The Electoral College

Continue with Electoral College. I would have never joined the union had I known you were going to switch decks on me. A deal's a deal.

i never went to college so my house is still just wired for 120.

I don't see how eliminating the EC is going to get us anywhere. We'd be recounting every vote nationally 10 or 15 times instead.

IMO, we need to keep it but it should be modified to get rid of the "winner takes all" method that 48 of the 50 states use and go to a district by district allocation.

That would also be acceptable.

modification of some sort is certianly needed.

What do you visualize, Quinn?

fishin' raises a valid concern ... but realignment would be tricky. One of the effects of the Electoral College is to equalize the overall impact of voters from political subdivisions of higher population density than others. A strictly "Most Votes In The General Election" approach is not egalitarian, it gives undue advantage to Urban Concerns. This was among the original considerations which brought about the institution, and while others of those considerations may have been rendered less relevant in contemporary times, that one factor fully justifies and validates the concept. The Electoral College is one of our near-fabled "Checks and Balances", and it works. I'm a country boy, and I don't trust them city folk all that much.



timber

I think I like fishin''s idea, but I am a little concerned about the redistricting/gerrymandering that might accompany it. After all, if you wanted to jigger the next election in favor of, say, one political persuasion, you might make your voting districts more numerous but smaller (thereby making it harder to visit all of them). I can see where this might favor an incumbent, who would have better name recognition and might not need to go to every little middlesex village and town to get the vote out.

Or, you could rig things so that a minority group would be overrepresented in a number of smaller voting districts, and the majority (or other minorities) would be relegated to a few (but more populous) districts. If a district with 50 people in it gets the same say as one with 500 or 5,000, you can really tamper with things if you move people around like chess pieces. If there are 45 people in minority X, they can dominate the voting in the 50-person district, but would be lost in the 5,000-person district.

The 2000 Election was a real education for me, just as being involved in these forums. I have always voted, but not as a very informed individual. It wasn't until Iran/Contra that I started really to wake up and pay attention. I decided it was time to stop trusting and being manipulated, and vote on the truth as best as I could determine it. I decided to cut myself out of the herd!

For example, I was always thought we were a democracy, with decisions being made in a democratic way. Imagine my surprise when I learned that indeed, we are a republic, and the real decisions were not determined in a democratic way.

Imagine my total surprise when I realized that some peoples votes are worth more than others. Imagine my total shock, that because I live in a densely populated state, my vote is worth much less than the vote of a person in a scarcely populated area. I think it works out my vote is worth about 60% (3/5) of what their vote is. Somehow that doesn't seem right to me. I am taxed in the same relation incomewise, to those in those states, however I am only 60% of a citizen, where they are considered as a 100% citizen. This gets in the way of my concept of equality. This gets in the way of my concept of equal representation. I don't FEEL like I should be less of a citizen, but the truth is, I am!

I object vehemently to that concept!!!

Anon

Both Fishin' and Jespah score here, in my opinion. Fishin' in that some modification might be in order. Jespah in that the specter of the evil monster Gerrymander raises it's ugly head (and how appropriate, as the term first arose in a redistricting dispute in Massachusselly).

I voted for the abolition of the Electoral College, which does not mean to say that i favor direct popular vote. Although i see Timber's objection as somewhat valid, i would note that so much of the population lives in urban, or suburban locales, that it would be an abuse of the majority by a minority to lessen the impact of these voters by too great an amount.

The original issues of sovereignty (sp?) which lead to the creation of the Senate and the electoral college, as well as the requirement for the advice and the consent of the Senate on matters of magisterial appointment and foreign relations were negated in a welter of blood in the War Between the States. That some want a return to "States Rights" is disingenuous, in that their agendas are not at all consonant with the concerns of states prior to 1860. (Both Massachussetts and North Carolina threatened secession prior to 1850, and i believe it is correct to say that Massachusselly has made the threat more often than any other state.)

The constitution provides for a vote in the House in the event of an inability of the electoral college to name a winner. For that reason, i've always considered the decision of the Supremes in 2000 to have been unconstitutional. Perhaps some modification of the basis for the electoral college, such as members of the House required to cast a vote based upon the results in their district might work. Were the members of the House to fudge on that, or were there reasonable contentions of fraud within a district, the mid-term elections could prove a nightmare for a President seen to have been unfairly placed in office.

Bingo. Timber, you are my hero for the day.

Unless you think those who live in less populous states should have no say in the election of our President, the electoral college must remain, and should retain the "winner takes all" method of allocating electoral votes. If you split each state into electoral districts, you remove the very reason for having the electoral college. The electoral vote would simply mirror the popular vote.

The issue (in my never-to-be-humble opinion) is whether the interests of those who live in urban centers and the interests of those who live in sparsely populated areas are the same. In many ways they are not, which means that unless you level the field--as the electoral college does--you end up with tyranny of the majority over the minority. The President, and by extension, the government would never have to consider the point of view of those outside the cities, because their opinions would never be felt at the voting booth.

Splitting the state's EC delegates by Congressional districts would only make the system slightly more granular. You would end up with 450 or so districts casting votes instead of the current 56 or 57 and it wouldn't force a direct match to the popular vote. A state with 3 districts could have one candidate get 51% of the popular vote in all 3 districts and take all 3 EC votes just as they do now.

The advantage of voting by district within the EC is that if a rural district votes one way their popular vote count isn't overridden by a major city's urban/suburban vote on the other end of the state as they are now.

I'm not so sure with a completely computerized voting system that recounts would occur that often and would be really easy to do. I'm against being able to vote at home on the computer as that is a direct slap at those who can't afford a computer but go out and vote as a concerned citizen. We all go to the grocery store every week to spend an hour with a chore that isn't one we actually look forward to (except to pick up our favorite -- pickled butterfly wings). I see no excuse for going out and voting unless one is protesting the state of then government and that doing it from sincere consciousness (nobody deserves criticism in most of those cases unless we can get into their mind).

Popular voting could work then but it won't work now and there's still the question of a fair cross section of the majority within each state and state's rights to consider.

As for the issue of whether or not those in sparsely populated areas would be represented in the presidential election, i would add to Fishin's cogent observations that the chief magistrate is the only elected official who represents the entire population, and if the majority of that population is urban, s/he must represent them. Quite apart from that, no holder of that office has ever really made a significant effort for a minority population, their efforts are cosmetic for purposes of the mid-term election, and possible reelection. As well, no holder of that office has ever been able to ignore such a population, as they need to be able to negotiate with individual members of the Congress; especially in matters touching on magisterial appointment and foreign affairs, the issue of population goes right out the window when courting the two-per-state delegations.

I have no problem with a result in a Congressional vote which mirrors the popular vote--it is the mechanism which concerns me the most. Currently, absolutely no politician is required to take responsibility for the outcome--what i envision is a system in which every member of the Congress would be obliged to answer.

I'm also voting yea to to fishin's ideas. Couple that with improved access to computer voting stations that are very user friendly and it could be developed into a fair and efficient voting system.

Lightwizard makes a very cogent point re: the perceived protection the electoral college offers rural populations. In states with large urban and rural populations -- California comes to mind, of course -- the rural population frequently are the ones to lose their voice under the electoral system. Most of eastern and northern California (and Orange County, for that matter) does not line up ideologically with the SF/San Jose and Los Angeles. Nonetheless, most presidential elections all of California's votes go to the Democratic candidate. The only real advantage that the electoral college affords rural voters is its disproportionate allotment of votes to less populous states.

The college also negates the scale of a victory in each state. A very solid majority vote in a rural state doesn't count any more or less than a slim plurality of votes in a predominately urban/suburban state.

Voter turnout is also ignored. Electoral votes are apportioned roughly according to population, but those votes in turn are cast only according to who actually turns up at the polls.

I'd be quite satisfied if each state apportioned it's electoral votes according to their own popular vote. (Of course, there's a good chance that pres. elections then result in a tie, in which case the deciding vote is cast in the House of Representatives, which is determined by population.)

Ack. Just thinking about it makes me realize how apparently polarized our country has become, even though most of us really share the same core of beliefs. Grrrrrrrr............

I'm very tempted to agree with this statement but... (you knew there was a "but" rigt? lol ) The part that scares me is that when you give someone responsibility you also extend to them a measure of authority and freedom to act as they need to to meet that responsibility. It would be interesting to see this idea developed more but I'd want a LOT of assurances that those nitwits in the Congress don't have the ability to run off and do whatever they choose and not be fully accountable in the end.

You too, huh?



timber