Let's get rid of the Electoral College

The two party system is the product of many factors, not the least of which is collusion between the two parties to kill off any rivals--but the electoral college did not create or shape the two party system.

Personally, i think there is more true democracy in the United States, even with the electoral college, than there is in other industrial democracies.

For instance, Mexico has a "first past the post" system for presidential elections: i.e. the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of how many votes he or she receives. In 2006, the top two candidates won 35.89% and 35.31% of the national vote, a difference of about 240,000 votes out of over 41 million cast. The second-place finisher, Lopez Obrador, claimed that fraud and other electoral shenanigans invalidated the totals and protested the decision to give the election to his opponent, Calderon. In fact, Lopez Obrador still hasn't recognized the 2006 election as legitimate, which just shows that popular vote systems aren't immune to these types of controversies.

Again, some see that as an advantage to the American system. And, in terms of results, there's something to be said for two centrist parties rather than a multitude of more doctrinaire parties.

The US has had pretty much the same political system in place since 1804, which is a fairly good record as far as democracies go.

I'm not proposing any system.

Well, 204 years of success is one measure of the public's acceptance of the current system's legitimacy. You may have your own personal gripes, but the people as a whole seem to accept it.

Robert Gentel wrote:

My desire to get rid of the electoral college isn't motivated in the slightest by any the results being hotly contested or by controversy over who has won. But I acknowledge that this may matter a lot more to others than it does to me.

It probably should be a concern.

Robert Gentel wrote:

I care more about the accuracy of the representation of my political power more than whether the results are closer and contested more often but can see a legitimate downside to political controversy.

Well, if an electoral system reflects your will as a voter but yields uncertain results, then I'm not sure where the advantage is. That's rather like saying that, as long as the spark plugs are firing, you don't care if the car runs or not. Elections aren't just about the process, they're also about the results.

But then to say that the election was a disaster because Gore didn't win is merely assuming that electoral systems must give the victory to the candidate with the most popular votes, and that's the point you're attempting to establish. That's akin to question-begging.

It's not pointless to be a Republican voter in California, it's just that Republican presidential candidates tend to lose in California elections. But as long as you're having elections, you're going to have losers.

No, it just means that you voted for the loser. Your options: either get over it and move on or else start voting for winners. That's the same choice that democracy gives to every voter.

Tradition for tradition's sake is no better than change for change's sake. That it hasn't changed much is a testament to its stability but I don't equate stability with good any more than I would equate change with good.

Quote:

I'm not proposing any system.

Ok, but do you favor any system?

Popularity is relevant in democracy, in that if most Americans prefer the electoral college system I think they should have their way. But it doesn't mean that it's a better system.

Quote:

Well, if an electoral system reflects your will as a voter but yields uncertain results, then I'm not sure where the advantage is. That's rather like saying that, as long as the spark plugs are firing, you don't care if the car runs or not. Elections aren't just about the process, they're also about the results.

This is a false analogy. More political controversy doesn't mean that the system isn't working.

My argument for getting rid of the electoral system is not predicated on the notion that Gore didn't win. It is based on my preference for equal political representation.

Because I prefer equal political representation, I see Gore's defeat as a failure. It would be question-begging if I were supporting the argument that equal representation is better through portrayal of this as a failure but that just wasn't the case. I was commenting on why the 2000 elections were a "disaster" and not on the merits of the system I propose.

You'd been talking about the political controversy as what made that a "disaster" and I was saying that to me the fact that disproportionate representation overrode popular will was the negative and not the contesting of the results.

There is a significant difference in that in a popular vote system you'd need to be in a losing camp nationwide, whereas with the electoral college system you merely need to be in the loosing camp within your state (assuming it doesn't proportionally allocate the electoral votes) to not have your vote represented in electoral votes.

Not all democracies are created equal. And in American democracy, sometimes you aren't voting for the nationwide "loser". For example, a Republican vote in California in 2004 was for the winner, but was not represented in electoral votes. This is not the same as having your vote represented more directly and losing.

Done my math.
López Obrador, winning 15 states and the Federal District, would have defeated Calderón, who won in 16 states, by 189 electoral votes to 165.

Here's an "American style" map:



(Blue states, won by Calderón; Yellow states, won by López Obrador... notice the dramatic political divide between North and South...don't pay attention to the number on each state... it's alphabetical)

The disadvantage is that my single vote has been worth less than someone in wyoming's vote has been for my whole life, through what I think of as mob-snobbery.
Or, land breadth over persons.

That's pretty impressive work, but how did you come up with your numbers? The Mexican chamber of deputies has 300 seats allocated on a district basis. If we allocate two additional electoral votes per state, then there should be 364 electoral votes, no? You only have 354. You're missing ten votes.

In any event, while this exercise is very interesting, it's highly artificial. There were three major-party candidates who split the popular vote roughly 36-35-22. The US hasn't had a presidential contest where the winner took less than 40% of the popular vote since 1860. In a US-style electoral system, Madrazo, the third-place candidate, wouldn't have even run, or would have been a minor fringe party candidate. Which only shows once again that close elections (especially close elections with multiple candidates) will expose the flaws inherent in any electoral system.

You yourself credited the winner-take-all method of allocating the electoral votes with helping to prop up the two party system here.

How are you measuring this?

Quote:

You yourself credited the winner-take-all method of allocating the electoral votes with helping to prop up the two party system here.

Yes, and Joe contradicted me, and as i am unable to provide a source, i deferred to his statement.

I don't see the difference between "close elections" and "close elections with multiple candidates".

IMHO, the problem with the Electoral College method has very little to do with close elections (even if State differences are, almost by definition, smaller than nationwide differences), and a lot to do with the concept of "one citizen, one vote" and the fact that in the XXI Century voters do know who their national candidates are.

The convention route for amending the constitution had never been used so that is highly unlikeily to occur mainly because people fear what wide ranging amendments could come out of such a convention.

Snowball chance in hell indeed.