New York Times calls for the end of Electoral College

[Keevan_Colton]

The electoral College is by definition constitutional and can only be changed by a constitutional amendment....and I can assure you that will never happen...The small states will never permit it.

Idiocy may be idiocy, but damnit, this is traditional idiocy!

[MKSheppard]

Idiocy may be idiocy, but damnit, this is traditional idiocy!

Who keeps the metric system down? We do, we do, we do. Who controls the british crown? We do, we do, we do

[Alyrium Denryle]

By definition. 51% wins, 49% loses. ANd unlike a jury, which needs more than a majority to convict, an electorate needs only 51%. That means that a savy politician need only bamboozle 51% of the population in order to become president. That is not hard to do. With a representative system, it would be possible to avoid this. You get a panel of economists, political scientists, and other social scientists together, and you have them work it out.

You put the very people on the jury that neither attourney wants, the educted ones that know the subject matter.

Get rid of the voters. Gotcha. Didnt we already have this conversation here and you called it a strawman?
Dont worry, your betters will decide if you chose right and if not they'll choose for you....it's a nice benevolent little oligarchy with regards to the executive branch then....charming.

You take the voters into account, but dont let the sole decision rest on them.

To use yet another analogy

You put the educated people on the jury, and open a window to the outside, with people holding 'guilty' or 'innocent' signs. The vote will influence the decision, but the whole decision will not rest on the vote. It will rest in the experts, taking the vote into account, and reaching a decision based on the it, and the merit of the candidate. Or is that to hard to grasp?

I suppose our legistlative branch is an evil oligarchy, because you get rid of the voters in the process

And I love how you miss the point completely.

[Keevan_Colton]

The voters pick them in the first place though....here, the voters get to say "We want Mick" the little council of the elite go, "Wrong choice, he's no good...sorry, go home, we'll pick someone for you."

The power rests solely with an unelected elite who make the decision. That's an oligarchy. When was the last one of those....rennisance era venice?

[Aeolus]

The electoral College is by definition constitutional and can only be changed by a constitutional amendment....and I can assure you that will never happen...The small states will never permit it.

Idiocy may be idiocy, but damnit, this is traditional idiocy!

It's not an appeal to tradition. The EC grants power to small states..And the representatives of the small states would have to be criminaly incompetent to throw that away. Therefore they will block any attempt to change the constitution.

[Patrick Degan]

I myself am of a divided mind on this question. The Electoral College served a valid function at a time when the fastest communication between cities was by horseback and required a minimum of three days. Also, the historical function of such a body was to provide a consistent mechanism for disparate states within a broader political union to elect a sovereign: in the case of entities such as the Holy Roman Empire, the seperate kingdoms and their princes also held the position of electors who would choose an sovereign for the whole of the empire; binding said emperor theoretically to the consent of the kingdoms comprising that union. Given the interpretation of the Federal Union at that time as that of sovereign states ceding a portion of their sovereignty and powers to form the national government, the system of electors for the Holy Roman Empire was a valid model for the Founders to copy as balancing national power with state power and popular representation. In the case of presidential contenders winning the majority or plurality of the popular vote but failing to gain the majority of electors required to win the office, the Constitution provided the mechanism of the dispute being judged in the peoples' assembly —the House of Representatives. Thus there is no "constitutional crisis" as there is a mechanism in place to deal with just such a situation and did so in at least three elections.

The question arises as to whether the Electoral College continues to have a useful function in an age of near-instant communication. Certainly it is possible now to tabulate a national vote the same night as the election, so the purpose of having an intermediary body seems to have vanished. The problem is that to simply eliminate the Electoral College and make the election of a president a matter of a direct popular vote would erode the entire concept of the Federal/State balance of power almost to the point of insignificance. Control of a presidential election is one of the guaranteed mechanisms by which state sovereignty within the context of the Federal union is defined, and as the entire theory of government under which that union was based hinges upon that balance for practical as well as political reasons, simply abolishing the control of the several states over the election of a president is not a move to be considered lightly. Nor, as has been pointed out, is it likely that the states will surrender that power; the only way to do so is by amending the Constitution, and there will never be a 3/4 majority of states voting to essentially eliminate one of the very underpinnings of their own sovereignty.

One possible alternative I've thought of is this: replacing the Electoral College with a national election in which the candidates must win a majority of states determined by direct popular vote in each state. In this scheme, a candidate would have to win a presidential election in at least half plus one of all the states in the union; presently that being 26 seperate elections out of 50 held on Election Day. The archaic mechanism of the EC would be eliminated, the popular vote would become the primary determiner in each state, yet the actual election of the President would remain within the power of the several states by necessity of winning multiple votes to gain the majority of states. The House of Representatives would remain available to determine the outcome of a disputed election as it is now if the vote in one or more states cannot be clearly decided. The Senate would remain the judge of the national election; overseeing the results from each state presidential election and determining if the national election should go to the House if one or more state elections remain undecided, with no clear majority vote, and neither candidate gaining a majority of states as a result.

To give some examples: in the very much disputed 2000 presidential election, under the scheme proposed above, there would have been no controversy and no hint of a constitutional crisis. Al Gore would clearly and indisputably have lost because he carried only 15 states out of the 26 he would have needed in a state-majority electoral system. Whereas, in 1976, Jimmy Carter would have lost to Gerald Ford because Carter would have been just three states shy of the state-majority, and Richard Nixon would have won the presidency in 1960 by virtue of carrying 28 states —two over the state-majority.

A state-majority electoral system would require the candidates to campaign in every state; there would be no such thing as ignoring the flyover states or conceding states to the opposition because every election would count. No contest would be guaranteed until election day, and ensure that every vote does indeed count. This would put the onus upon a political party to put forth candidates skilled enough to succeed at such a challenge or face long-term if not permanent marginalisation.

I don't know how well such a scheme would work in reality, but it would dispense with what is becoming an archaic institution while preserving the theory under which it was incorporated into the Constitution in the first place.

[Keevan_Colton]

Er...that's exactly the problem we had already Degan...sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that still means Bob in state A's vote is worth less than Jim in state B...only worse as a state with 15 million is worht exactly the same as a state with 1 million.

[Patrick Degan]

Er...that's exactly the problem we had already Degan...sorry to be the one to break it to you, but that still means Bob in state A's vote is worth less than Jim in state B...only worse as a state with 15 million is worht exactly the same as a state with 1 million.

Not quite. As it is now, a candidate only has to win enough states with very large electoral vote totals to win the presidency. He can concede entire regions of the country to his opponnent as long as he has enough to gain that magick number of 270 electoral votes, which is why most recent elections the Prairie States effectively don't count. In the scheme proposed above, every state would be in contention. A presidential election could very well be decided by winning the small states as well as the large ones. The Republican or Democrat (or even Independent) would need the vote of Bob in state A as much as Jim's in state B.

[Keevan_Colton]

It still makes for a vastly retarded way of doing things with the huge devaluing of votes of those in populous states.

[Edi]

What a load of adolescent screaming from both sides of the debate. Fucking annoying that there doesn't seem to be anyone capable of anything but the polar opposite views on this subject here.

What most of you people have lost sight of is that the EC as such is not necessarily at all a bad idea. It just happens that in the US its execution sucks worm-infested donkey balls. The biggest problem is the winner-take-all nature of the election laws of the various states. Remove that condition and divide electoral votes proportionately among all parties that get votes, in every state. That will solve your problem, and will also prevent the largest states from running rough-shod over the smaller ones. There won't be just a few swing states. Nobody's vote will be worthless either. Just how fucking difficult can it be to see such a simple solution? It will not change the fundamental system, but will fix a fucked up execution.

I don't see a problem with giving small states (or countries) a degree of protection from the mob rule of larger ones. Just witness the EU, where if we followed the one man, one vote system in all things, it would be France, Germany, UK, Spain and Italy that would decide everything between themselves and the rest of the 22 members might just as well not bother to show up. If the EU is ever going to develop a more federalist nature along lines similar to the US (not going to happen during our lifetimes, though), the EC is the only way to go for election of public officials or otherwise it's always going to be decided by just a few countries and the rest being completely irrelevant.

Americans tend to forget that the US is linguistically, and ultimately also culturally homogenous so there seems not to be that much call for an EC system, but the concept is quite valid as long as it is executed competently, which the US version is not (at the state level).

Edi

[Edi]

Spoke too soon, I see...

Should have guessed that Degan would have beaten me to the punch in providing a detailed and reasonable commentary on the system. That's what I get for posting a reply after reading only four pages and a few posts before replying. Well, the egg's on my face so feel free to point and laugh.

Edi

[The Kernel]

What most of you people have lost sight of is that the EC as such is not necessarily at all a bad idea. It just happens that in the US its execution sucks worm-infested donkey balls. The biggest problem is the winner-take-all nature of the election laws of the various states. Remove that condition and divide electoral votes proportionately among all parties that get votes, in every state. That will solve your problem, and will also prevent the largest states from running rough-shod over the smaller ones. There won't be just a few swing states. Nobody's vote will be worthless either. Just how fucking difficult can it be to see such a simple solution? It will not change the fundamental system, but will fix a fucked up execution.

Sadly, this won't help with the most basic problem here. All your solution does is move the swing states over to swing counties; candidates that are vastly unpopular in certain areas aren't going to give any consideration to the 30% or so that are actually voting for them (since it won't matter) and they won't bother trying to win over a piece of the other 70%.

Let me give you an example, here in California, Bush is increadibly unpopular. However, because he knows quite well that he will lose California, he doesn't bother giving any consideration to the voters here. Splitting up the state into voting districts will not change this as the large population centers are still feverently anti-Bush so he won't bother considering them at all in the election since he won't be able to even potentially win over 51% of them. The same can be said for large areas of southern states which would have no intention of voting Kerry.

While your system might alleviate the problem in some areas, it still ignores the basic problem which is that some voters are more important then others. If everyone's vote counted the same then candidates would be forced to consider everyone in their campaign strategy.

I don't see a problem with giving small states (or countries) a degree of protection from the mob rule of larger ones. Just witness the EU, where if we followed the one man, one vote system in all things, it would be France, Germany, UK, Spain and Italy that would decide everything between themselves and the rest of the 22 members might just as well not bother to show up.

Oh come now, are you suggesting that the vote of the EU countries is homogenous? Besides, the situation is not all that compareable since in the US the Federal Government has a great deal of control over both domestic and internation policy, something that isn't true of the EU (at least not yet).

If the EU is ever going to develop a more federalist nature along lines similar to the US (not going to happen during our lifetimes, though), the EC is the only way to go for election of public officials or otherwise it's always going to be decided by just a few countries and the rest being completely irrelevant.

Votes are never irrelevent since a few thousands votes could push a candidate over the top of another one in a popular election. In a close election, every voter must be considered.

Americans tend to forget that the US is linguistically, and ultimately also culturally homogenous so there seems not to be that much call for an EC system, but the concept is quite valid as long as it is executed competently, which the US version is not (at the state level).

I agree that in principle it can be applied to certain political systems. I simply don't believe that the US is one of them.

[Patrick Degan]

It still makes for a vastly retarded way of doing things with the huge devaluing of votes of those in populous states.

A nice theory —except for the fact that it ignores the entire reason for the balance struck between equal and proportional representation in the national government. The idea is that all the votes of all the states are supposed to count and not just the ones with the largest cities. And in any presidential race which isn't even remotely close, the question as to who's votes are being "devalued" is entirely academic.

[Xon]

As an Australian I've never really understood the wacky way the American EC actually works.

In Australia, the House of Representitives(the party/parties with a majority form government and create/alter bills) is a 1 vote, 1 value system. The Senate(Actually votes the bills into law) is sliced up into seats per state, with each seat being directly voted for in a 1 vote 1 value scheme for the state its in.

To gain Government you need 50%+1 seats in the House of Representitives. Its posible for the ruling party not to have any seats in the Senate, yet still govern.

Its a fairly typical thing for people to vote for one party for actual government(House of Representitives), and then vote for another party for a Senate seat.

However, it was only dreamed up by a bunch of lawyers and polititions ~103 years ago. So it didnt have the same technical limitations of the technology at the USA's election system was created.

[Edi]

What most of you people have lost sight of is that the EC as such is not necessarily at all a bad idea. It just happens that in the US its execution sucks worm-infested donkey balls. The biggest problem is the winner-take-all nature of the election laws of the various states. Remove that condition and divide electoral votes proportionately among all parties that get votes, in every state. That will solve your problem, and will also prevent the largest states from running rough-shod over the smaller ones. There won't be just a few swing states. Nobody's vote will be worthless either. Just how fucking difficult can it be to see such a simple solution? It will not change the fundamental system, but will fix a fucked up execution.

Sadly, this won't help with the most basic problem here. All your solution does is move the swing states over to swing counties; candidates that are vastly unpopular in certain areas aren't going to give any consideration to the 30% or so that are actually voting for them (since it won't matter) and they won't bother trying to win over a piece of the other 70%.

Not exactly. I don't understand what you mean by swing counties or whatever, but they are not a consideration. You've got X population who vote in a given state. Let's say the votes split 50%, 30% and 20% among three candidates. The state has Z EC votes. These would be split according to percentages of X, in this case Candidate #1 would get 5 of the ten votes, #2 would get 3 and #3 would get 2 votes. It is totally irrelevant in which counties the voters vote, because the EC votes get distributed on the basis of state wide vote percentage. Obviously you can't split votes, so if there are e.g. states where there are only two votes and you get the 50/30/20 split, #3 with his 20 is shit out of luck because you can't get partials and he's got the least votes.

Let me give you an example, here in California, Bush is increadibly unpopular. However, because he knows quite well that he will lose California, he doesn't bother giving any consideration to the voters here. Splitting up the state into voting districts will not change this as the large population centers are still feverently anti-Bush so he won't bother considering them at all in the election since he won't be able to even potentially win over 51% of them. The same can be said for large areas of southern states which would have no intention of voting Kerry.

The proposal I outlined above should deal with this problem. EC votes divided according to total vote percentage in every state, there would be no point if counties were allowed to keep a winner take all system.

While your system might alleviate the problem in some areas, it still ignores the basic problem which is that some voters are more important then others. If everyone's vote counted the same then candidates would be forced to consider everyone in their campaign strategy.

Some states would still have more influence than others per capita when you consider the whole, but actually it would be more desirable to go out and campaign in large states if you could have the possibility of e.g. getting that 30% of 20 or 25 votes.

Oh come now, are you suggesting that the vote of the EU countries is homogenous? Besides, the situation is not all that compareable since in the US the Federal Government has a great deal of control over both domestic and internation policy, something that isn't true of the EU (at least not yet).

The vote in most EU countries is often pretty homogenous if it's a question of voting either for a candidate from your own country or for someone else. Especially since the candidates tend to be appointed by the governments and/or major parties in any given country so that most often there is a single candidate per country who is a consensus/compromise candidate. This is done to maximize the chances of your country's candidate getting the best possible outcome because if there are two or more candidates from the same country, it will cause votes to be spread and thus count for less. This is the current situation, precisely because there is no strong federalist tradition or power, but candidates would still look out for their own country first even of there was, because Europe is culturally fragmented instead of homogenous and many people (I'd say most) still see it as "us vs them" in terms of influence and benefits.

Edi

[The Kernel]

Not exactly. I don't understand what you mean by swing counties or whatever, but they are not a consideration. You've got X population who vote in a given state. Let's say the votes split 50%, 30% and 20% among three candidates. The state has Z EC votes. These would be split according to percentages of X, in this case Candidate #1 would get 5 of the ten votes, #2 would get 3 and #3 would get 2 votes. It is totally irrelevant in which counties the voters vote, because the EC votes get distributed on the basis of state wide vote percentage. Obviously you can't split votes, so if there are e.g. states where there are only two votes and you get the 50/30/20 split, #3 with his 20 is shit out of luck because you can't get partials and he's got the least votes.

Ahh, I see what you are suggesting now, but honestly I don't see it as any different then a popular election. You are merely breaking down votes into blocks of a smaller number of votes, it is not functionally different then a popular vote.

The proposal I outlined above should deal with this problem. EC votes divided according to total vote percentage in every state, there would be no point if counties were allowed to keep a winner take all system.

I agree, but like I said, it really isn't any different from the popular system that has already been suggested.

Some states would still have more influence than others per capita when you consider the whole, but actually it would be more desirable to go out and campaign in large states if you could have the possibility of e.g. getting that 30% of 20 or 25 votes.

Certainly true, which is as it should be in my mind. I mean more people deserve a greater amount of consideration; this is a no-brainer right? Unfortuantely, some people in the States don't see it that way.

The vote in most EU countries is often pretty homogenous if it's a question of voting either for a candidate from your own country or for someone else. Especially since the candidates tend to be appointed by the governments and/or major parties in any given country so that most often there is a single candidate per country who is a consensus/compromise candidate. This is done to maximize the chances of your country's candidate getting the best possible outcome because if there are two or more candidates from the same country, it will cause votes to be spread and thus count for less. This is the current situation, precisely because there is no strong federalist tradition or power, but candidates would still look out for their own country first even of there was, because Europe is culturally fragmented instead of homogenous and many people (I'd say most) still see it as "us vs them" in terms of influence and benefits.

Interesting point. I would hazard to guess that this is mostly due to the cultural differences you pointed out combined with the fact that most Europeans haven't yet gotten used to the idea of a strong EU government, which should change in time. In any case, I think we can agree that the US does not suffer from this form of paralysis.

[Keevan_Colton]

Patrick, your proposed system still gives hugely disproportional power to small states in an even worse fashion than the current system does. It is yet another of the ever ready series of kludges I see offered for the US system when flaws are pointed out. A "solution" that does something yet does not actually address the fundamental flaw.

Why should it be that the entire population of California is worth the same amount as the population of Arkansas for example. Your idea just magnifies the disparity as there is no longer even a pretence of equality in the value of a persons vote by continuing a system of winner takes all blocks of "votes".

People keep suggesting that the winner takes all system for the EC should be altered to give proportional votes based on results. This however is yet another kludge, if you do this, you have a popular vote...with built in averaging errors. You will get the same result except in close elections, where the averaging error will distort the results. What is so abhorent about the notion that every citizen of the united states should be valued equally in their input as to who should be their president?

[Wicked Pilot]

Last time I checked, the President is suppost to represent the people, not the states, and not the cities. There are other positions for those jobs.

[Durandal]

People keep suggesting that the winner takes all system for the EC should be altered to give proportional votes based on results. This however is yet another kludge, if you do this, you have a popular vote...with built in averaging errors. You will get the same result except in close elections, where the averaging error will distort the results. What is so abhorent about the notion that every citizen of the united states should be valued equally in their input as to who should be their president?

I was thinking about this last night. As it stands now, the states have to give their votes over to the candidate who won the state. But as I understand it, they have the option not to. This gives the state governments some measure of control in the presidential election, just like the state governments have control in the process of amending the Constitution.

Though honestly, having that power in the federal election is more ceremonial than anything. If there was ever a time for a state to use that power, it was Florida in the 2000 election, and they didn't, because it would've opened up a huge can of worms. So would taking that away really be such a huge blow to the state governments? Because letting it stay disenfranchises voters.

[Alyrium Denryle]

The voters pick them in the first place though....here, the voters get to say "We want Mick" the little council of the elite go, "Wrong choice, he's no good...sorry, go home, we'll pick someone for you."

The power rests solely with an unelected elite who make the decision. That's an oligarchy. When was the last one of those....rennisance era venice?

The EC is selected by the state legistlatures, our legistlature selects them for us. I seem to remember that the Brittish select their executive by proxy of the legistlative branch as well.

[Patrick Degan]

Patrick, your proposed system still gives hugely disproportional power to small states in an even worse fashion than the current system does. It is yet another of the ever ready series of kludges I see offered for the US system when flaws are pointed out. A "solution" that does something yet does not actually address the fundamental flaw.

How? The necessity of winning 26 state elections means winning both big- and small-populous states. And since every state is in play under this proposal, it would not be possible for a candidate to ignore states from either category.

Why should it be that the entire population of California is worth the same amount as the population of Arkansas for example. Your idea just magnifies the disparity as there is no longer even a pretence of equality in the value of a persons vote by continuing a system of winner takes all blocks of "votes".

Because small states are supposed to have an equal share of representation and power in the American Federal system as the large states enjoy; elsewise the country is dominated by only a very small handful of states with the largest populations within them and the smaller states are effectively shut out of the political process. This is the entire reason why the Senate exists in the first place and for part of the theory underlining the Electoral College.

People keep suggesting that the winner takes all system for the EC should be altered to give proportional votes based on results. This however is yet another kludge, if you do this, you have a popular vote...with built in averaging errors. You will get the same result except in close elections, where the averaging error will distort the results. What is so abhorent about the notion that every citizen of the united states should be valued equally in their input as to who should be their president?

Presumably you advocate a nationwide direct popular vote for the presidency. Unfortunately, under such a system, the votes from small-population states except in very close presidential contests wouldn't count for dick in practical terms. Elections would be decided essentially by the east and west coast megalopolises, the Great Lakes megalopolis, and the cities of Atlanta, St. Louis, Houston and Dallas. In other words, those areas with the largest population clusters. The rest of the country might as well not even vote. If the concern is that every vote is valued equally, a system where the electoral power is effectively concentrated almost exclusively in large urban centres is not the way to achieve this result.

[Alyrium Denryle]

People keep suggesting that the winner takes all system for the EC should be altered to give proportional votes based on results. This however is yet another kludge, if you do this, you have a popular vote...with built in averaging errors. You will get the same result except in close elections, where the averaging error will distort the results. What is so abhorent about the notion that every citizen of the united states should be valued equally in their input as to who should be their president?

I was thinking about this last night. As it stands now, the states have to give their votes over to the candidate who won the state. But as I understand it, they have the option not to. This gives the state governments some measure of control in the presidential election, just like the state governments have control in the process of amending the Constitution.

Though honestly, having that power in the federal election is more ceremonial than anything. If there was ever a time for a state to use that power, it was Florida in the 2000 election, and they didn't, because it would've opened up a huge can of worms. So would taking that away really be such a huge blow to the state governments? Because letting it stay disenfranchises voters.

Personally I think the states should keep and USE that power. Let each individual elector(in the EC) take the public votes, and the candidates merit into account. I honestly dont like having the EC a simple rubber stamp for the popular vote. They should do the original duty and actually select the president for themselves.

[Aeolus]

Last time I checked, the President is suppost to represent the people, not the states, and not the cities. There are other positions for those jobs.

Yes, but in theory he is supposed to represent the people of all of the states, not just the big coastal states. He needs broad support across a majority of the states.

[Aeolus]

People keep suggesting that the winner takes all system for the EC should be altered to give proportional votes based on results. This however is yet another kludge, if you do this, you have a popular vote...with built in averaging errors. You will get the same result except in close elections, where the averaging error will distort the results. What is so abhorent about the notion that every citizen of the united states should be valued equally in their input as to who should be their president?

I was thinking about this last night. As it stands now, the states have to give their votes over to the candidate who won the state. But as I understand it, they have the option not to. This gives the state governments some measure of control in the presidential election, just like the state governments have control in the process of amending the Constitution.

Though honestly, having that power in the federal election is more ceremonial than anything. If there was ever a time for a state to use that power, it was Florida in the 2000 election, and they didn't, because it would've opened up a huge can of worms. So would taking that away really be such a huge blow to the state governments? Because letting it stay disenfranchises voters.

Hawaii used said power in the 1960 election to put Kenedy in power. It was very similar to the 2000 election

[Wicked Pilot]

Yes, but in theory he is supposed to represent the people of all of the states, not just the big coastal states. He needs broad support across a majority of the states.

States don't mean shit without the electorical college. That's the way it should be for matters concerning the president since he/she is suppost to represent the people. It's congress that's suppost to go out and bring the pork home.