populated states to control the legislation of smaller states. Think about it...15 states dictating who the President is and the other 35. Could lead to something ugly.

 

[Kerberos]

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...

If flying politicallt is a demand your gonna make for sugestions on this thread they might as well close it. I'd say my idea is as flyable as any other that has been raised.

 

[Kerberos]

Why should a Senator in Alaska technically be worth more than a senator in California? We can pretty much agree that the lifestyle in California is different than the lifestyle in Alaska. The Electoral College was established because its founders did not want more populated states to control the legislation of smaller states. Think about it...15 states dictating who the President is and the other 35. Could lead to something ugly.

I've thought about it, wouldn't it require every single person in the 15 most populous states to vote for the same guy? Perhaps you should think about it. Currently however the president is de facto appointed solely by the swing states, the other [insert number of non-swing states] have no actual say.

 

[Random]

Why should a Senator in Alaska technically be worth more than a senator in California? We can pretty much agree that the lifestyle in California is different than the lifestyle in Alaska. The Electoral College was established because its founders did not want more populated states to control the legislation of smaller states. Think about it...15 states dictating who the President is and the other 35. Could lead to something ugly.

Again, those fifteen largest states may have more than half the population, but they don’t all vote the same way, and the votes in many large states are closer than people assume. A 55/45 split will give 100% of a states electoral votes to one candidate, while a direct vote system will really only give an edge of 10% of that states votes to the winner.

Also, the current system is not getting presidential candidates to focus on small states or large states for that matter. It is getting them to focus on “battleground” states, where presidential attention is lavished on states whose populations are wishy-washy.

Thirdly, the current system doesn’t really guarantee that the smaller states will get more attention than the larger states does it? Appealing to a slim majority in enough big states to get the majority of electoral votes and then ignore the rest of the country still works.

 

[Random]

If flying politicallt is a demand your gonna make for sugestions on this thread they might as well close it. I'd say my idea is as flyable as any other that has been raised.

If you want an idea that could fly politically in today’s America, might I suggest combining the presidential election with American Idol? I would pay good money to see Simon berating Bill Frist on his free-trade policies.

 

[pgwenthold]

Why should a Senator in Alaska technically be worth more than a senator in California? We can pretty much agree that the lifestyle in California is different than the lifestyle in Alaska. The Electoral College was established because its founders did not want more populated states to control the legislation of smaller states.

Yeah, maybe, BUT one of the most important things I noted originally is that this move to make the EC obsolete requires only a majority of the EC votes to occur and is 100% within the guidelines of the constitution, without question. It doesn't even stretch the constitution.

It certainly goes against _tradition_, but that is a different question.

Regardless of what the framers wanted to happen, they still wrote the constitution to allow for the country to go to effectively a popular vote winner if it so chose to do so, and it only takes a majority to make it happen.

 

[RandFan]

Legislation that must be passed by the Senate which gives tremendous power to the states with 6-figure populations.

But clearly the direction of the country changes depending on the President.

Again, the Senate must vote on these appointees.

I concede that there are checks and balances however that doesn't change the fact that the president can deeply affect the country. Certainly we see this now with the current appointment of judges. The president is a very important part of our government. A state whose people have little or no chance of influencing the selection of the president are disenfranchised.

There are issues that will produce splits between heavily-populated states and sparsely-populated states (e.g. oil drilling in Alaska, water rights on western rivers) but the Senate already has influence on, if not power over, those issues. Can you give an example of how people in less populated states will be harmed by some president who is about to run for re-election? I don't mean harm such as the president will not campaign in the smaller states; I mean an issue and a particular stance on that issue.

"Will not campaign in" is to say not influenced by. Certainly judges are very important. Also, the president's veto can be a powerful restraint to judicial activism. In the past the states have voted in a Republican president to counter balance a Democrat controlled congress. I had honestly thought that Bush would have lost his office in the last election but I think the so-called War on Terror changed the dynamics.

 

[RandFan]

I see your point. And I do understand why the college was created. And I think it made sense then. But, I feel like most of the reasons that made it a compelling idea 200 years ago are no longer valid. The main sticking point for me are:
Should the president be elected by the states or the people?

The college does 2 things. It 1) consolidates all of the people in a state into a single voice, and 2) increases the influence of smaller states.

For me, the first issue just seems like a negative. In a day when everyone knows the individual candidates' views extremely well, why is it advantageous for a state who's people vote 51%/49% for a candidate to quiet half it's peoples' votes? And if a state is 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, the Democratic voters don't have any way to get the attention of the democratic candidate. That candidate doesn't have to speak to any region-specific Democratic concerns. Is there any benefit for making everyone from the state speak with a single voice?

On the second issue, why should less populous states have more pull in presidential elections than larger ones? I think our issues are a lot more country-wide these days. We have congress to address state-specific needs (and they do it well). But the president makes decisions for the entire country.

I understand why the college was useful 200 years ago. But I can't defend it today.

I don't agree with all of your post but I'm willing to let it stand without argument. There is only so much time in the day and this is not a position that I'm passionate about. I want the college but the world wouldn't end if it were abolished.

 

[Random]

"Will not campaign in" is to say not influenced by. Certainly judges are very important. Also, the president's veto can be a powerful restraint to judicial activism. In the past the states have voted in a Republican president to counter balance a Democrat controlled congress. I had honestly thought that Bush would have lost his office in the last election but I think the so-called War on Terror changed the dynamics.

How is the president’s veto a restraint to “judicial activism”? The only real power the president has over the court is the ability to appoint new members.

And what is “judicial activism” anyway? The courts can’t exactly go out and rule against things they disagree with unless somebody brings a case to them. Theoretically they are supposed to interpret the law and constitution. The results of those interpretations may be widespread, but they are supposed to be ruling on law, not consequences.

 

[RandFan]

How is the president’s veto a restraint to “judicial activism”? The only real power the president has over the court is the ability to appoint new members.

And what is “judicial activism” anyway? The courts can’t exactly go out and rule against things they disagree with unless somebody brings a case to them. Theoretically they are supposed to interpret the law and constitution. The results of those interpretations may be widespread, but they are supposed to be ruling on law, not consequences.

Oops. Damn, damn, damn. Congressional activism.

Thank you, my apologies.

 

[Random]

No problem, it happens.

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't agree with all of your post but I'm willing to let it stand without argument. There is only so much time in the day and this is not a position that I'm passionate about. I want the college but the world wouldn't end if it were abolished.

And I really didn't start this thread in order to get into should we or should we not have the EC, but more to show that getting rid of the EC (at least, making it obsolete) is a lot easier than it appears at first glance. We don't need to amend the constitution to create a system that is defacto popular vote based. Amending the constitution is monumental. Making the EC obsolete is revisionary, but basically only requires a majority.

 

[RandFan]

And I really didn't start this thread in order to get into should we or should we not have the EC, but more to show that getting rid of the EC (at least, making it obsolete) is a lot easier than it appears at first glance. We don't need to amend the constitution to create a system that is defacto popular vote based. Amending the constitution is monumental. Making the EC obsolete is revisionary, but basically only requires a majority.

No argument. But remember the law of unintended consequences.

 

[wastepanel]

Again, those fifteen largest states may have more than half the population, but they don’t all vote the same way, and the votes in many large states are closer than people assume. A 55/45 split will give 100% of a states electoral votes to one candidate, while a direct vote system will really only give an edge of 10% of that states votes to the winner.

Also, the current system is not getting presidential candidates to focus on small states or large states for that matter. It is getting them to focus on “battleground” states, where presidential attention is lavished on states whose populations are wishy-washy.

Thirdly, the current system doesn’t really guarantee that the smaller states will get more attention than the larger states does it? Appealing to a slim majority in enough big states to get the majority of electoral votes and then ignore the rest of the country still works.

Alright, a few numbers are in order here:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

This link states the 2004 population of the US by state. Only 7 states have above 10 million in population. These states account for 141,700,000 people out of 293,700,000 (48%). 43 States account for the other 52%. The EC accounts these states as 226 out of a possible 538 (42%), while the other states account for 58% (or 312 Electoral votes). That means the minimum amount of states to carry to win the EC is 11 (7 most populated and 4 others to get 44 (Yes, I checked the math)). If a popular vote is installed, a candidate could carry a 60% of the big 7 states , and 41% of of the rest of the country. 60% is not inconceivable in an election either. If I was being conservative and that candidate carried 55% of the big 7, then he/she would have to carry 45% of any other state. Theoretically, 7 states could elect the President if the EC was abolished.

Ahhh...math skills...the answer to all of life's problems.

 

[pgwenthold]

Alright, a few numbers are in order here:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

This link states the 2004 population of the US by state. Only 7 states have above 10 million in population. These states account for 141,700,000 people out of 293,700,000 (48%). 43 States account for the other 52%. The EC accounts these states as 226 out of a possible 538 (42%), while the other states account for 58% (or 312 Electoral votes). That means the minimum amount of states to carry to win the EC is 11 (7 most populated and 4 others to get 44 (Yes, I checked the math)). If a popular vote is installed, a candidate could carry a 60% of the big 7 states , and 41% of of the rest of the country. 60% is not inconceivable in an election either. If I was being conservative and that candidate carried 55% of the big 7, then he/she would have to carry 45% of any other state. Theoretically, 7 states could elect the President if the EC was abolished.

And 11 with the EC is all that much better?

And I gotta ask, if you are getting 60% of 48% of the population, then why does it matter if they are from big states or small states?

In the world of popular vote, the state breakdown is an artificial construct. Why not use the X most populated counties? Or cities? Or religious groups? River valleys?

Given the extent of christians in the country, you could say that if you get 55% of the christian vote, you only need 35% of the non-christian vote to win. The response to that is, well, ok. And?

Making the argument based on state designation is arguing from an EC perspective.

Is NYC the same as upstate? Is Boulder, CO, the same as Co Spgs (hint: no)?

 

[Random]

Alright, a few numbers are in order here:

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0004986.html

This link states the 2004 population of the US by state. Only 7 states have above 10 million in population. These states account for 141,700,000 people out of 293,700,000 (48%). 43 States account for the other 52%. The EC accounts these states as 226 out of a possible 538 (42%), while the other states account for 58% (or 312 Electoral votes). That means the minimum amount of states to carry to win the EC is 11 (7 most populated and 4 others to get 44 (Yes, I checked the math)). If a popular vote is installed, a candidate could carry a 60% of the big 7 states , and 41% of of the rest of the country. 60% is not inconceivable in an election either. If I was being conservative and that candidate carried 55% of the big 7, then he/she would have to carry 45% of any other state. Theoretically, 7 states could elect the President if the EC was abolished.

Ahhh...math skills...the answer to all of life's problems.

Maybe it’s just me, but a sixty percent vote in the seven most populous states as well as a forty-one percent vote in the rest of the country seems to be a reasonable mandate for the presidency in a highly polarized nation. Certainly better than 51% in the top 11 and who cares what everywhere else.

 

[wastepanel]

And 11 with the EC is all that much better?

And I gotta ask, if you are getting 60% of 48% of the population, then why does it matter if they are from big states or small states?

In the world of popular vote, the state breakdown is an artificial construct. Why not use the X most populated counties? Or cities? Or religious groups? River valleys?

Given the extent of christians in the country, you could say that if you get 55% of the christian vote, you only need 35% of the non-christian vote to win. The response to that is, well, ok. And?

Making the argument based on state designation is arguing from an EC perspective.

Is NYC the same as upstate? Is Boulder, CO, the same as Co Spgs (hint: no)?

And what happens when 70-75% of California votes for a candidate from their own state? It legitamately could happen. If a candidate carries 75% of California voters, than he only needs to carry 47% of the rest of other 49 states. What it would mean is that the candidate coming from a big state has a much bigger chance of winning then a candidate from a smaller state. If that happened, could you imagine the uproar? Yes, the candidate won the election with a majority. But a candidate could theoretically lose 49 states and still be the President.

The EC provides insurance that a scenerio such as this could not occur. In the scenerio where a candidate could carry 51% of the big 11, that candidate would have to carry less than 34% of the rest of the country to not the popular vote.

 

[pgwenthold]

And what happens when 70-75% of California votes for a candidate from their own state? It legitamately could happen. If a candidate carries 75% of California voters, than he only needs to carry 47% of the rest of other 49 states. What it would mean is that the candidate coming from a big state has a much bigger chance of winning then a candidate from a smaller state. If that happened, could you imagine the uproar? Yes, the candidate won the election with a majority. But a candidate could theoretically lose 49 states and still be the President.

But they aren't trying to win states.

That is an argument from the assumption that the EC is a better approach.

Yeah, a candidate could theoretically lose 49 states and still be the President in a popular vote approach. OTOH, in the EC format, a candidate could theoretically win 11 states by 1 vote each and get shut out in the rest, losing the popular vote 75% - 25%, and still be president!

You need to be careful in arguing from a worst case scenerio outcome. I don't see it obviously favoring the EC.