Is It Time To Reconsider Voting Rights Yet?

[Belz...]

I don't understand objections to proportional allocation.

Proportional allocation, the way I understand it, removes the actual electors and automatically assigns 'votes' based on actual votes. I think the objection is that this disallows the electors from voting their conscience. Although this makes sense in theory, I think in practice they pretty much never vote their conscience and instead vote the way they were assigned to vote, so in practice it wouldn't make much of a difference for that.

 

[Bob001]

Proportional allocation, the way I understand it, removes the actual electors and automatically assigns 'votes' based on actual votes. I think the objection is that this disallows the electors from voting their conscience. Although this makes sense in theory, I think in practice they pretty much never vote their conscience and instead vote the way they were assigned to vote, so in practice it wouldn't make much of a difference for that.

You could still have actual human electors that would vote in an electoral college. But instead of all of the electors being, say, pre-selected Clinton or Trump electors, some would be from the Clinton slate and some from the Trump slate. Each party could create its own seniority or priority system to decide which actual people would be chosen.

 

[psionl0]

Proportional allocation, the way I understand it, removes the actual electors and automatically assigns 'votes' based on actual votes. I think the objection is that this disallows the electors from voting their conscience. Although this makes sense in theory, I think in practice they pretty much never vote their conscience and instead vote the way they were assigned to vote, so in practice it wouldn't make much of a difference for that.

Proportional representation does not necessarily mean doing away with the EC. It just means that in each state, the number of electors representing each candidate would be in proportion to the number of votes that candidate received.

If no run off election is held then it is feasible that nobody would reach the magic 270 college votes so the electors would have to thrash it out among themselves to decide who gets the job. Thus, it would be the opposite of your claim; electors would possibly have to vote according to conscience more often.

 

[Loss Leader]

I don't think anything is going to change. The party with the power to start revamping the process will always be the one that last benefitted from it.

 

[Travis]

Hence the need for an actual viable third party to siphon off power and prevent supermajorities and such. But it seems that all our present third parties are only interested in running a nutty presidential candidate every four years then fading into obscurity.

 

[dudalb]

Hence the need for an actual viable third party to siphon off power and prevent supermajorities and such. But it seems that all our present third parties are only interested in running a nutty presidential candidate every four years then fading into obscurity.

For some reason viable third parties are fairly rare in English speaking countries. It is always two major parties and a number of small ones.
What does happen is that occasionally one of the major parties collapses and one of the minor parties moves in to fill its place.Which is what happened in the 1920's with the Labor party taking over the Liberals parties place as the Tories main opponent.

 

[Bob001]

Hence the need for an actual viable third party to siphon off power and prevent supermajorities and such. But it seems that all our present third parties are only interested in running a nutty presidential candidate every four years then fading into obscurity.

A substantial third party would almost guarantee that no candidate would win an electoral college majority, which would mean the House would (s)elect the President. Not necessarily a great outcome.

 

[Foolmewunz]

A substantial third party would almost guarantee that no candidate would win an electoral college majority, which would mean the House would (s)elect the President. Not necessarily a great outcome.

Well, with party identity as strong as it is at present (and has been for the past three decades) is that such a bad thing? It turns the US into a closer replica of the parliamentary system. You elect a party based on its programs and policies. It's the party's job to get someone palatable to the public and to all factions within the party to be its leader.

There could be all sorts of benefits being more like the British or Canadian or Australian systems (which, keep your shirts on, are not identical). For one thing, the "max term but with possibility of vote of no-confidence" rids us of large elements of Elections, Inc. a business sector we could, quite frankly, do without. Yeah, I like the motel operators in Iowa and New Hampshire, but when a state can list its leading business sectors and include electioneering up near the top, you've got a problem.

If the House selected the POTUS and VP, you'd have less concentration on the personality politics of Charisma Charlie at the top of the ticket and a whole lot more on the candidates for Congress. The Primaries, Inc. (a fully-owned subsidiary of Elections, Inc.) could file for bankruptcy. And with the Parliamentary system of calling an election when it was mandated by the opposition or convenient to the party in power would mean that election-time would become an ad hoc event, not a precision-timed event. Take some of the Machiavellis out of the game and put some spin doctors on welfare.

 

[Loss Leader]

A substantial third party would almost guarantee that no candidate would win an electoral college majority, which would mean the House would (s)elect the President. Not necessarily a great outcome.

If the House is split between multiple parties, then they'll have to compromise to form a government. It's not a particularly bad solution though I doubt it could evolve from what we have now.

If the Republicans get slammed across the country in 2018, then they might not nominate Trump. Trump forms a 3rd party ... it's a long shot to go even from that scenario to a House with three or four parties.

 

[theprestige]

If the House is split between multiple parties, then they'll have to compromise to form a government.

The House does not work that way.

/Morbo

 

[Loss Leader]

The House does not work that way.

/Morbo

If the house were split between four or so parties and nobody won an electoral majority, the House would elect the President. In that case, there might be some serious horse trading to get a compromise President.

 

[Bob001]

The House does not work that way.

/Morbo

Neither does the Constitution. The House -- with each state delegation casting one vote -- would elect a President, not "form a government." And if they failed to reach a majority, the lines of succession are established. The VP would serve, and if there's no VP the Speaker of the House would be Acting President. The office would never be vacant.

 

[psionl0]

Proportional representation does not necessarily mean doing away with the EC. It just means that in each state, the number of electors representing each candidate would be in proportion to the number of votes that candidate received.

Out of interest, I calculated what the make-up of the electoral college would be if proportional allocation had been used in each state.

The results:

Trump|265
Clinton|259
Johnson|11
McMullen|1
Stein|2

Trump would have needed an extra 5 EC votes to get elected and Clinton would have needed 11. (Otherwise, it's off to the House of Reps).

ETA Here is a breakdown by state:

|TRUMP|CLINTON|JOHNSON|STEIN|MCMULLIN|TOTAL
Alabama|6|3||||9
Alaska|2|1||||3
Arizona|5|5|1|||11
Arkansas|4|2||||6
California|18|34|2|1||55
Colorado|4|4|1| ||9
Connecticut|3|4||||7
DC||3||||3
Delaware|1|2||||3
Florida|14|14|1|||29
Georgia|8|7|1|||16
Hawaii|1|3||||4
Idaho|3|1||||4
Illinois|8|11|1|||20
Indiana|6|4|1|||11
Iowa|3|3||||6
Kansas|4|2||||6
Kentucky|5|3||||8
Louisiana|5|3||||8
Maine|2|2||||4
Maryland|6|4||||10
Massachusetts|7|4||||11
michigan|8|8||||16
Minnesota|5|5||||10
Mississippi|4|2||||6
Missouri|6|4||||10
Montana|2|1||||3
"N. Carolina"|8|7||||15
Nebraska|3|2||||5
Nevada|3|3||||6
"New Hampsh-"|2|2||||4
"New Jersey"|6|8||||14
New Mexico|2|2|1|||5
New york|11|17||1||29
"North Dakota"|2|1||||3
Ohio|9|9||||18
Oklahoma|5|2||||7
Oregon|3|4||||7
Pennsylvania|10|10||||20
"Rhode Island"|2|2||||4
"S. Carolina"|5|4||||9
"South Dakota"|2|1||||3
Tennessee|7|4||||11
Texas|20|17|1|||38
Utah|3|2|||1|6
Vermont|1|2||||3
Virginia|6|7||||13
Washington|5|6|1|||12
"West Virginia"|3|2||||5
Wisconsin|5|5||||10
Wyoming|2|1||||3
TOTAL|265|259|11|2|1|538

 

[Hlafordlaes]

[Slew of favorite restrictions and fevered notions].... Or not. Most anything and everything is unworkable or represents unfair restrictions. Rats.

Maybe we should at least work on "The Toxins That Threaten Our Brains." Or not. Trump's EPA is of the opinion we need to reenact the Day of the Tentacle soonest.

 

[Belz...]

Proportional representation does not necessarily mean doing away with the EC. It just means that in each state, the number of electors representing each candidate would be in proportion to the number of votes that candidate received.

If no run off election is held then it is feasible that nobody would reach the magic 270 college votes so the electors would have to thrash it out among themselves to decide who gets the job. Thus, it would be the opposite of your claim; electors would possibly have to vote according to conscience more often.

It's unfortunate that we don't get to test this.

 

[Belz...]

A substantial third party would almost guarantee that no candidate would win an electoral college majority, which would mean the House would (s)elect the President. Not necessarily a great outcome.

Yeah, the rules'd have to change so that a plurality would be enough. A minority government, in Canada for example, has to make a coalition in order to effectively rule. Hasn't been a problem here. 'Course, we don't have presidential elections.

 

[psionl0]

It's unfortunate that we don't get to test this.

You might be right. Looking through the Electoral College History, it appears that since 1804 (after the 12th amendment was passed), there has been only one occasion when the winner didn't get an absolute majority of the EC votes. That was in 1812 when the HoR selected John Quincy Adams even though Andrew Jackson got more EC votes.

Yeah, the rules'd have to change so that a plurality would be enough.

That would be worse than winner takes all!

If you are going to do away with the EC (or render their votes superfluous) then you should at least have preferential voting so that the winner gets an absolute majority of the EC votes.

A minority government, in Canada for example, has to make a coalition in order to effectively rule. Hasn't been a problem here. 'Course, we don't have presidential elections.

That is a common occurrence in countries that use some form of proportional representation but Canada has single member electorates using FPTP and has had majority rule since 2011 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections).

Of course, Canada doesn't have to deal with a powerful but hostile Senate as frequently happens in Australia and the US.

 

[Belz...]

That would be worse than winner takes all!

I don't think that having to collaborate with the opposition is a bad thing.

Of course, Canada doesn't have to deal with a powerful but hostile Senate as frequently happens in Australia and the US.

Well our senate isn't beholden to the voters.

 

[psionl0]

I don't think that having to collaborate with the opposition is a bad thing.

I agree but unless I was reading you wrong, you were advocating that a simple plurality of EC votes should be enough to elect the president. You weren't discussing the parliamentary make-up.

 

[Belz...]

I agree but unless I was reading you wrong, you were advocating that a simple plurality of EC votes should be enough to elect the president. You weren't discussing the parliamentary make-up.

Yes, my bad. Maybe the runner-up should be VP.