Electoral College

[Cain]

I've ranted and argued against the Electoral College in past posts. Do all of us now agree that this worthless, anti-democratic anachronism should be totally abolished after the election? Surely I do not have to review the feeble arguments in favor of this out-dated institution or the obvious and devestating counter-arguments.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Would you replace it with the Preferential voting system?

 

[Benguin]

Would you replace it with the Preferential voting system?

Is that the aussie version of proportional rep?

 

[Cain]

I think he's referring to rank voting, which is what they have in Australia.

From my understanding that means one -- as it says --ranks her choices.

So I vote for Nader then Gore then Bush.

If none of the candidates manage to capture a majority of the vote (or in somce cases 55%), there's an instant run-off between the top two nominees. My vote would automatically go to Gore. This gets rid of the disincentive for "wasting" one's vote on a third-party candidate.

Rank voting is much preferred, in my opinion.

 

[Kopji]

Sorry I missed the big discussion and I remain in ambivalence about it. What was the suggestion allowing less populous states to have political influence over what would otherwise be an election always determined by the big population centers (California, New York, Texas, Florida, etc).

My federal taxes are sent away just to be "rewarded" back, so the electoral college seems to provide some 'voice' in the form of political influence. What method helps prevent not being taxed more here, to pay for bigger programs there?

 

[Cain]

Kopji, I do not totally understand your argument or your ambivalence. This seems like a variation on the "tyranny of the many" theme (but wihtout the heavy rherotic, obviously).

Federal tax dollars tend to flow out of blue states and into red states. Money is sent from states like NJ and MA to states like NM and (probably) AZ.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I think he's referring to rank voting, which is what they have in Australia.

From my understanding that means one -- as it says --ranks her choices.

So I vote for Nader then Gore then Bush.

If none of the candidates manage to capture a majority of the vote (or in somce cases 55%), there's an instant run-off between the top two nominees. My vote would automatically go to Gore. This gets rid of the disincentive for "wasting" one's vote on a third-party candidate.

Rank voting is much preferred, in my opinion.

Yes, that's right.

Although 'rank' has negative connotations to me. You should say, "Preferential voting is much preferred, in my opinion" and watch peoples' eyeballs spin in their sockets.

 

[Richard G]

It is needed to ensure that we remain a republic, not a mobacracy.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It is needed to ensure that we remain a republic, not a mobacracy.

How does changing the electoral college system to another system turn your country into a 'mobacracy'?

 

[Cain]

How does changing the electoral college system to another system turn your country into a 'mobacracy'?

Because all the brilliant people from South and Mid-west will have equal votes.

My response to this argument-by-slogant nonsense about a "mobocracy" or "tyranny of the majority" is always the same: What's so charming about rule by the few? Why should a person's vote in Wyoming count for more than a person's vote in California? We're all supposed to be Americans deciding nation-wide office. Perhaps we should abolish the 17th Amendment while we're at it.

Richard- you are an insufferable moron.

 

[SlippyToad]

I've ranted and argued against the Electoral College in past posts. Do all of us now agree that this worthless, anti-democratic anachronism should be totally abolished after the election? Surely I do not have to review the feeble arguments in favor of this out-dated institution or the obvious and devestating counter-arguments.

Here are some excellent arguments against, from a series in Slate called "America's Worst College."

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

I think the most compelling (and probably only) argument for the electoral college is that it supposedly gives smaller states a voice they would not ordinarily have. However, the quoted analysis in Part 1 of Noah's piece shreds that to bits. Simply put, bigger states get a bigger bump, and smaller states lose out anyway.

 

[toddjh]

My response to this argument-by-slogant nonsense about a "mobocracy" or "tyranny of the majority" is always the same: What's so charming about rule by the few? Why should a person's vote in Wyoming count for more than a person's vote in California?

Can I assume, then, that you are in favor of abolishing the Senate as well? It exists for a similar purpose and serves much the same function as the electoral college: to give smaller states more representation than a strict ratio of populations would suggest.

Jeremy

 

[Just thinking]

Can I assume, then, that you are in favor of abolishing the Senate as well? It exists for a similar purpose and serves much the same function as the electoral college: to give smaller states more representation than a strict ratio of populations would suggest.

Excellent point.

Individual states still exist as states, not just a portion of one big continuous political land mass. They came into this country as states and are allowed to remain as states -- until all are willing to give up their individuality (and individual laws) to one single governing rule, the "College" is here to stay.

The existing House & Senate are a good compromise to balance their individualisms while retaining the significance of their populations.

 

[Sushi]

It seems to me the anti-electoral college crowd are simply a bunch of whiners who don't understand that our government is NOT a democracy.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

It seems to me the anti-electoral college crowd are simply a bunch of whiners who don't understand that our government is NOT a democracy.

Assuming your little semantic game has any hint of versmillitude, why can't you make it one?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Assuming your little semantic game has any hint of versmillitude, why can't you make it one?

Sorry, I forgot you're a Libertarian nutjob. Ignore the question.

 

[Cleon]

Can I assume, then, that you are in favor of abolishing the Senate as well? It exists for a similar purpose and serves much the same function as the electoral college: to give smaller states more representation than a strict ratio of populations would suggest.

Jeremy

I think this argument for the EC, the question of smaller states, isn't particularly valid.

Electoral votes are population-based. The higher-populated states have more electoral votes. (The technical mechanism is that a state has the number of electoral votes equal to its number of Senators [2] plus its number of Representatives, which are largely based on population size/density.)

So people are concerned that candidates would ignore the states with smaller populations--well, isn't that what happens now? When was the last time a candidate campaigned in Alaska? Or South Dakota? The candidates focus on states A) they can win and/or B) with significant electoral votes. For example, neither candidate has really campaigned in Georgia. Bush came here a couple times early in the campaign, mainly for Republican fundraisers. Kerry hasn't bothered. Why? Because there's a 99% chance Georgia will vote for Bush, and even so, we don't have a particularly large number of electoral votes (15--about average).

States like Montana or the Dakotas would not see any particular difference if we switched to a purely popular-vote mechanism. The major parties would still focus on the higher-populated areas, with a couple swings through smaller towns to illustrate that they're "in touch with the working man." No significant change, really.

 

[toddjh]

Electoral votes are population-based. The higher-populated states have more electoral votes. (The technical mechanism is that a state has the number of electoral votes equal to its number of Senators [2] plus its number of Representatives, which are largely based on population size/density.)

Indeed. And the ratio between the state with the most electoral votes and the state with the least is, if I recall correctly, about five times as big as it was when the Constitution was drafted. Certainly the effect of the electoral college has been diluted over time, due to the increasing population and the corresponding growth of the House.

But really, that's irrelevant to the question at hand -- the shrinking influence of the electoral college could be corrected by changing the vote distribution just as easily as the college itself could be abolished. The real issue is, should the presidency be determined by popular vote? I can't think of a good reason, really. The people already have their say, in the form of their Representatives and (these days) Senators. Just as the legislature was originally designed to give state governments representation as well as the people, I think some power ought to be vested with the states when determining the executive. I don't see any particular advantage in giving that power to the people alone.

And the ultimate question that underlies that is, should a state's influence in the union be decided strictly by population? Again, I don't see any particular reason to arrange things that way -- surely there are better metrics than sheer number of people. The framers of the Constitution went to great lengths to prevent that, and they seemed to know what they were doing.

Perhaps the fact that presidential candidates don't campaign in smaller states points to the fact that the electoral college should be emphasized even more, not less. Then again, I'm told that I have an extraordinarily small amount of faith in the intelligence and good will of the voting public, so maybe I'm too harsh -- though I think the overwhelming popular support of things like the Ten Commandments at the courthouse and the Constitutional ban on gay marriage vindicates my cynicism somewhat.

Jeremy

 

[glsunder]

perhaps the popular vote should count for a certain number of electorial votes, such as 10.

 

[Cain]

Christ, what happened to my post?

Slippery- I remember those articles and saved most of them. In fact, responding to an earlier post I looked for a different column by Timothy Noah. You've inspired me to look harder:

Want to know something funny about Taxachusetts? For every dollar it pays Uncle Sam in taxes, it receives only 79* cents back in federal services and subsidies. That ranks it 44th among the 50 states in federal expenditures per dollar of taxes. Indeed, there's a very strong correlation between liberal, pro-government "blue states" and states that are least dependent on federal spending. There's also a strong correlation between conservative, anti-government "red states" and states that are most dependent on federal spending. (Click here for details.) If you think of Red America as stubbornly self-reliant and Blue America as a drain on the Treasury, you've got it exactly backward.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2108210/

Can I assume, then, that you are in favor of abolishing the Senate as well? It exists for a similar purpose and serves much the same function as the electoral college: to give smaller states more representation than a strict ratio of populations would suggest.

Absolutely I would like to see the Senate abolished (I've said so earlier on these boards). I do not think the arguments against each institution perfectly overlap, however.

Sushi:

It seems to me the anti-electoral college crowd are simply a bunch of whiners who don't understand that our government is NOT a democracy.

My goodness you're dense. We're a representative democracy. Or at least we claim to be. I wonder what the hell Bush is talking about when he says we're "exporting democracy."

And the ultimate question that underlies that is, should a state's influence in the union be decided strictly by population? Again, I don't see any particular reason to arrange things that way -- surely there are better metrics than sheer number of people. The framers of the Constitution went to great lengths to prevent that, and they seemed to know what they were doing.

The framers were politicans who settled on the Great Compromise. Virgina wanted a legislature based on population. New Jersey wanted all states to be equal. The irony today is that the latter's population exceeds the former's. The current system of the upper and lower house, the Electoral College, and so on are not derived from divine esoteric principles. Neither was the idea of counting slaves as 3/5 of a person.

That system of strong state rights, the one that has served us so well, resulted in a violent civil war (and our "second founding fathers," the ones who passed the 14th Amendment and initiated nation-building, fundamentally changed the role and direction of our country).

All this nostalgia for the Founding Fathers disgusts me. One ought to be able to put forth free-standing arguments. Those white guys are dead. They can inform our opinions, but we're the ones who decide.