White men: Republicans!

[Abdul Alhazred]

Look at this!

In the American winner-take-all system, a candidate for office doesn't have to gain the votes of every citizen. And because of the Electoral College, a candidate for president doesn't even have to gain the votes of the majority of voters who participate. What he has to do is to gain a majority in enough states so that he has the majority of the Electoral votes. (Which is why more than one man has been elected president even though his opponent got more total votes.)

I am a white man and a life-long Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican for president so far in my life. But I am disgusted by the suicide cult tactics of my party.

What to do?

 

[Samus]

Well, that article does a pretty good job of stating the obvious: we don't directly elect our president, incumbents have many advantages in elections, and the Democratic party is the more racially diverse.

BTW, there were a whopping two presidents that didn't get the popular vote. There are movements about to eliminate the electoral college, and I think it's a safe thing to do. It would at least make my vote count (no point in me voting for president, a Republican will not win the electoral votes in NY). I do not think it is a flawed system, but I do not think it is necessary.

 

[Ed]

Well, that article does a pretty good job of stating the obvious: we don't directly elect our president, incumbents have many advantages in elections, and the Democratic party is the more racially diverse.

BTW, there were a whopping two presidents that didn't get the popular vote. There are movements about to eliminate the electoral college, and I think it's a safe thing to do. It would at least make my vote count (no point in me voting for president, a Republican will not win the electoral votes in NY). I do not think it is a flawed system, but I do not think it is necessary.

Won't happen. It requires a consititutional amendment and I don't think that the smaller states will go for it.

 

[Zep]

It was explained to me recently that each state is winner-takes-all for the Electoral College. How hard/easy is that to change to proportional representation? Is it a direct US constitutional issue? If so, which part of the constitution needs review in that case?

 

[shanek]

It was explained to me recently that each state is winner-takes-all for the Electoral College. How hard/easy is that to change to proportional representation? Is it a direct US constitutional issue? If so, which part of the constitution needs review in that case?

Here's what the Constitution says in that regard (Article II, Section 1, second paragraph):

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

So, it says how many electors each state gets, but that very last restriction is the only thing it says about who may be chosen electors, or how those electors are chosen. It's just left to whatever "the Legislature thereof may direct." So individual states could move to proportional selection without being in abeiance of the US Constitution, although they may have to amend their respective state constitutions depending on what they say about it.

 

[Jocko]

It was explained to me recently that each state is winner-takes-all for the Electoral College. How hard/easy is that to change to proportional representation? Is it a direct US constitutional issue? If so, which part of the constitution needs review in that case?

Each state has 1 elector for each congressman and senator it has.


The apportionment of congressmen changes every 10 years after the national census, purely by population. The political wrangling that goes into the re-drawing of these districts is truly something to behold.

Each state's 2 senators are elected at-large, without regard to population.

I believe the process for redistricting is written into the constitution, though I'm not familiar with the exact wording and placement. But it happens every 10 years like clockwork.

 

[BTox]

Maine and Nebraska are the two exception states to the winner-takes-all system. Like C. Cool, my vote is also probably wasted, unless NJ goes repub this year (it'd be the first time since 88).

 

[shanek]

I believe the process for redistricting is written into the constitution, though I'm not familiar with the exact wording and placement. But it happens every 10 years like clockwork.

It just has this to say:

The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative;

From Article I Section 2. They don't say anything about how a state should go about laying the districts, though, so we end up with the circuses we have now.

In 2000, the NC General Assembly passed redistricting which was shot down by the courts, only to come up with districts that weren't much better but barely squeaked by. What makes this so egregious is that the Libertarian Party of NC had already proposed and submitted a much better district map and the Democrats and Republicans ignored it.