Electoral Reform

[Aesir]

I've thought about making this topic for a while largely because this is a big issue with me, even more so then health care. After RDK mentioned it would be a good idea I decided to finally make it so here it goes.

The way we elect Presidents is seriously flawed, and it's the only time we use the electoral college. (Most other elections are done via popular vote.) Now many people cite the 2000 election as one of the worst cases of the electoral college which is nothing more then luck the system allows for a whole slew of problems. I won't go into the mechanical problems but I'll touch on a few aspects I find makes the electoral college unreasonable for America.

Why the system is unfair

The system is unfair for many reasons just to name a few though:

- The 2000 Election was decided by a Supreme Court Case, despite the Florida voting counters claim they could finish another recount the Supreme Court didn't allow it and instead they declared Bush the winner.

Now the reason this went to the Supreme court was because all the electoral's have to cast their vote by a dead line. Because Florida had done numerous recounts there was concern they wouldn't reach that dead line so the case went before the US Supreme court.

Justice Souter and three other justices were against the decision saying Paraphrasing "The court should not have stopped Florida from recounting all the under counted votes. The issue may have turn into a non-issue"

He's right by effectively picking the president for Americans hundreds of thousands of voters wen't largely unheard. Which is very un-democratic.

- Smaller states and swing states ultimately have more weight then larger states which means most people don't even see campaign ads let a lone the candidates.

Because of the winner take all effect, candidates don't have to maximize their votes in safe states just so long as they have enough to win a majority of the state they get all electorals.

A voter in Cali has less of an impact then a voter in WY.
EX: 100,000 votes in Cali would mean 1 Electoral vote, where as in WY it would mean 3. So while Cali may have more electoral votes then WY it's largely disproportionate to single voters.

Swing states are where elections are won, candidates campaign and spend millions of dollars in those states just to get every last vote they can. Which again is place more power into a minority which is very un-democratic.


Prejudice against Third Parties

In 2000 the Democrats had a saying, "A vote for Nader is a Vote for Bush" Now I'm not going to get into this specific issue despite the fact if you look at that year if Nader didn't run Bush would have won by an even larger number.

This line of thinking is bad, first off it's un-democratic. By limiting our selves to two choices we're setting it up to fail. There should be more voices in debates. Democracy isn't about having more then one voice it's about having multi-voices. Considering how out of touch the Democratic Party and Republican Party is we would largely benefit from third parties becoming viable.


----

Now there's many ways to reform Presidential Elections.

1. IRV (instant-Run Off Voting) With Direct elections. Basically instead of one person one vote, voters would rank their choices from favorite to least favorite. For instance in 2000 if IRV was the system a Nader or Buchanan voter could vote their conscience without making the other guy win.

I'll use the 2008 scenario.

-Nader

-Obama

-Mckinny.

How this would work is simple, they would count all the votes if after the first count no one holds a majority the one with the least votes is illiminated and and they count everyone's second choice. The Process continues until someone holds a majority. Since it would be direct election find a majority would not be much of an issue as opposed to the electoral college.

2.
Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes:

Instead of abolition the Electoral College you could simply allocate electoral votes based on the percentage a candidate won.

This system has been proposed with a number of variations, most recently in Colorado. As a popular alternative, it splits each state’s electoral votes in accordance with their popular vote percentages. This way, a candidate who come in second place in a state with 45% of the popular vote would receive 45% of the electoral votes from that state, instead of 0%.

Taken from Fairvote.org

This could work too. Anyway your thoughts?

For other alternatives you can check here.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm

It has alot of alternatives that I didn't want to type up, but they're good reads.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The idea that direct voting makes every vote equal is a common mistake. I used this map when I was debating against "One person, one vote" in DWYP:

As you can see, without the electoral college, a candidate can skip the entire western half of the US (save California) and win the presidency. Colorado would basically cease to exist in the political sense; if you recall a few months ago it was a key battleground state.

There's no getting around the fact that population density and demographics affect the weight of a person's vote. Direct voting will not change that, it will simply shift the weight entirely to the East Coast.

 

[Aesir]

The idea that direct voting makes every vote equal is a common mistake. I used this map when I was debating against "One person, one vote" in DWYP:


As you can see, without the electoral college, a candidate can skip the entire western half of the US (save California) and win the presidency. Colorado would basically cease to exist in the political sense; if you recall a few months ago it was a key battleground state.

With the electoral college a candidate can skip more then half the US and still win. States like Texas will never vote Democratic, a long with states like CT will never vote Republican. These are safe states for the two major parties meaning they don't have to spend any time in those states and shift their focus to 10 states at the most.

There's no getting around the fact that population density and demographics affect the weight of a person's vote. Direct voting will not change that, it will simply shift the weight entirely to the East Coast.

In no way am I completely endorsing that idea, I simply offered it as a alternative. Along with proportional allocation of electoral.

What I am endorsing though is IRV, either via popular vote or Proportional Allocation of Electoral votes.

 

[Reaver197]

I definitely agree with the sentiment that something has to be done about the 2 party system we have right now.

The proportional allocation of electoral votes sounds interesting too.

 

[Deleted member]

As you can see, without the electoral college, a candidate can skip the entire western half of the US (save California) and win the presidency.

Why is this a bad thing?

Focusing on the areas with the vast majority seems to be the most utilitarian, and it's certainly better than the way you guys have things now.

I play devil's advocate too often.

 

[AltF4]

Yea, you say that like it's a bad thing, Jam.

People are the ones who vote, not plots of land. If 99% of the population lived in one state, would you really want for the rest of the 49 states to have equal voting? Of course not.

It may look "uneven" when looking at the land, but the land is not what votes. People do. Voting should be equal for all people.

 

[Jam Stunna]

But that's the thing, votes would still not be even. Elections cost money, and if you only have a certain amount of time and money, where are you going to spend it: in Iowa (52.7 people per square mile) or New Jersey (1,134 people per square mile)? The same problem would exist.

 

[Aesir]

But that's the thing, votes would still not be even. Elections cost money, and if you only have a certain amount of time and money, where are you going to spend it: in Iowa (52.7 people per square mile) or New Jersey (1,134 people per square mile)? The same problem would exist.

No because in the electoral college you're only going to campaign in competitive states. Because of the Red/Blue state scenario we have very few states that are actually competitive. This is because of the winner take all system, if we abolished that system more states will become more competitive which means candidates will actually have to campaign in more states to win.

 

[Jam Stunna]

You guys keep missing the point. Even if you changed the winner-take-all system, it still makes better strategic sense to campaign in areas with greater numbers of votes at stake. Assuming that both states are competitive, if you only won half of New Jersey's electoral votes (7.5), you'd still get more than if you won all of Iowa's (7). Once again, remembering that you only have a certain amount of time and money, where would you campaign?

 

[Aesir]

You guys keep missing the point. Even if you changed the winner-take-all system, it still makes more strategic sense to campaign in areas with greater numbers of votes at stake. Assuming that both states are competitive, if you only won half of New Jersey's electoral votes (7.5), you'd still get more than if you won all of Iowa's (7). Once again, remembering that you only have a certain amount of time and money, where would you campaign?

That's the same with any system, the problem with the Electoral college is, certain voters carry more weight then others. in a popular vote election a voter from NJ carries the same influence as a person from Iowa. Unlike in the Electoral College where the Iowa voter carries more weight.

That's why the system needs to be abolished or re-worked.

 

[Deleted member]

But that's the thing, votes would still not be even. Elections cost money, and if you only have a certain amount of time and money, where are you going to spend it: in Iowa (52.7 people per square mile) or New Jersey (1,134 people per square mile)? The same problem would exist.

I think you have it backwards. The way it is now the campaigns stretch out for almost 2 god **** years. I got sick of Obamamania a year ago.

If they focused on the greater populated areas, perhaps the campaign trails wouldn't be so god **** convoluted. They campaign to every single state as it is now, so I don't see how you would spend more money than they already do.

 

[Deleted member]

Double post cause I said so:

Alt, would you agree with me that if they switched to equal voting for all people, it would allow for more parties to represent the western states?

It would be a much more diverse political dynamic. Two parties is so lame.

 

[manhunter098]

The two party system really has nothing to do with presidential elections. It is mostly our local representatives and the way that they are elected (a plurality vote) that causes the two party system to arise, there is actually a proven "law" (much like a scientific law) that states that when you hold elections where the winner is decided by a plurality of votes, that it WILL give rise to a two party system.


Here we go. I found it (forgot what it was called and took me a bit to track it down)

Duvergers Law

 

[Aesir]

The two party system really has nothing to do with presidential elections. It is mostly our local representatives and the way that they are elected (a plurality vote) that causes the two party system to arise, there is actually a proven "law" (much like a scientific law) that states that when you hold elections where the winner is decided by a plurality of votes, that it WILL give rise to a two party system.


Here we go. I found it (forgot what it was called and took me a bit to track it down)

Duvergers Law

This is why you have IRV, sure the unintelligent voter probably won't know of any third parties that are present. However for the minority of voters who are very informed and find themselves agreeing with a third party rather then a major party they can vote their conscience without dividing the vote.

 

[manhunter098]

Instant Runoff Voting is still not as desirable for representing third parties, Proportional Representation works much better at making sure that the voice of every citizen is heard in the representatives that are elected. I would say that instant runoff voting would be good for presidential elections, but not for electing our congressional representatives.

 

[Aesir]

Instant Runoff Voting is still not as desirable for representing third parties, Proportional Representation works much better at making sure that the voice of every citizen is heard in the representatives that are elected. I would say that instant runoff voting would be good for presidential elections, but not for electing our congressional representatives.

In case you missed the memo this whole thread is on electoral reform for presidential elections. I think I said that in my first post one moment:

The way we elect Presidents is seriously flawed, and it's the only time we use the electoral college. (Most other elections are done via popular vote.) Now many people cite the 2000 election as one of the worst cases of the electoral college which is nothing more then luck the system allows for a whole slew of problems. I won't go into the mechanical problems but I'll touch on a few aspects I find makes the electoral college unreasonable for America.


edit: also from your previous link:

While there are indeed many SMDP systems with two parties, there are significant counterexamples:

* India, the world's largest democracy, has multiple regional parties, especially the Communist Party of India (Marxist) that has been strongly entrenched in three states - West Bengal, Kerala, and Manipur - for nearly three decades. It may be argued that the NDA (National Democratic Alliance) and the UPA (United Progressive Alliance) multiparty coalitions serve as cognates of the two parties of Duverger's law.
* Scotland has had until recently SMDP and similar systems, but has seen the development of several significant competing political parties.
* In the United Kingdom, the Liberal party/Alliance/Liberal Democrats have, since the February 1974 General Election, usually obtained between 15% and 25% of the vote forming a "third party" and creating a so-called two-and-a-half-party system.
* In Canada, the New Democratic Party and its predecessor the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation have had a constant presence in Parliament since the CCF's first election in 1935. At least four, and sometimes five, political parties have been represented in the Canadian parliament at any given time since the 1993 election. In addition, the now-defunct Social Credit Party of Canada also maintained itself in Parliament nearly consistently from 1935 to 1979, often resulting in Parliaments with four national parties represented. Most successful third and fourth parties have been regionally based, however, such as the Canadian Alliance/Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc only runs candidates in Quebec, where competition is primarily between the Bloc (and its provinical counterpart, the Parti Québécois) and the Liberal Party, and the Conservative Party holds third-party status.

Duverger himself did not regard his principle as absolute: instead he suggested that SMDP would act to delay the emergence of a new political force, and would accelerate the elimination of a weakening force — PR would have the opposite effect.

Additionally, William H. Riker noted that strong regional parties can distort matters, leading to more than two parties receiving seats in the national legislature, even if there are only two parties competitive in any single district. He pointed to Canada's regional politics, as well as the U.S. presidential election of 1860, as examples of often temporary regional instability that occurs from time-to-time in otherwise stable two-party systems (Riker, 1982).

Funny thing about social science laws they're not as rigid or objective as natural science laws. For instance take the Bradley effect, if that were true John McCain would have been the president.

 

[RDK]

Jesus, how did I miss this thread?

Instant Runoff Voting is still not as desirable for representing third parties, Proportional Representation works much better at making sure that the voice of every citizen is heard in the representatives that are elected. I would say that instant runoff voting would be good for presidential elections, but not for electing our congressional representatives.

I think it's you guys that are missing the point.

You keep claiming that campaigns would simply skip the West, excluding Cali, and go straight for the Eastern seaboard where the majority of the population is at. I don't really see the problem with this; it's just smart campaigning.

Isn't the whole point of running a campaign to get the maximum amount of votes possible? Changing how the actual votes are weighed doesn't change the strategy; you're still being utilitarian about it--only now it's actually fair.

And having a greasy politician come to your state to lie to your face about what they're going to do for you shouldn't vastly effect your vote. If you like their record, you like their record.

 

[Aesir]

(Bumping for the sole purpose because we're getting new blood in the DH soon.)

Isn't the whole point of running a campaign to get the maximum amount of votes possible? Changing how the actual votes are weighed doesn't change the strategy; you're still being utilitarian about it--only now it's actually fair.

This is exactly the point, there's nothing wrong with smart campaigning, the problem with the current system is it favors certain states rather arbitrarily.

I think another component we should look into for electoral reform is the whole debate process, it should be non-partisan, not bi-partisan as it is today. There should be an independent organization to run them to avoid conflict of interest like we have today.

 

[RDK]

Problems like major parties boxing out minor parties from the debates so that they get next to no media coverage.

If minor parties were included in national debates, their support would be a lot larger than what we have to day. Insufficient coverage is one of the main reasons many people don't even know about minor parties.

 

[Eor]

I think it's more the winner takes all approach we have to things. States with multiple parties in power tend to elect by plurality instead of how we do it. I want to say all do, but I'm not 100% sure on that

 

[Aesir]

Problems like major parties boxing out minor parties from the debates so that they get next to no media coverage.

If minor parties were included in national debates, their support would be a lot larger than what we have to day. Insufficient coverage is one of the main reasons many people don't even know about minor parties.

Basically how it goes now you can't get in the Debates unless you have Media coverage because you need a certain level of support (15%). However you also can't get media coverage unless you're in the debates, unless you're Ross Perot and have like 3 billion just laying around or something.

I think if you're on enough state ballots to win the election you should be allowed to take part in the debates.

 

[RDK]

Basically how it goes now you can't get in the Debates unless you have Media coverage because you need a certain level of support (15%). However you also can't get media coverage unless you're in the debates, unless you're Ross Perot and have like 3 billion just laying around or something.

I think if you're on enough state ballots to win the election you should be allowed to take part in the debates.

Getting into the debates has nothing to do with level support. The organization that runs the debates is funded by the major parties, which in turn ensures that the minor parties are kept out of the debates. It's been that way for years.

 

[Aesir]

Getting into the debates has nothing to do with level support. The organization that runs the debates is funded by the major parties, which in turn ensures that the minor parties are kept out of the debates. It's been that way for years.

Actually it does the Debate Commission has set up a certain percentile of what they considered relevant support. Which is at 15% this is why Perot didn't get in during the 1996 elections he couldn't gain 15% as opposed to his just 4 years before when they allowed him on the debates.

In any case though minor parties need to be on that stage otherwise they'll never have a chance.

Minor party voices are needed I can tell you I found the debate between Barr, Baldwin and Nader far more interesting and informative then the McCain Obama debate lol.

 

[RDK]

Actually it does the Debate Commission has set up a certain percentile of what they considered relevant support. Which is at 15% this is why Perot didn't get in during the 1996 elections he couldn't gain 15% as opposed to his just 4 years before when they allowed him on the debates.

Oops, turns out you were absolutely right; it is 15%. My bad.

http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html

Even so, the Debate Commission claims to be "non-partisan" when it's glaringly obvious it's not. There's no way a minor party is going to get over 15% in today's world, unless the major parties start crumbling faster than they already are. They make that criteria unattainable on purpose, just to keep minor parties out.

In any case though minor parties need to be on that stage otherwise they'll never have a chance.

Minor party voices are needed I can tell you I found the debate between Barr, Baldwin and Nader far more interesting and informative then the McCain Obama debate lol.

Agreed.

 

[Aesir]

Oops, turns out you were absolutely right; it is 15%. My bad.

http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2008.html

Even so, the Debate Commission claims to be "non-partisan" when it's glaringly obvious it's not. There's no way a minor party is going to get over 15% in today's world, unless the major parties start crumbling faster than they already are. They make that criteria unattainable on purpose, just to keep minor parties out.



Agreed.

Exactly, would you agree though that to be on the debates all you needed was enough state ballots to win the general election?

 

[ArcPoint]

I agree with the point that third parties should be on some of these debates to get their voice heard, there's nothing wrong with that.

However I don't get the problem with third party prejudice (save for the debates) in the electoral system we have now. If a third party has the majority of a given state, wouldn't they get the respective electoral votes?

I agree that these third parties should be heard by the entire American people though, it's a touch difficult to get a support base if no one knows about you. But I don't see a problem with the electoral system itself in this, just the debates/ads and however else third parties can get their voice out is flawed.

Though I do see the problem with "If I vote for a third party, I'm taking away a vote from my secondary choice, " That is a legitimate problem, which why I like the IRV system coupled with our current "Winner takes all" system. People can actually vote for third parties without taking away their vote from their second choice.

 

[Aesir]

I agree with the point that third parties should be on some of these debates to get their voice heard, there's nothing wrong with that.

Good you're already more democratic then democrats and republicans. =D

However I don't get the problem with third party prejudice (save for the debates) in the electoral system we have now. If a third party has the majority of a given state, wouldn't they get the respective electoral votes?

I suggest you look at the OP again because I'm sure I covered this, however in case I didn't; When you have a winner take all system the parties in power can snuff you out. "A vote for nader is a vote for Bush." Because the votes are not allocated proportionally the two parties can scare their bases into voting for them because they ride on the idea of being the least worst. So voters instead of voting for the candidate that represents them they vote for people who don't share their views.

That's the problem with the electoral college from a third party stand point.

I agree that these third parties should be heard by the entire American people though, it's a touch difficult to get a support base if no one knows about you. But I don't see a problem with the electoral system itself in this, just the debates/ads and however else third parties can get their voice out is flawed.

Covered above.

Though I do see the problem with "If I vote for a third party, I'm taking away a vote from my secondary choice, " That is a legitimate problem, which why I like the IRV system coupled with our current "Winner takes all" system. People can actually vote for third parties without taking away their vote from their second choice.

Wrong if we did that it wouldn't solve the problem only give us the illusion of a solution. The winner take all approach is not only discriminatory against minor parties it's very undemocratic.

The fact that you can come in first place in the popular vote but still lose the election is proof of a very flawed system. In fact I would argue it's the reason why we have such small voter turn outs. Less then half the country votes. If we at least allocated those votes proportionally voters would feel more inclined to vote because their vote does matter.

in CT all those McCain supporters they basically wasted their time in line, because obama had this state, that's not what I would call free and fair elections.

 

[ArcPoint]

Good you're already more democratic then democrats and republicans. =D

Than, not then, mind you.

I suggest you look at the OP again because I'm sure I covered this, however in case I didn't; When you have a winner take all system the parties in power can snuff you out. "A vote for nader is a vote for Bush." Because the votes are not allocated proportionally the two parties can scare their bases into voting for them because they ride on the idea of being the least worst. So voters instead of voting for the candidate that represents them they vote for people who don't share their views.

That's the problem with the electoral college from a third party stand point.

Ah, I get it now. Thanks for elaborating on that. But even with the winner takes all IRV that "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" would be completely untrue, because even if you voted Nader, you could still put your secondary choice and then your tertiary.

Though, I'm still a little confused. You say that "The two parties can scare their bases into voting for them" If it's their base anyway...wouldn't they have voted for them regardless? Unless you're referring to the base of the third parties, which would be aided by the IRV system.

Wrong if we did that it wouldn't solve the problem only give us the illusion of a solution. The winner take all approach is not only discriminatory against minor parties it's very undemocratic.

The fact that you can come in first place in the popular vote but still lose the election is proof of a very flawed system. In fact I would argue it's the reason why we have such small voter turn outs. Less then half the country votes. If we at least allocated those votes proportionally voters would feel more inclined to vote because their vote does matter.

Well crap, can't argue that, if the majority wants one person, but another gets elected... yeah. Although, what about all those people that didn't vote in the "safe" states? Maybe Bush DID have a larger support base in the 2000 election, but the ones who didn't vote in the safe democratic states might have had an effect on the total number of votes? Just naming out possibilities.

in CT all those McCain supporters they basically wasted their time in line, because obama had this state, that's not what I would call free and fair elections.

Well, let's apply this to a federal level, let's say we suddenly went to popular vote. Now, the election for the United States was considered "Safe." Everyone knew who would win the majority, so the other people who weren't voting for that person felt that voting was a waste of their time. Was this election unfair and not free?

 

[Aesir]

Ah, I get it now. Thanks for elaborating on that. But even with the winner takes all IRV that "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" would be completely untrue, because even if you voted Nader, you could still put your secondary choice and then your tertiary.

Again you're still looking at this issue to narrowly, the debate did kind of teeter off into the importance of third parties but really this is about the electoral college and how bad it really is.

You over looked the problem of everyone not being represented, if I win 51% of the vote in CT I get all of the votes, but that leaves 49% of the state getting no say.

Sounds awfully dictatorial to me.

Though, I'm still a little confused. You say that "The two parties can scare their bases into voting for them" If it's their base anyway...wouldn't they have voted for them regardless? Unless you're referring to the base of the third parties, which would be aided by the IRV system.

You made a bad assumption you think they're entitled to these bases but they're not. The two major parties snuff out the competition to keep their bases in tact, rather then doing the honest and democratic thing and opening the field to more voices.

I'll say it again, they're not entitled to votes.

Well crap, can't argue that, if the majority wants one person, but another gets elected... yeah. Although, what about all those people that didn't vote in the "safe" states? Maybe Bush DID have a larger support base in the 2000 election, but the ones who didn't vote in the safe democratic states might have had an effect on the total number of votes? Just naming out possibilities.

If you mean he had larger support because Rove and his cronies tampered with the voters in Florida costing gore the election? Then yeah sure.

Well, let's apply this to a federal level, let's say we suddenly went to popular vote. Now, the election for the United States was considered "Safe." Everyone knew who would win the majority, so the other people who weren't voting for that person felt that voting was a waste of their time. Was this election unfair and not free?

Really bad example just needed to toss that out there.

if 80% of the country wants said guy then yeah, if certain people don't want to vote because of how much of a land slide that is? sure. The problem with the electoral college even in a competitive election people just don't vote because their vote doesn't matter. In plurality every vote matters.

Sure your scenario might be true at some point but that really isn't the fault of the system and more of a fault of the candidates.

 

[aeghrur]

Aesir, while I do support your idea, I have found some very interesting counterpoints to the idea.
Let us suppose we are going to completely abolish Electoral College and put IRV or 1 person 1 vote idea into effect.

How will the president have the force of the nation behind him then? The Senate represents the Nation and the House represents the people, so our legislative branch represents both our nation and our people. However, without electoral college, our president will not represent the nation anymore as they can simply win the Eastern half. Without this, he does not have the impact of the supporting force of the nation. Furthermore, he will not do things to benefit the whole nation, but rather, the half that supports him. With Electoral College, since unless it's very close, the people are represented as well as the benefit of the nation. How do you plan to face this?

Also, remember that the Electoral College was established to make a good decision for the uneducated masses. This is still needed today as many voters are uneducated and ignorant of their choices. For example, some people voted for Obama simply because he's black! We might need the Electoral College to stop some very stupid decisions made by the populous right?

 

[Aesir]

Aesir, while I do support your idea, I have found some very interesting counterpoints to the idea.
Let us suppose we are going to completely abolish Electoral College and put IRV or 1 person 1 vote idea into effect.

Where did you get 1 person 1 vote from?

I support IRV and fair elections, not the illusion of democracy that we have today.

How will the president have the force of the nation behind him then? The Senate represents the Nation and the House represents the people, so our legislative branch represents both our nation and our people. However, without electoral college, our president will not represent the nation anymore as they can simply win the Eastern half. Without this, he does not have the impact of the supporting force of the nation. Furthermore, he will not do things to benefit the whole nation, but rather, the half that supports him. With Electoral College, since unless it's very close, the people are represented as well as the benefit of the nation. How do you plan to face this?

Again the same rehashed arguments only less blunt this time.

So you think winning 11 out of the 50 states is okay? or how about winning the election when you didn't even win the popular vote? Please answer this.

Also the president is representing PEOPLE, not areas of land I think you should think about that for a moment.

Also, remember that the Electoral College was established to make a good decision for the uneducated masses. This is still needed today as many voters are uneducated and ignorant of their choices. For example, some people voted for Obama simply because he's black! We might need the Electoral College to stop some very stupid decisions made by the populous right?

It's not the governments job to protect us from our selves. Who are you to decide something is a stupid choice?

Also I suggest you look into the rational of our founding fathers. They established the Electoral College because of state interest. In the beginning states were very skepticle of other states. We didn't have a unified country, so the electoral college was established to protect smaller states from being over run by larger states. This really isn't a problem today so the point of the electoral college is kinda obsolete.

And if you're still worried about this we can allocate the votes proportionally, but something needs to change because the electoral college just isn't good anymore.

Furthermore Please cite why you think Obama was elected because he was black.

 

[ArcPoint]

He said some people (3 or more). I'd be willing to place money on the fact that at least 3 people in the United States voted for Obama for the sole purpose that he was black.

Winning 11 out of 50 states is okay, as long as those 11 states hold the majority of the population (Which, I'm pretty sure they don't).

Also, what's wrong with skipping the entire western half of the United States? The majority of the United States of America is still having its say, regardless of where its population is located.

 

[Aesir]

He said some people (3 or more). I'd be willing to place money on the fact that at least 3 people in the United States voted for Obama for the sole purpose that he was black.

Cool but you have to prove that.

Winning 11 out of 50 states is okay, as long as those 11 states hold the majority of the population (Which, I'm pretty sure they don't).

California: (36,756,666), Texas (24,326,974), New York (19,490,297) Pennsylvania (12,448,279), Illinois (12,901,563 ) Ohio (11,485,910), Michigan (10,003,422), New Jersey (8,682,661) Georgia (9,685,744), North Carolina (9,222,414)

All total that's 155,003,934

according to the estimated census for this year the total population in the us is: 306,188,000

So it's actually a little over 50% of the population, which yeah may seem alright on the surface however it's winner take all. The entire population of California isn't voting for the same guy, hell I'm willing to bet only about 60% of California votes, cali actually has very split state politically as well. So effectively you have a good portion going un-represented.

 

[Mewter]

Also, what's wrong with skipping the entire western half of the United States? The majority of the United States of America is still having its say, regardless of where its population is located.

Exactly! And, by the way, the Western half can still vote. It's not like not giving a speech in a state is going to deprive the people there of their right to vote. Besides, if you campaign in the areas with the most people(the Eastern Coast), you are actually campaigning to a large chunk of the country's population anyways, which is what matters. States that haven't had candidates visit their state can still vote and familiarize their selves with the platforms.
Reforming the voting system and the Electoral College will let every American have a say, and if, say, a state votes 51%/49%, the 49% who voted won't be excluded from the vote! Altogether, everyone's vote will be counted equally, which (I assume) is important in a democracy.
Now, aeghrur, I'm going to do some responding.

By aeghrur
Aesir, while I do support your idea, I have found some very interesting counterpoints to the idea.
Let us suppose we are going to completely abolish Electoral College and put IRV or 1 person 1 vote idea into effect.

Okay,

How will the president have the force of the nation behind him then?

Every person gets an equal say in their votes. I have a question. With our All or Nothing Electoral College, how does the president have any more "force of the nation" than one elected by popular vote? Wouldn't popular votes display the country's votes with a greater degree of accuracy? Tell me if I'm wrong.

The Senate represents the Nation and the House represents the people, so our legislative branch represents both our nation and our people. However, without electoral college, our president will not represent the nation anymore as they can simply win the Eastern half.

Which is a large chunk of the population of the U.S., or a large population of the people of the United States. Remember, majority rules. Electoral College is All or Nothing, which silences the minority of votes when voting for the president. In a Proportional Allocation of Electoral Votes system, you are trying to win the United States' electoral votes, and not just win the swing states' electoral votes. It's like popular votes and electoral votes mixed into one!
The other system of voting (IRV) looks nice, though, since you can list second choices.

Without this, he does not have the impact of the supporting force of the nation. Furthermore, he will not do things to benefit the whole nation, but rather, the half that supports him.

How is this any different than now?

With Electoral College, since unless it's very close, the people are represented as well as the benefit of the nation. How do you plan to face this?

What of those people who voted and had their voice lost in the Electoral College?

Also, remember that the Electoral College was established to make a good decision for the uneducated masses. This is still needed today as many voters are uneducated and ignorant of their choices.

Well, then. If these ignorant/ uneducated people vote and turn out to be a majority, then they have made their decision, and the nation must follow. That is how Democracy works.

For example, some people voted for Obama simply because he's black!

...

We might need the Electoral College to stop some very stupid decisions made by the populous right?

What if the Electoral College is voted up by the uneducated populace? The Electoral College will (hopefully) only follow through with what the populace wants. Now, if it is the system you are talking about, then no. This is a democracy, and no matter how much you may oppose it, even the "uneducated populace" has a say.

/walloftext

 

[Eor]

You know, at the moment a president can win without wining the south. Just because the majority of the population lives in the Eastern half doesn't mean that they're a voting block

 

[Narukari]

I also agree that the electoral system needs refining, but let me suggest another change rather than getting rid of the Electoral College.

Everywhere I look at the National Government, it is set up as a Republic and not a Democracy. We don't vote on the bills in congress. Instead, we vote in senators and representatives that we believe will do a good job at running the nation. I don't see why the Electoral College can't run the same way. Instead of having citizens vote for the government, we could have them vote for an Electoral College member to send to D.C. That way the Electoral College candidates could campaign at their respective districts, and it might be a bit easier for a third party Electoral College candidate to campign.

After the Electoral College members have been voted into office, then we could have the presidential candidates campaign to the Electoral Collage to try and convince them of which one of them is the right candidate to become President. This would let us have more candidates for President, since it won't require the amount of money that it used to to campaign to the whole country.

 

[Eor]

Uh, we do vote for the electoral college members. That's what we're electing. The difference is that they only vote for the president and that's it. Technically the electoral college can vote whoever they want, but the party nominates for the college people that they know will vote along party lines.

But honestly, making it so that we have less of a choice is pretty terrible to me. We elect officials, and outside of the President we elect them directly, so why should the president be any different?

 

[Narukari]

But honestly, making it so that we have less of a choice is pretty terrible to me. We elect officials, and outside of the President we elect them directly, so why should the president be any different?

We also don't vote for Supreme Court Justices, and they arguably have the most powerful position in our government. The reasoning behind this is that they don't want them to spend time worrying about reelection instead of doing what they are supposed to do.

Myself, I know very little about Macroeconomics, government policy, and law outside of business. Without this information it is difficult for a presidential candidate to actually tell me what he is going to support and not support once he is in office. The media isn't going to help my possibilility of understanding anything either. Other than looking at their track record, I don't believe I could make a logical judgement for who should be president.

Now if there were 3-5 Electoral College candidates in my district. Two of them are radical Republicans. One radical democrate, and two candidates near the middle. Then I could probably make a better decision on who should go decide the Presidency. If there was a double major Business and Law graduate, that wasn't a radical Democrate but leaned towards Democratic policies, that would be a sure hit for my vote.

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah it really needs to be fixed. I mean we got stuck with Bush for 8 years because he lost the popular vote. Doesn't make sense whatsoever.

 

[pyrotek7x7]

There isn't much problem with the Electoral College itself that I see. The big problem is the winner-take-all system.

The reasoning for the winner-take-all system simply escapes me. It does not represent the population in the slightest, it represents the state. Also, it makes it nearly impossible for any third party to have a chance. As I was told in my government class, there was some state that recently tried to split up their electoral votes based on the vote percentage. The nation freaked out and shot down that idea.

It's not even difficult to change; just change the amount of votes towards each candidate a state gives.