electoral college and proportional representation

[VicDaring]

In the 17th ammendment thread, Shanek said this topic deserved its own discussion, and I agree.

A popular notion these days, particularly in the wake of the 2000 Florida Debacle, is to simple abolish the electoral college system and just count the votes.

I propose a compromise: Retain the electoral college system, but allocate electors on a percentage basis, ie. if a state has 10 electoral votes, and Candidate A wins that state by a 60-40 margin, he gets 6 and his opponent gets 4. Also, just for the sake of eliminating bad perceptions, these votes are locked in by law and automatically awarded, eliminating "electors" and the idea that shady guys in smoky rooms are electing whoever they want.

Unless I'm mistaken, both parties use this very system in primary elections. Why not translate it over to the general election?

 

[iain]

Why not just count up the votes, then?

I assume the problem you want to fix is that a president can be elected with fewer votes than his opponent(s), and counting up the votes seems like an obvious solution.

We have a similar problem in the UK, where a government can be elected with fewer votes that the opposition party. It happened last in 1974, and before that in 1951.

With only one position up for grabs, you can't have proportional representation, since that implies that %age of Republicans elected (for example) is similar to the %age of voters voting Republican.

The nearest you could get is to make sure that the elected person had over 50% of the votes cast, either by using a method like Alternative Vote (AV) or something like the French method where the top two candidates from the first round of voting go through to the final round.

 

[geni]

Unless I'm mistaken, both parties use this very system in primary elections. Why not translate it over to the general election?

Well before going as far as saying it is unesscary to bother with the electoral college at all. There is the fairly basic problem that it is still posible (all though more difficult) to win with few votes than you oponent.

 

[hgc]

...
A popular notion these days, particularly in the wake of the 2000 Florida Debacle, is to simpl[y] abolish the electoral college system and just count the votes.
...

It's easy to say why we should abolish the electoral college system, but damn near impossible to say how, making it a moot point.

In order to change the system, you have to amend the constitution. In order to amend the constitution you need, after approval by 2/3 of both houses of Congress, approval of 3/4 of the states. Easily more than 1/4 of states, with below-median state population, exercise outsize power in presidential elections due to the electoral college.

So how, anyone please tell us, will the electoral college system ever be abolished?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

Re: Re: electoral college and proportional representation

It's easy to say why we should abolish the electoral college system, but damn near impossible to say how, making it a moot point.

In order to change the system, you have to amend the constitution. In order to amend the constitution you need, after approval by 2/3 of both houses of Congress, approval of 3/4 of the states. Easily more than 1/4 of states, with below-median state population, exercise outsize power in presidential elections due to the electoral college.

So how, anyone please tell us, will the electoral college system ever be abolished?

Right after they legalize gay marriage and marijuana .....

Charlie (mmmm marijuana, arrrggghhhh) Monoxide

 

[Hexxenhammer]

Re: Re: electoral college and proportional representation

It's easy to say why we should abolish the electoral college system, but damn near impossible to say how, making it a moot point.

In order to change the system, you have to amend the constitution. In order to amend the constitution you need, after approval by 2/3 of both houses of Congress, approval of 3/4 of the states. Easily more than 1/4 of states, with below-median state population, exercise outsize power in presidential elections due to the electoral college.

So how, anyone please tell us, will the electoral college system ever be abolished?

North Dakota and the other itty-bitty states will never give up the power they have. 2 whole senators representing states with about 500,000 people ain't enough.

 

[Maya22]

Sorry about being a zombifier, but this thread brings up very interesting points. While following the Democratic primary results and caucus results, I keep on thinking about the 2000 election. Do you all think that the U.S. will ever abolish the electoral college? Why or why not?

 

[shemp]

Sorry about being a zombifier, but this thread brings up very interesting points. While following the Democratic primary results and caucus results, I keep on thinking about the 2000 election. Do you all think that the U.S. will ever abolish the electoral college? Why or why not?

No.

1. The congress scum never do anything unless it benefits them somehow. This doesn't.

2. It only takes 13 small states to block it.

Much as I hate the Electoral College, it does have one benefit: It eliminates the need for a national recount. Imagine a presidential election based solely on popular vote. If such an election was decided by just a couple of thousand votes out of 100,000,000, you'd have to have a national recount. With the electoral college, you only have a recount if a state's results are close.

The best system would be to keep the Electoral College, but to assign one electoral vote to each congressional district, and then to assign the remaining two votes to whoever wins the state popular vote. For example, here in New Hampshire, with two congressional districts, one electoral vote would be awarded to the winner of each congressional district, and two to whoever got more popular votes across the entire state. Presently, only two states (Maine and Nebraska) apportion their electoral votes in this way. The winner-take-all system is not mandated by the federal government; each state decides how to apportion their votes, and most states could change it simply by the passage and signing of a law (there may be a few where it is written into the state constitution, which would require an amendment).

 

[theprestige]

Sorry about being a zombifier, but this thread brings up very interesting points. While following the Democratic primary results and caucus results, I keep on thinking about the 2000 election. Do you all think that the U.S. will ever abolish the electoral college? Why or why not?

No. Because the US started as a voluntary union of independent states. The EC, like the Senate, preserves that spirit.

Also most Americans don't know or care enough to bother.

 

[Ladewig]

Why not just count up the votes, then?

I assume the problem you want to fix is that a president can be elected with fewer votes than his opponent(s), and counting up the votes seems like an obvious solution.

I consider the case you describe to be rather minor. To me, the big problem is a dozen swing states pretty much decide who gets elected. I hate the winner-take-all approach of most states. We either have to get more states to follow the Maine-Nebraska method or follow the suggestion in the OP.

 

[Foolmewunz]

I consider the case you describe to be rather minor. To me, the big problem is a dozen swing states pretty much decide who gets elected. I hate the winner-take-all approach of most states. We either have to get more states to follow the Maine-Nebraska method or follow the suggestion in the OP.

The problem with those swing states is that it is theoretically possible to win those 12 states by 1 vote each (with a whole lot of recounts, of course ) and then not get a single vote in 38 other states, but still win. A candidate could (again, in hyperbolic theory) lose the popular vote by 95,000,000 and still be POTUS.

The EC is a horrible idea which we're stuck with if it's left to Congress to change it. It's not in their interests to change it. And Congress critters do what's good for Congress critters.

Reform can be done on the state level, however, circumventing the national. If enough states think they got jobbed in a federal election or if there's ever a scenario like the absurd one I mentioned (the winner losing the pop vote by nearly 100,000,000), the states may start amending their state constitutions to match up with proportional distribution of the EC vote. But leave it to the states and you have state house run solidly by one political party or the other. Is Massachusetts going to vote to turn 35% or so of their votes over to the GOP? How about Texas turning 40% over to the Dems?

At present, the GOP with their shrinking demographic is never going to vote for proportional distribution or direct popular election. And while a proportional solution works well for the Dems, would the state house in Ohio or New York really vote to give 30/40/45% of their vote to the GOP Presidential selection if the state houses in Montana, Wyoming, Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, etc... are voting NOT to do so. Here, we'll give you 120 votes. You give us nothing. 'Cuz we like you so much. The solution works in ME and NE because their totals are insignificant.

Worst possible solution? Apportionment of EC votes according to Congressional District results. We already have states who've gerrymandered their districts so egregiously that the House members from those states far outnumber their numerical support.

 

[Cain]

Do you all think that the U.S. will ever abolish the electoral college?

It could happen... if the Electoral College begins to favor Democrats. For a long time it's favored conservatives because less populous, rural states get added influence (since Electoral Votes = # of House Reps. + # of Senators).

However, Republicans overwhelmingly win those small states whereas Democrats might be able to edge out victories in bigger, winner-take-all states such as Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania‎, and North Carolina. If this happens, particularly with a Republican winning the popular vote, maybe the parties can broker a principled agreement enshrining one person, one vote. I'm usually a thorough-going pessimist, but reform on this front is possible in the next decade or two.

 

[Random]

Sorry about being a zombifier, but this thread brings up very interesting points. While following the Democratic primary results and caucus results, I keep on thinking about the 2000 election. Do you all think that the U.S. will ever abolish the electoral college? Why or why not?

Yes, but it will take another election with a mismatch between popular and electoral vote winners. We probably would have had a serious conversation about it after the 2000 election if the Florida results had lead to a clear Bush win, instead of the three-ring circus that we got. And we don't need to amend the US Constitution to do it. The National Popular Vote Compact (Where a group of states representing a majority of electoral votes agree to give their votes to the winner of the popular vote) would give us a de facto popular vote without adding one word to the Constitution.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

ditch the EC

I consider the case you describe to be rather minor. To me, the big problem is a dozen swing states pretty much decide who gets elected. I hate the winner-take-all approach of most states. We either have to get more states to follow the Maine-Nebraska method or follow the suggestion in the OP.

except congressional districts are so gerrymandered that it'd be easy for the person who lost the state to get the most electoral votes from it. Obama carried Virginia, but most of the congressional districts went for Romney.

I think those that say the small states will lose influence if we abandon the EC for a Popular Vote have it backwards. Right now voters in most small states are already ignored because those states already heavily lean towards one party. If you are a Democrat in the Dakotas, or a Republican in Vermont or Delaware, you already know your presidential vote carries no weight. But if we go to the popular vote then every vote really does count, and that Democratic vote in Utah counts as much as the Democratic vote in a swing state. The Republican vote in Hawaii is as worth getting to the polls as the Republican vote in Ohio.

The states with the most people will still get more attention, but that would include large states that are now ignored because they already lean one way. Republicans in California and New York, and Democrats in Texas, will be worth getting to the polls as well.

 

[casebro]

Don't forget California, 45% of the voters in the biggest state are disenfranchised Republicans. We don't even get TV ads here.

Last election I did some thinking. I found one state that would have swung the EC the other way if only 200,000 voters switched sides in selected counties.

The point if the EC was that in bygone days, there was no way to communicate votes in a timely manner. Horseback was the only system. Delegates went to the conventions, and brought back the news.

Hmm, how many delegates to the first EC? 26 senators, like 30 congressmen? Did we even have a popular vote at all, or was it strictly the ol' smoke filled room?

 

[marplots]

If the popular vote is close enough for any of this to matter, it doesn't make a difference who gets the nod - either candidate will have about 50% support. They are equivalent enough. One candidate isn't "better" simply because they have 50 or 100,000 more votes, considering this is just an arbitrary snapshot of the people's choice on one particular day in November.

It is only a mathematically ill-informed, emotionally driven sense of misplaced fairness which generates and sustains the debate.

 

[cullennz]

I've always wondered how many average Americans actually understand how your election system works.

I've tried to and gave up

 

[sunmaster14]

If the popular vote is close enough for any of this to matter, it doesn't make a difference who gets the nod - either candidate will have about 50% support. They are equivalent enough. One candidate isn't "better" simply because they have 50 or 100,000 more votes, considering this is just an arbitrary snapshot of the people's choice on one particular day in November.

It is only a mathematically ill-informed, emotionally driven sense of misplaced fairness which generates and sustains the debate.

Exactly.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I've always wondered how many average Americans actually understand how your election system works.

I've tried to and gave up

It's actually quite simple, and operates on the same principle as a dog's digestion. The dog consumes something--rotten food, its own vomit, another dog's feces--and after a delay in which complex chemical processes occur, the dog outputs feces of its own. So does the American election system take garbage in and after great effort and distress output that same garbage in a worse form. The system is 100% effective in producing exactly the results we'd expect, which means it is a triumphant success.

Don't bother to vote for the Cynic Party in 2016 because your vote doesn't matter in the least, it's all rigged against you.

 

[Cain]

It is only a mathematically ill-informed, emotionally driven sense of misplaced fairness which generates and sustains the debate.

Nah. It's this misguided, emotionally driven sense of tradition which unnecessarily sustains the "debate." You know someone is left with terrible arguments when their strong points are that the Electoral College helps maintain the illusion of a mandate, or that an (extremely unlikely) recount may prove difficult.

In 2000, Gore beat Bush by 500,000 votes. It's tempting to say the whole affair could have been avoided without the Electoral College, but the absence of the EC changes the political landscape: votes everywhere matter, not just in large swing states (because the Founding Fathers apparently wanted Ohio to determine elections).