US electoral system

[Sea Skimmer]

Tyranny of the majority occurs in any democratic system regardless of implementation and intention.

But it can be limited.

Also, the Electoral College is not the only solution, its for a system that lacked the modern conveniences of real-time communication. If you were to modernise the system you could remove the Electoral College while still maintaining proportional representation. The Electoral College is not the last bastion against tyranny.

Not the only solution perhaps, but it does its job so why bother changing it?

[RedImperator]

Do you even understand when he says ever vote counted states wouldn't have any unfair advantage You just count up all the fucking votes for example (hypothetical) 18,000,000 Californians voted for Gore you add that up with all the other states votes for Gore as a popular vote really all that matters is that every vote is counted there is no unfair advantage except in an electoral college which then allows for a president to win even though the popular vote said other wise. All you do is count ever vote that went to the person in the Country and the person with the most votes win. I still don't see how this would give a state a unfair advatage.

Friendly advice: They invented punctuation for a reason. Try using it sometime.

I understood perfectly well what Aleksya meant. Once I sorted out your half-intelligible rambling, however, it became apparent that you did not understand what I meant. So I shall try to explain it again. I'll make a conscious effort to use smaller words this time, just for you.

Direct popular election of the president would give large states an unfair advantage over small states because the top ten most populous states could effectively dominate one-and-a-half branches of the Federal government: the Executive and the House of Representatives.

If the states are merely provinces, this doesn't matter--they're just convenient administrative districts and all sovereign power (in the Hobbesian sense of sovereign) lies with the people. This is not, however, how the United States is constituted. States are independent entities and coequal partners with each other in the Union. Therefore, regardless of whether California's population is sixty-eight times that of Wyoming, the states are equal and there must be some mechanism by which California's advantage is nullified. The structure of the Senate is one way this is done. The Electoral College is another. The Electoral College does not make the states prefectly equal the way the Senate does, but it does level the playing field somewhat (California is 18 times as powerful as Wyoming instead of 68). This is acceptable because it compromises between a simple one-man/one-vote popular system and, say, a system that gives each state one vote, with the House of Representatives holding the tiebreaker.

You don't, of course, have to agree with the concept of states needing to be equal (though that would open up an entirely new debate on the nature of federalism), but even on the level of the individual, the Electoral College protects against a tyranny of the majority by ensuring that voters in small states are not shut out of national politics. This was a major concern of the Framers and the cause of most of the debate in the Constitutional Convention. If you can demonstrate that the national parties and national officeholders would have any rational political reason to care about voters in Idaho or Nebraska or Wyoming when they can win the election without their contribution, you might have an argument, but as yet you've not done so and I frankly doubt you can.

[FettKyle]

I still don't understand so I will stay out. Thank you for trying . As for that entire run on Sentence I was up to late very sleepy. Plus English was never my best subject.

[Alyeska]

It's perfectly fine. Without it, small states would have essentially zero voice in electing the president, which is unacceptable in a Federal system, even if it can allow for a candidate to lose the popular vote by a statistically insignificant margin and still win the election.

Ahem? With the electoral system all loosing votes in small states are pointless. With a non electoral system ALL votes count which mean even small states have an important voice.

Um, a few numbers. According to the 2000 census, California has almost 34 million people--33,871,648, to be exact. Pretending for a minute they're all registered voters, to win a majority in California a candidate must capture 16,935,825 votes. That is more than the combined total populations of Nevada, New Mexico, West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, Maine, New Hampshire, Hawaii, Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, the District of Columbia, and Wyoming. Are you starting to see the problem for residents of small states if there's no electoral college?

Now, these numbers don't matter worth a damn if states are just administrative regions and you're treating their populations only as the general population of the United States, but they're not--they're coequal partners in a Federal union, and an electoral system that weights seventeen states less than a 1-vote majority in the single largest state can't work in that situation. The Electoral College actually gives more weight to the votes of individuals in the smallest states, but so does the United States Senate (your vote counts for more if you're electing a senator from Wyoming, which has less than half a million people, than it does a senator from California, with 34 million people, but your senator and the Californian's senator's votes count the same in Congress). The only election in which each voter's choice is weighted the same no matter where they live is in elections for Congress, since under the Constitution and several Supreme Court rulings, every Congressional district in the country should be as close to the same size as every other one as mathmatically possible. This was a deliberate choice on the part of the Framers, one of the mechanisms to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority.

If the president is elected by popular vote there is no fucking state elections. There are no state borders. There are population regions. However, a single voter still has a voice. In the current system my vote didn't count worth a damn. That is because the electoral system DENIES the voice of the minority. With a popular vote the canadite who has the most votes wins and its as simple as that. So fucking what if California out populates those other states? They have that many people. Then again, those small states will finaly be able to voice their true opinions rather then having their voice trampled by the electoral college.

[Alyeska]

Do you even understand when he says ever vote counted states wouldn't have any unfair advantage You just count up all the fucking votes for example (hypothetical) 18,000,000 Californians voted for Gore you add that up with all the other states votes for Gore as a popular vote really all that matters is that every vote is counted there is no unfair advantage except in an electoral college which then allows for a president to win even though the popular vote said other wise. All you do is count ever vote that went to the person in the Country and the person with the most votes win. I still don't see how this would give a state a unfair advatage.

I've never seen such run-on sentances!

The problem is that you're considering each state merely an administrative district of the US, when they're really equal partners of a union. If in a popular system certain high-population states can swamp low-population states, the partners become unequal in the election of POTUS. The politics of those high-population states thus become ascendant over those of the low-population states.

And the electoral system which denies the voice of the people and already "tramples" the smaller states is fair?

The large populate states ARE the important states in the presidential races today. As it is a scant 25% of the registered voters can elect a President against the wishes of the other 75%. All you need to do is win the majority in the main electoral states and nothing more. That is wrong. A system that allows a President to overwhelmingly loose the majority vote yet still become President.

[Alyeska]

I think we should keep it, but change it so that the electoral votes are distributed based on percentages, i.e. if you win 20% of Florida you get 20% of Florida's vote.

I like that idea better than the winner take all most states currently have.

I do think we should keep the electoral system as a way to somewhat protect the less populous states but I think a proportional electoral system within each state would better represent people.

Protect? I live in Montana. How the fuck am I protected when my vote didn't even count towards the presidential election? I voted for Nader yet the state fucking gave all of its electoral votes to Bush. That is not protecting me, that is hurting my voice.

[RedImperator]

Did you read any of what I posted about WHY it's important to consider states as individual entities as well as the people? There's this little pieces of legalese called Federalism that says the states aren't just administrative regions, and because of it, you CAN'T erase state boundaries or say they're just population regions. They're not, they never have been, and the minute they become so is the death of Federalism.

You seem to be rather short-sighted about this whole thing. The electoral system FAVORS voters in small states. California has 34 times as many people as Montana, but only 18 times as many electoral votes. Your vote is weighted more heavily in that state. And before you start screaming and bitching about how your vote didn't count because you backed a loser, I never defended the winner-takes-all system. Unfortunately, in the case of Montana, my system of giving both Senatorial votes to the statewide winner and awarding the House votes on a district-by-district basis is still winner takes all, because despite having over 900,000 people, you only have one Congressional district.

Unfortunately for your vision of popular democracy, Federal money isn't doled out on an individual basis. It's doled out by state. Direct popular election makes so-called "flyover country" irrevelant in the Presidential election. Who's going to campaign in Wyoming or Montana or any state with less than ten million people? What president is going to take those states' interests into account when considering whether to sign or veto a bill? Without SOME way to compensate for the population gap between the large and small states, small states are left with the Senate to represent their interests, while the large states control the House and the Presidency. For Chrissakes, the Constitutional Convention nearly failed because of this issue, and you'd undo a workable compromise that needs to a little repair work in favor of a system that will do exactly what the anti-Federalists said the Constitution would do. It wouldn't be good for small states, it wouldn't be good for citizens of small states, and it wouldn't be good for republicanism (small "r" deliberate).

[Alyeska]

Did you read any of what I posted about WHY it's important to consider states as individual entities as well as the people? There's this little pieces of legalese called Federalism that says the states aren't just administrative regions, and because of it, you CAN'T erase state boundaries or say they're just population regions. They're not, they never have been, and the minute they become so is the death of Federalism.

You seem to be rather short-sighted about this whole thing. The electoral system FAVORS voters in small states. California has 34 times as many people as Montana, but only 18 times as many electoral votes. Your vote is weighted more heavily in that state. And before you start screaming and bitching about how your vote didn't count because you backed a loser, I never defended the winner-takes-all system. Unfortunately, in the case of Montana, my system of giving both Senatorial votes to the statewide winner and awarding the House votes on a district-by-district basis is still winner takes all, because despite having over 900,000 people, you only have one Congressional district.

Unfortunately for your vision of popular democracy, Federal money isn't doled out on an individual basis. It's doled out by state. Direct popular election makes so-called "flyover country" irrevelant in the Presidential election. Who's going to campaign in Wyoming or Montana or any state with less than ten million people? What president is going to take those states' interests into account when considering whether to sign or veto a bill? Without SOME way to compensate for the population gap between the large and small states, small states are left with the Senate to represent their interests, while the large states control the House and the Presidency. For Chrissakes, the Constitutional Convention nearly failed because of this issue, and you'd undo a workable compromise that needs to a little repair work in favor of a system that will do exactly what the anti-Federalists said the Constitution would do. It wouldn't be good for small states, it wouldn't be good for citizens of small states, and it wouldn't be good for republicanism (small "r" deliberate).

And you seem to fail to understand that campaigning in the big states won't mean a damned thing when the person can't get the whole state. The current system might have California at 18 times that of Montana, but any presidential canadite gets all 18 of that. In a popular vote election the canadite only gets the exact vote of that region. There won't be any of this 34 times crap. As it is the major canadites already spend most of their time in those states. Just how often do the canadites really go state to state in the pathetic 3 vote states? They might stop by ONCE and thats it. The system is already set up for the canadites to favor the major states. Furthermore, the system kills the will of the people.

You have yet to say how I am protected when my vote is shit on. I voted for Nader yet the state voted entirely for Bush thanks to the electoral system. That is not protection, that is thievery.

[Joe]

Your vote does indeed count in the selection of your state electors. And based on that election, your state chose to send Bush electors to represent itself, and the states, after all, are what this Republic is all about. The Electoral College is an important part of American federalism, as outdated as it is, and is misunderstood by pretty much everyone worldwide and by a lot of people in America, as well. Case in point: play the game Grand Theft Auto: Vice City (by Scottish developers), and you'll hear a parody of an American politician explaining how Americans don't elect their leaders, instead allowing them to be chosen through "an elite electoral college." True, Vice City is just a video game not to be taken seriously, but it still offers some brief insight as to how the electoral college is viewed abroad. If I were dictator for a day I would create a PR department for the Electoral College to explain to the media how the electoral college functions, its importance to the American system, and why it shouldn't be changed.

Red seems to be on top of thing as far as explaining the advantages of the Electoral College, so I won't dwell on that; I will focus more on some of the potential problems that could result from a direct popular election of the President in the United States. A direct popular election will encourage third party/indepedent candidates to run, simply because they can, as opposed to the electoral college system, which is not at all favorable to third party candidates. This will make it extremely difficult for one candidate to choose any sort of a mandate. Case in point: Russia, 1996, Boris Yeltsin. Russia has a direct popular election of the President. Despite receiving a 65% vote of no confidence in the first round of the election, Yeltsin went on to win the Presidency. The Electoral College will always produce a clear mandate from the states, which, again, are what this republic is all about, and more often than not it will produce a mandate from the people as well.

Another considerable problem is the vote fraud. Vote fraud is definitely a problem with the current system (~5% of the vote is estimated to be fraudulent, if I'm not mistaken), but it can only grow worse with the institution of a direct popular election of the President. Under the EC, vote fraud can be contained to swing states, or states whose electoral votes could go either way. The electoral college eliminates the incentive of majority parties to engage in vote fraud in states expected to produce clear majorities for a candidate, since it doesn't matter if that candidate wins 50.1% or 99.9% of the electoral vote, he still only wins the electoral votes from that state, nothing more. A direct popular election would put this incentive back in place, since the inflated vote majorities will actually count in the national election, and furthermore, vote fraud would be extremely hard to combat, since the majority party in each state will be counting the votes, and who do you think the majority party is going to try to produce votes for? Republican enclaves like Texas would be expected to produce inflated majorities for the Republican candidate, whereas Democratic enclaves like Oregon could be expected to produce the same for the Democratic candidate.

As for your claim that the Electoral College would allow for a President to be elected while losing the popular vote by a substantial margin, well, this is possible, but it is considerably unlikely. The two times in American history when the popular vote winner has lost the election (other than 2000 and 1824, since the election system in 1824 was quite different from what we have today) are 1876 and 1888.

In 1876, Rutherford Hayes won over Samuel Tilden despite having a quarter of a million votes less than his opponent. This can be attributed to the fact that Colorado was admitted to the Union around election time, and produced three votes for Hayes without holding a popular election to do so (they simply appointed the electors). So this election was an extremely atypical case and will never, ever happen again.

In 1888, Grover Cleveland took positions favoring the South at the expense of the rest of the nation, and it cost him the election. If the election had been decided by direct popular vote, Cleveland would have been elected simply by virtue of a few landslide victories in the South, despite the fact that his opponent was the clear favorite in every other region in the nation. His popular vote margin was not very high, anyway.

And as for the 2000 election; a puny, statistically insignificant popular vote margin, nothing more. There is also the fact that Gore just had limited appeal compared to Bush, as evidenced by the fact that he carried no states in the South or the Mountain West. So it doesn't seem like candidates can be expected to lose the popular vote by a huge margin and still win the election; like I said, possible, but unlikely.

This is a cursed post, by the way. I've had to retype it - all of it - four times now. Hope at least some of you like it.

[Alyeska]

Your vote does indeed count in the selection of your state electors.

Ultimately my vote did NOT count. All that counted was the majority vote and the minority votes are then ignored outright. Unless my vote is recognized in its entirty on a national level towards the ultimate election of the President, then my vote was ignored.

[Joe]

Ultimately my vote did NOT count. All that counted was the majority vote and the minority votes are then ignored outright. Unless my vote is recognized in its entirty on a national level towards the ultimate election of the President, then my vote was ignored.

Why? You're a citizen of both your state and your nation, and in our system the states choose the President with the aid of the people. At what point was it decided that the Presidency ought to be a national plebiscite? You can complain all you want about your vote being ignored, but it most certainly wasn't; it played a part in deciding who would represent your state in the electoral college, and it lost.

And we never said the Electoral College was perfect - far from it - we just said it beats the alternative in this case.

[Alyeska]

Ultimately my vote did NOT count. All that counted was the majority vote and the minority votes are then ignored outright. Unless my vote is recognized in its entirty on a national level towards the ultimate election of the President, then my vote was ignored.

Why? You're a citizen of both your state and your nation, and in our system the states choose the President with the aid of the people. At what point was it decided that the Presidency ought to be a national plebiscite? You can complain all you want about your vote being ignored, but it most certainly wasn't; it played a part in deciding who would represent your state in the electoral college, and it lost.

And we never said the Electoral College was perfect - far from it - we just said it beats the alternative in this case.

The alternative being popular vote which is superior to the electoral college.

[Joe]

No, you've not proved that. Are you listening to anything that either myself or Red have said?

[Alyeska]

No, you've not proved that. Are you listening to anything that either myself or Red have said?

You keep saying that popular vote would make regions more important then other states. That ignores the fact that those regions are already more important. It also ignores the fact that state lines would no longer contain certain voting blocs and that you can appeal to types of people across the country rather then relying on campaigning in certain states. The advantage to popular vote is you can campaign for the people specificaly rather then just going state to state trying to get the best votes there. It also removes the problem of the minority voice being removed.

You don't seem to understand the flaws in the electoral system. It silences the minority and makes big electoral vote states far more important then anything else. Any argument claiming the electoral system benefits the small state is pure bullshit.

There is an even bigger problem with the electoral system as well as the exit poll system. When I lived in Alaska my parents both knew who had won the election before they had even had a chance to vote yet. That is because exit polls had clearly identified who had one the big ticket states and it made any vote in the lesser states that were on later time zones pointless.

[Perinquus]

The fact is that the large population centers like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York, Detroit, Chicago, Washington DC, etc, and populous northeastern parts of the country all have populations which tend to vote overwhelmingly one way (Democratic). If we changed things to a direct popular election, presidential candidates would focus on these areas to the exclusion of the others. Why, for example would a candidate ever bother to campaign in Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, etc, when he could carry the vast majority of votes from ALL the midwestern and southern states, and still not defeat a candidate who captured a large majority in Califonia, New York, the New England states, etc.

If we had a direct popular election, presidential campaigns would be conducted entirely in the large population centers, because if you can get the majority vote in those areas, your opponent can carry the entire rest of the country, and still not win the election. The less populous areas would become irrelevant, and would be ignored. Their interests would not be considered or fairly represented, and this is a crucial point, because a Montana rancher or a Nebraska farmer has very different concerns and interests than a Los Angeles bus driver or a New York delicatessen owner. But the interests of rural Americans are not less important than the those of urbanites, simply because city dwellers outnumber everyone else in this day and age.

The whole reason we have things like the electoral college is that our founding fathers actually did not approve of true democracy. They considered it nothing more than the tyranny of the mob. The created a deomcratic republic, rather than an actual democracy, because they wanted us to have a government that represented the will of the people, yet at the same time did not allow the majority to oppress or neglect the interests of the minority. The electoral college system, while certainly not perfect, protects the interests of those living in less populous areas far better than direct popular election would.

[Joe]

You keep saying that popular vote would make regions more important then other states.

I'm saying that popular vote would make the states completely and utterly irrelevant in the only national election this country has.

That ignores the fact that those regions are already more important. It also ignores the fact that state lines would no longer contain certain voting blocs and that you can appeal to types of people across the country rather then relying on campaigning in certain states.

No, you can just appeal exclusively to the ten most populous states to carry yourself to victory. Not so with the electoral college; you have to broaden your appeal as much as possible to win an election, as the election of 1888 (and to a lesser extent, 2000) proves. And just because you don't campaign in a state doesn't mean you don't take the interests of that state into account; you still have to find some way to appeal to the voters of that state if you want their electoral votes.

The advantage to popular vote is you can campaign for the people specificaly rather then just going state to state trying to get the best votes there. It also removes the problem of the minority voice being removed.

Ah, the "minority voice." That's one thing I will concede; a direct popular election would certainly allow minorities to voice their views; in fact, it would do this so well that a well-enough organized minority could elect a President! Think about it; as I stated earlier, the Electoral College system produces a clear state mandate for the winner. Under a direct system, candidates would run in greater numbers, distributing the vote even more, and making it even more difficult for the President to get anything done. This would rip the country apart; if you think partisanship is bad now, wait till they throw the electoral college out.

You don't seem to understand the flaws in the electoral system. It silences the minority and makes big electoral vote states far more important then anything else. Any argument claiming the electoral system benefits the small state is pure bullshit.

You may argue that the Electoral College does not really benefit the small states (and I would disagree with that, since the mathematics of the system states otherwise), but certainly do not argue that a direct popular election would. Not when a candidate could win an election by appealing solely to the ten largest states. And you don't seem to understand the flaws that would be present in a direct election system; massive increases in vote fraud, increased difficulty for a candidate to secure anything resembling a mandate from the people, and a complete and utter disregard for the federalist structure of our country.

Repeat this to yourself over and over again; the states are sovereign, not mere administrative entities of the federal government. It is ridiculous to suggest that they should have no voice in the sole national election.

There is an even bigger problem with the electoral system as well as the exit poll system. When I lived in Alaska my parents both knew who had won the election before they had even had a chance to vote yet. That is because exit polls had clearly identified who had one the big ticket states and it made any vote in the lesser states that were on later time zones pointless.

Not relevant to this discussion. That is a problem that can be solved by banning exit polling (not my preference, personally, but it is a solution), not by reforming the EC.

I should also add that the U.S. is not alone in not having a direct presidential election. Only France, Finland, and Russia do, and the French system has built in safeguards to eliminate some of the problems with the system (not to mention the fact that France is not federal, whereas the U.S. is).

[Enforcer Talen]

can you imagine counting 250 million votes, all of which had importance? it would be florida, nationwide, all the time.

electoral college means you can miss a few thousand votes and it wont particuarly matter - rather good, considering human error.

[Joe]

can you imagine counting 250 million votes, all of which had importance? it would be florida, nationwide, all the time.

electoral college means you can miss a few thousand votes and it wont particuarly matter - rather good, considering human error.

Well, in their defence, the states would still be tabulating the votes in a direct popular election. It still wouldn't be as clean as the electoral system; democracy is just a messy way of doing things, and the electoral college at least creates some sort of compromise on this matter.

[Alyeska]

No, you can just appeal exclusively to the ten most populous states to carry yourself to victory. Not so with the electoral college; you have to broaden your appeal as much as possible to win an election, as the election of 1888 (and to a lesser extent, 2000) proves. And just because you don't campaign in a state doesn't mean you don't take the interests of that state into account; you still have to find some way to appeal to the voters of that state if you want their electoral votes.

Your problem is you keep applying Electoral College rules when trying to think about not having it. Doesn't work that way. You don't carry the states anymore. Every single opposition vote in those states now has a voice. In other words, campaigning in those locations isn't going to do jack shit because you will only carry the individual votes, not the whole fucking state.

Ah, the "minority voice." That's one thing I will concede; a direct popular election would certainly allow minorities to voice their views; in fact, it would do this so well that a well-enough organized minority could elect a President! Think about it; as I stated earlier, the Electoral College system produces a clear state mandate for the winner. Under a direct system, candidates would run in greater numbers, distributing the vote even more, and making it even more difficult for the President to get anything done. This would rip the country apart; if you think partisanship is bad now, wait till they throw the electoral college out.

Yes, the electoral college is against the will of the people and silences the minority. The government is designed to protect the minority and the electoral college fails in that respect.

You may argue that the Electoral College does not really benefit the small states (and I would disagree with that, since the mathematics of the system states otherwise), but certainly do not argue that a direct popular election would. Not when a candidate could win an election by appealing solely to the ten largest states. And you don't seem to understand the flaws that would be present in a direct election system; massive increases in vote fraud, increased difficulty for a candidate to secure anything resembling a mandate from the people, and a complete and utter disregard for the federalist structure of our country.

Voter fraud is a non issue because an effectively manned system could get rid of that problem. You keep forgetting the fact that a canadite can't win an entire state because this isn't the electoral system where he gets all of the votes.

Repeat this to yourself over and over again; the states are sovereign, not mere administrative entities of the federal government. It is ridiculous to suggest that they should have no voice in the sole national election.

The states are not sovereign. Civil War. The states represent the will of the people, they do not subjigate the people.

Not relevant to this discussion. That is a problem that can be solved by banning exit polling (not my preference, personally, but it is a solution), not by reforming the EC.

The electoral system makes the problem worse.

[Joe]

Your problem is you keep applying Electoral College rules when trying to think about not having it. Doesn't work that way. You don't carry the states anymore. Every single opposition vote in those states now has a voice. In other words, campaigning in those locations isn't going to do jack shit because you will only carry the individual votes, not the whole fucking state.

Wrong. In a direct election, you can still appeal solely to the most populous states - densely populated urban areas, primarily - and still win the election. In other words, you can engage in rampant, unrepentant sectionalism (the thing that almost ripped this country apart 150 years ago) and win an election on that basis. Grover Cleveland attempted this in 1888 and failed, thanks to the electoral college.

Yes, the electoral college is against the will of the people and silences the minority. The government is designed to protect the minority and the electoral college fails in that respect.

The government is designed to balance the needs of minorities with the rights of the majority, not solely to protect the former. Again I reiterate that the electoral college system may not protect the minority voting blocs, but it certainly protects minority groups in less-populous states by allowing them a slightly greater voice in the election of the President. These minorities would have absolutely zilch protection under a direct election system - as Perin pointed out, no one would bother campaigning heavily in or even appealing to the smaller, less-populated states in a direct election system, because doing so would not be adequate to achieve victory against a candidate more capable of appealing to the larger states with more dense population centers.

Voter fraud is a non issue because an effectively manned system could get rid of that problem. You keep forgetting the fact that a canadite can't win an entire state because this isn't the electoral system where he gets all of the votes.

Bullshit. Voter fraud is an inevitability in any democratic system, so don't pretend like "effectively manning" the system will get rid of it. And if you had read my large post a few up, you would have noticed how I pointed out that we would see much more artificially inflated majorities under a direct election system than we do under the EC, because these majorities actually count in such a system since they produce more popular votes, whereas in the EC they would be irrelevant (like I said, whether you get 50.1% or 99.9% of the vote, you still win the EC votes in the current system, so why would parties bother fradulently running up vote totals in states they have already won?).

The states are not sovereign. Civil War. The states represent the will of the people, they do not subjigate the people.

Semi-sovereign would have been the proper term.

The people elect senators and congressmen; for our system to be truly federal, the states should be given a greater say in the election of at least one branch of government. The electoral college does this.

The electoral system makes the problem worse.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a problem that could be remedied without going after the EC.

[kojikun]

Can I ask why giving the minority a larger hand in voting is a good thing? I would think that if you are to have a democracy you need to address the will of the majority not the minority. How can a government be democratic if it gives more power to fewer people?? It doesnt provide for proper representation.

[Alyeska]

Can I ask why giving the minority a larger hand in voting is a good thing? I would think that if you are to have a democracy you need to address the will of the majority not the minority. How can a government be democratic if it gives more power to fewer people?? It doesnt provide for proper representation.

If a democracy is unwilling to hear the voice of a minority it is not a true democracy. Furthermore, the system in place allows for the majority winner to LOOSE.

[kojikun]

hearing the minority is not the issue, its heard it just doesnt count because this is a majority system, or so i thought.

and why the hell would the majority vote WIN when thats the exact opposite of democracy? its stupid.

[RedImperator]

Can I ask why giving the minority a larger hand in voting is a good thing? I would think that if you are to have a democracy you need to address the will of the majority not the minority. How can a government be democratic if it gives more power to fewer people?? It doesnt provide for proper representation.

Because the minority has certain unalienable rights no matter what the majority thinks. In the big, broad, human rights sense, religious and political minorities have the right to their beliefs even if the majority finds them repulsive. In the more day to day practical politics sense, the rural and semi-rural minority of the population that lives in small states has a right to Federal resources and a say in national policies even if they're not in the majority. The Electoral College, along with the U.S. Senate, helps protect them by forcing the Executive to take them into account. For some reason, I never hear anyone complain that no matter how big or small a state is, they get equal representation in the Senate, even though that's even more "unfair" than the Electoral College.

As for a presidential candidate winning the electoral vote while losing the popular vote, it's mathmatically possible but highly unlikely (it's happened four times, I believe, and only once did a candidate lose by a statistically significant minority without there being some bizarre outside circumstances). And it's irrevelant anyway, because in this system, the people do NOT directly elect the President. The citizens of each state chose by their votes their state's electors, and the electors vote for the President.

[Joe]

Can I ask why giving the minority a larger hand in voting is a good thing? I would think that if you are to have a democracy you need to address the will of the majority not the minority. How can a government be democratic if it gives more power to fewer people?? It doesnt provide for proper representation.

If a democracy is unwilling to hear the voice of a minority it is not a true democracy. Furthermore, the system in place allows for the majority winner to LOOSE.

A direct popular election of the Presidents will practically guarantee Presidents elected by the minority of the voting bloc.