Proportional Electoral College

[Stravo]

It was on the ballot in some states this year. It is based on the belief that winner take all is intrinsicley unfair and that electoral votes should be rewarded in proportion to the votes you receive.

Let's take an example.

In Ohio the voting breakdown looks something like this:

Bush: 2,796,147

Kerry: 2,659,664

A difference of 137,480 votes out of over 5 MILLION votes. Yet Bush wins all the Electroal votes making the 2,659,664 count for NOTHING. Too bad so sad, nearly half the state votes for the other guy yet none of this goes towards him. Because the other side gets 100,000 votes more out of millions Bush gets all 20 votes.

I find this idea starting to become a bit unfair and unbalancing in particualrly close election. Iowa is even closer with about a 13,000 vote difference.

Why should there be a winner take all? And doesn't that policy make the losing votes in a close election count for absolutely nothing. How do we reward record breaking turn out if we start ignoring the other half of the electorate of a hotly contested election?

[Lindar]

I think the proportional idea might work. It makes sense, and might even make future elections more...purposeful and effective.

[Tribun]

Well that is the result of a fucked-up voting system, that is over 200 years old.

By the way, do you know why the founding farthers wanted no direct vote by the people and instead installed this crude electoral votes?

Because they simply not wanted such a power directly in the hand of the people, they thought of people being too stupid and unable to even gasp the concept of the siginficant of the vote, if it is direct.

Gives us a good idea what the founding fathers thought, right?

[RedImperator]

Colorado voters delivered a thumping defeat to proportional distribution. And I point out, those two and a half million Kerry voters in Ohio whose votes didn't count would not have counted in a proportional or direct popular election, either, from a certain point of view. In any winner-take-all system, which the presidential election has been since the 12th Amendment was passed, anyone who voted for the loser's vote doesn't count. It's possible with the electoral college that someone can lose the popular vote and win the election, but for all the holwing about 2000, that was the second time it happened in the more than 150 years since the modern two-party system solidified.

EDIT: It's happened three times, not two, with both previous times in the 19th century.

[Stravo]

Gives us a good idea what the founding fathers thought, right?

Yes, Tribun, they were good god fearing folks who made sure their niggers brought them sandwhiches when they were hungry.

[Augustus]

The people of Ohio seem alright with it, and after all they have a "Coin Toss" provision for deciding electoral votes if the popular vote is tied. Imagine that happening on election night!

[Tribun]

Gives us a good idea what the founding fathers thought, right?

Yes, Tribun, they were good god fearing folks who made sure their niggers brought them sandwhiches when they were hungry.

Well, George Washington first wanted the President to be greeted with "Your Majesty". But his collegues finally had convinced him that "Mr. President" is better.

[Col. Crackpot]

Gives us a good idea what the founding fathers thought, right?

Yes, Tribun, they were good god fearing folks who made sure their niggers brought them sandwhiches when they were hungry.

if that wasn't so racist... oh shit FUQ It!

[The Cleric]

My US History teacher came up with what I thought was an interesting idea.

You take the congressional districts in each state and have them vote on how their Representative casts their vote in the Electoral College. Whichever canidate garners more of those votes gets the 2 Senatorial votes, and in the case of a tie, they split the Senatorial votes.

[Master of Ossus]

The ideas could ONLY work if they were adopted at a national level, since states that jumped the gun would make themselves irrelevant, while the states that DIDN'T adopt such a system would dominate elections.

[Jalinth]

My US History teacher came up with what I thought was an interesting idea.

You take the congressional districts in each state and have them vote on how their Representative casts their vote in the Electoral College. Whichever canidate garners more of those votes gets the 2 Senatorial votes, and in the case of a tie, they split the Senatorial votes.

That is essentially how Maine does it (I think Nebraska as well). The 2 "senate" votes go with the statewide popular vote, and then each congressional district decides how its 1 electoral vote gets cast. While not proportional, at least ensure that people sharply divided (geographically) state (think of Ohio) wer. So your rural can vote for Bush, your urban seats go for Kerry - the suburbs are the real war zones.

People need to remember that any state can change how it allocates its votes. No need for a federal amendment.

[RedImperator]

My US History teacher came up with what I thought was an interesting idea.

You take the congressional districts in each state and have them vote on how their Representative casts their vote in the Electoral College. Whichever canidate garners more of those votes gets the 2 Senatorial votes, and in the case of a tie, they split the Senatorial votes.

That's a good idea in theory, but state legislatures already gerrymander congressional districts so one party or another is domininant within it. Under such a system, it would be possible for one party, if it were smart enough and dominant enough at any one particular moment, to redistrict enough seats in enough states to ensure or nearly ensure a guranteed majority in the electoral college. In order to make it work, you'd need to make sure that Congressional districts are apportioned in a non-partisan manner, and to do that in all 50 states, you'd probably need a Constitutional amendment. Not that I would oppose such a thing, but it would be hard to pass it.

[HemlockGrey]

The Electoral College was set up to ensure that Congress would pick the President. Since after Washington there were no major national figures, the Fathers assumed that each region would offer up its own crop of candidates, none would garner a majority of the electoral votes, and then Congress would select the winner from the pool of "best picks".

Of course, with the rise of political parties right after the end of Washington's terms, this idea became obsolete almost immediately, so, yeah, it needs to be badly reformed.

[Admiral_K]

My US History teacher came up with what I thought was an interesting idea.

You take the congressional districts in each state and have them vote on how their Representative casts their vote in the Electoral College. Whichever canidate garners more of those votes gets the 2 Senatorial votes, and in the case of a tie, they split the Senatorial votes.

That system is exactly how its done in a couple of states, although circumstances for the vote being split apparently haven't come up yet. I too have been a proponent of this system. It would definately decrease voter apathy in states where they are severely outnumbered by the oposition, and yet have their own pockets of support which could garner an electoral vote or two.

[White Haven]

Of course, given how close that system is to the popular vote itself, you might as well take one more step and DELTREE \ELECTPRS\ELECTCLG

[MKSheppard]

How do we reward record breaking turn out if we start ignoring the other half of the electorate of a hotly contested election?

Sounds like someone in NY is sad over the election results

[The Duchess of Zeon]

A proportional electoral college, Stravo, would have simply given the President an even more decisive majority (and the Nebraska/Maine system would have made it even [i]worse[/i] than that). Unless, of course, you only plan on having a proportional electoral college in Republican states and keep the winner-takes-all in democratic states.

The obvious solution to the problem is to abolish the [i]popular vote[/i], not the electoral college. I think the rise of populist presidencies which appeal to the people using rhetorical tricks rather than directing the best interests of the nation (and despite my admiration for Reagan I acknowledge that he was just such a president, making a general populist appeal rather than standing above the interests of the mob) have directly resulted from giving the people to much power.

What we need is to divorce the electoral college from the popular vote, and establish certain criteria--either in each state or in a constitutional amendment--for the appointment of electors by the state governors. These criteria should be based on certain qualifications which, even if they do not insure a wise and disinterested electoral college, guarantee that all the people in it have certain skills and experiences under their belts.

Furthermore the election of senators--the senate being so crucial in certain areas of interest to our nation's functioning--should be again delegated to the state legislatures rather than the people. This will demand a certain degree of moderation from senators by creating a level of separation between the senate and the mob.

If you are unhappy with the results of this election then it's beyond ridiculous--it's insane and counterproductive--to give more power to the people. The point of this country was [i]never[/i] to have a democracy, and now we are seeing the results of one hundred years of having neglected that intention in the founding fathers and giving more and more power to the mob.

[Patrick Degan]

Gives us a good idea what the founding fathers thought, right?

Yes, Tribun, they were good god fearing folks who made sure their niggers brought them sandwhiches when they were hungry.

Well, George Washington first wanted the President to be greeted with "Your Majesty". But his collegues finally had convinced him that "Mr. President" is better.

That was Alexander Hamilton who wanted that.

[FireNexus]

The original idea behind the electoral college was to give the smaller (population-wise) states enough influence for them to be worth the time of presidential candidates. A state like Wyoming would have no influence in presidential politics based on a direct popular vote (or a split electoral vote). The system is a compromise to give small states some kind of influence.

[Stuart Mackey]

snip

If you are unhappy with the results of this election then it's beyond ridiculous--it's insane and counterproductive--to give more power to the people. The point of this country was never to have a democracy, and now we are seeing the results of one hundred years of having neglected that intention in the founding fathers and giving more and more power to the mob.

Well, your founding fathers are long dead and the reality is that people, eventualy, get what they want.

[Stuart Mackey]

It was on the ballot in some states this year. It is based on the belief that winner take all is intrinsicley unfair and that electoral votes should be rewarded in proportion to the votes you receive.
snip

Not a bad Idea.. Allthough I would extend proportional voting to your House and Senate that way you would have a fair system throughout legislative government.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Wow... I agree with Marina on something...

[HemlockGrey]

Yes! And when the self-perpetuating oligarchy your system creates gets out of hand...well, then we can just shoot the motherfuckers! Am I right?

Yeah, our system sucks, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of advantages in yours, other than that it replaces the "The People" with "The Few", who will evidently guide the country wisely with no thought given to their own partisan affliations.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes! And when the self-perpetuating oligarchy your system creates gets out of hand...well, then we can just shoot the motherfuckers! Am I right?

Yeah, our system sucks, but I'm not seeing a whole lot of advantages in yours, other than that it replaces the "The People" with "The Few", who will evidently guide the country wisely with no thought given to their own partisan affliations.

Please remember that Governors are still responsible to citizens for the Electors they would appoint, and state legislatures are still responsible to citizens for the Senators they would appoint. Moreover, you could still elect your congressional representative to the House.

The basic idea is that creating that "degree of separation" would tend to make successful candidates to those positions more moderate, as it removes their ability to use demagogery to manipulate the emotions of the mob.

[Patrick Degan]

snip

If you are unhappy with the results of this election then it's beyond ridiculous--it's insane and counterproductive--to give more power to the people. The point of this country was never to have a democracy, and now we are seeing the results of one hundred years of having neglected that intention in the founding fathers and giving more and more power to the mob.

No, the point of this country was to not necessarily have a direct democracy. Neither was it to have an oligarchy. And labelling democracy "mob rule" is idiotic on its face.