Support NeoGAF

[ThoseDeafMutes]

In Australia, we don't even have elections for Prime Minister. When we vote for lower house representation, whomever is the leader of the party with the majority is designated Prime Minister. Of course, the PM isn't a President, although I'm not clear on why we would need a president to begin with.

 

[rohlfinator]

Getting rid of the EC will disenfranchise voters in every smaller or less populous state. If an attempt was made to disenfranchise a minority group in such a manner, people would start screaming like crazy. Any argument that that it's different because people can't choose the color of their skin or their sexual orientation but they can choose where they live is ridiculous. Should everyone fucking move to LA, Chicago or NYC just so their vote counts?

I guess I don't see how that's worse than disenfranchising voters in all but ~10 swing states.

 

[Mike M]

Lots of people didn't watch the video in the OP.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Getting rid of the EC will disenfranchise voters in every smaller or less populous state.

Insofar as their votes are now worth the same as voters in larger or more populous states, instead of being stupidly powerful proportionally.

 

[jstevenson]

But what's the alternative? I live in Illinois and you can be damn sure we never see anyone because we're not a "battleground" state.

Proportional distribution of electors at the state level (though that gets popular votey). Or on the other hand, distribution of electors by congressional district (with the final two electors going to the winner of the state).

But why should they, to the exclusion of, say, LA?

My point is that the popular vote is no better than the electoral college as large groups end up getting ignored, and certain areas end up having the power.

This is exactly why we have the electoral college in the first place, as part of the original compromise to address this very issue. That said, the winner-take-all-nature of most states makes it worse than it needs to be.

 

[Devolution]

Getting rid of the EC will disenfranchise voters in every smaller or less populous state. If an attempt was made to disenfranchise a minority group in such a manner, people would start screaming like crazy. Any argument that that it's different because people can't choose the color of their skin or their sexual orientation but they can choose where they live is ridiculous. Should everyone fucking move to LA, Chicago or NYC just so their vote counts?

EC being more fair is nullified by the fact that 48 states are all or nothing is it not?

 

[HanShotFirst]

It would be interesting if the popular vote determined the outcome of the election but like said earlier, it could lead to problems as well, which means it may be better to keep the EC.

Alternatively, the EC of a state should be distributed proportionally like Stumpokapow said. Not a winner takes all like most states currently have.

 

[Stumpokapow]

But what's the alternative? I live in Illinois and you can be damn sure we never see anyone because we're not a "battleground" state.

It is impossible to come up with a system that benefits everything. The US has separation of powers to help solve that issue. Districts elect the House, who are populist and have a 2 year turnover and most directly represent the localized and emerging wills of the people. The states select the Senate, who provide a break on radical social change, gum up the works, have a 6 year turnover, and who also balance the interests per state against the interests of the country. Direct election of senators changes the mechanism for this, but maintains the purpose. The president is elected every 4 years by the whole country, in the national interest, in a way that balances the overall population of the country with the importance of each region and state. The president selects the courts, who have near-lifetime appointments and defend constitutional principles against democratic whims and also ensure that viewpoints (parties, in the modern sense) not represented by the current president still have longevity on the bench.

Every system benefits some people at the expense of others. We just need to look at who benefits and who loses with each system, let it play out a bit, incorporate data from the real world into how we revise systems. Plan -> Do -> Check -> Act. I think the problems with the EC are fairly evident. I think the problems with national popular vote are fairly evident (and going to get worse with increasing urbanization/suburbanization and a further shift to a service-based economy). I think the compromise I proposed there helps tinker with the problems of the current system and expand the number of states who get attention without screwing everything up.

Spoiler

Parliamentary democracy is a superior form of organization, scrap your presidency and get with the program

 

[B-Dubs]

I guess I don't see how that's worse than disenfranchising voters in all but ~10 swing states.

If we're going to replace the EC then we need to find a way that allows everyone's issues to be heard. Why would a candidate pay attention to the rural areas when they won't help him win? The same problems you have with the EC would happen to a greater extent with a Popular Vote only system. LA, SF, NYC, Miami, Austin and the other 10 largest cities would be all that matter (along with their suburbs). You win the 10 largest cities in America and you're already most of the way to half, get half the suburbs and you're done.

 

[Cubsfan23]

states that are completely ignored now would still get completely ignored under a popular system. You really think Obama would have bothered to wade through rural south areas? At best he would visit a place like Atlanta, and that's it. Romney would have visited GOP areas in places like California. Whoop-de-do.

 

[Synth_floyd]

Hence the problem with the popular vote. You win all the big cities in the US by high enough margins and the election is pretty much over.

The system should be 1 person, 1 vote, all votes are equal. Can't blame candidates for campaigning where all the people are.

 

[Devolution]

If we're going to replace the EC then we need to find a way that allows everyone's issues to be heard. Why would a candidate pay attention to the rural areas when they won't help him win? The same problems you have with the EC would happen to a greater extent with a Popular Vote only system. LA, SF, NYC, Miami, Austin and the other 10 largest cities would be all that matter (along with their suburbs). You win the 10 largest cities in America and you're already most of the way to half, get half the suburbs and you're done.

Well then you're arguing for more state's rights in general if that is the problem. The executive branch needs to be taken down a few pegs.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

If we're going to replace the EC then we need to find a way that allows everyone's issues to be heard. Why would a candidate pay attention to the rural areas when they won't help him win? The same problems you have with the EC would happen to a greater extent with a Popular Vote only system. LA, SF, NYC, Miami, Austin and the other 10 largest cities would be all that matter (along with their suburbs). You win the 10 largest cities in America and you're already most of the way to half, get half the suburbs and you're done.

There is no reason you can't keep inflated voting power from small states while also abolishing the stupid rule that whoever "wins" in one state gets all of the votes. For example, if 60% of votes in a state are for Dem and 40% republican, that would be reflected with 60% of the EC votes going to dems instead of 100%. The rounding error would favor whomever had the majority.

 

[jstevenson]

Please explain how getting rid of the EC disenfranchises anyone. Their vote actually counts the same as everyone else's. Right now 43 out of 50 states are "disenfranchised" because voters in the minority party for a very red or blue state aren't heard.

Edit: I've read your comments again and really don't understand. How is a vote in Vermont worth less than a vote in Chicago in a direct vote situation?

No they are disenfranchised because their state chooses to elect with a winner-take all system.

There is no federal election, your votes (and the bullshit of the popular vote) don't actually matter.

What matters is the result of FIFTY state elections. That's why some of those elections are more important than others.

If a state wants to see more attention, go proportional, or go district based and you'll see candidates showing up. This has happened in both Maine and Nebraska now, generally safe blue and red (respectively) states.

 

[W1SSY]

I could be wrong but don't the Republicans benefit the most from the EC? I mean if you go by popular vote a lot of the states they get are worth the least in terms of popular vote. But with the EC it gives them more power.

Just look at Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota. They have a total population of about 2.1 million. Together they have a total of 9 EC votes. Then you look at New Mexico which has about the same population as all the three state put together and it only has 5 votes.

 

[HanShotFirst]

The system should be 1 person, 1 vote, all votes are equal. Can't blame candidates for campaigning where all the people are.

But then they ignore the people living in rural areas. That's exactly what was trying to be avoided with the electoral collage. The majority shouldn't drown out the minority.

 

[Devolution]

I could be wrong but don't the Republicans benefit the most from the EC? I mean if you go by popular vote a lot of the states they get are worth the least in terms of popular vote. But with the EC it gives them more power.

Just look at Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota. They have a total population of about 2.1 million. Together they have a total of 9 EC votes. Then you look at New Mexico which has about the same population as all the three state put together and it only has 5 votes.

Yes because 3 is guaranteed despite the population size. If the argument is that their interests would be ignored otherwise, I think that's a bigger critique of how this country is run than problems with the voting process itself.

But then they ignore the people living in rural areas. That's exactly what was trying to be avoided with the electoral collage. The majority shouldn't drown out the minority.

They get ignored regardless. You have states that are consistently one way or the other.

 

[kingkitty]

electoral college sucks. Popular vote is the logical way. Preferably it should be instant runoff if we ever want a stronger third party heh heh.

And Fox News might lead the charge to it's reform, I'm already seeing "down with the EC" ads on republican sites.

How things have changed.

 

[DrForester]

I actually think there is a place for the EC and it should stay. However, I do think that every state should divide their EC votes proportionately. As it stands now, states do not represent their electorate in the EC. Democrats should not get 40% of California's EC votes free, those 40% should not be ignored. Same with Texas and the 40% ignored there. It goes both ways. Candidates should have to campaign across the country, and not just in a dozen states. This would still keep the EC, but it would put the final say in the hands of the people a lot more than it does now.

 

[Foxy Fox 39]

I have to admit: Until this election, I hated the electoral college, and only really changed my mind several weeks ago, when I realized that it would ensure Obama's re-election.

But honestly, it needs to go. It really has no place in modern politics, gives far too much power and importance to smaller states, and leads to political candidates pandering to the wishes of certain states every election.

I believe that the popular vote should determine the president, but before this can be allowed to happen, some changes should be made:

1. Election Day should be on a Sunday. The fact that it's on a weekday ever year leads to it being much more difficult for low-income citizens to vote.
2. Early voting should last three weeks and exist in every state. It should be illegal to cancel early voting for certain days.
3. All US citizens who are 18 or over and are permanent residents of the United States should be allowed to vote. All adult citizens should automatically be registered voters.
4. No candidate should be allowed to spend more than $100,000 of his or her own money on a campaign, contributions to PACs should be limited to one million dollars, and 527s should be outlawed. Also, all campaign ads created by groups not affiliated with a campaign must first be screened by a nonpartisan fact-checking committee.
5. The federal government should have a national "get out to vote" campaign ever year, with a budget that is made up of tax money and donations.

Im for all of this.

 

[jstevenson]

The system should be 1 person, 1 vote, all votes are equal. Can't blame candidates for campaigning where all the people are.

That violates the very spirit of the agreement between small states and large states that this country was founded on.

Also, votes are not equal, and there is no presidential election. You vote in an election in X State for X States's slate of elector. So your voice counts only in terms of your state's election, and it's irrelevant what happens in other people's states.

 

[rohlfinator]

If a state wants to see more attention, go proportional, or go district based and you'll see candidates showing up. This has happened in both Maine and Nebraska now, generally safe blue and red (respectively) states.

Do Maine and Nebraska get attention for those districts? I would assume the candidates would focus more of their efforts on areas that are worth more than one EV.

Yes because 3 is guaranteed despite the population size. If the argument is that their interests would be ignored otherwise, I think that's a bigger critique of how this country is run than problems with the voting process itself.

And it kind of begs the question, why is "being from a small state" more worthy of this sort of safeguard than other minority interests?

 

[JeTmAn81]

Is there any info out there on how the electoral votes would've shaken out if they'd been apportioned in the same way as the representatives for each state, rather than winner-take-all? So if a state has 10 representatives, and each candidate gets 50% of the vote, they'd both get 5 electoral votes from that state. I'd love to see how things would look if it was done that way.

 

[someday]

Probably not that accurate, or we'd see Republicans overperforming in the PV (and thus splits) more often.

Eliminating the EC would change the result of exactly one election in the last hundred years, and the Democrats would gain it.

For this reason, I don't really see why this is such an issue. It may be an odd system, but it still seems to give us the President we voted for.

We need to drop out of the electoral college. Coming from a far left state, my vote is meaningless. I feel disenfranchised.
This hasn't always been my position, but things change. Sometimes overnight.

I'm a liberal in a "far left state" and I suppose I could say the same thing. My state is blue whether I vote or not. But, to be honest, I don't think I could actually live in a state that was so different from my beliefs.

 

[pigeon]

Interesting thread, lots of stuff I think is kind of misinformed.

Without even knowing how it works, we all at least know that the electoral college is the reason we have swing states. Since an electoral margin above 270 is all that is needed to win, it stands to reason that simply focusing on the swing states needed to reach that number is the most important aspect of an election. It stands further to reason that focusing a potent, well-organized ground game on those swing states would provide enormous electoral benefit, and that polling data reflecting this effort would make the result of said races quite predictable.

This is true but fails to recognize what swing states actually are. Simply put, swing states are swing states because they represent the American electorate in miniature. California and Texas aren't safe states because of any characteristic about them or because anybody perceives a benefit to them being safe -- they're safe because they're far to the left and right, respectively, of the American mainstream, and so the left and right parties win them more or less automatically.

You can more or less plot all fifty states on a line from politically left to politically right -- and, in fact, 538 basically does so. At some point more or less near the center the parties will meet -- and the states right around that point will be swing states, because they'll be the only states to actually be competitive. But individual states will move around on that line as demographics (and demographic inclinations) change. Ohio is a bellwether state currently, and thus a big swing state -- but they used to say "as Maine goes, so goes the nation" because it was a bellwether in the 19th century. North Carolina and Virginia weren't swing states before Barack Obama. No state will be a swing state forever -- everybody will get their turn.

So it's a mistake to think that the electoral college ignores 40 states. They're all taken into account -- Democrats can't do anything that would make Californians turn Republican, nor can the Republicans afford to lose Texas. It just happens that if you live in one of these states you're currently pretty far politically from the fundamental political conflicts in America -- so it shouldn't be surprising that you're pretty far geographically as well.

Nationwide recounts. Can't wait for that.

Also: Florida is still not done counting. Going to popular vote rules will take longer to get results.

Actually, we -- or at least those who pay attention -- knew around the same time that the EC was called last night who would win the popular vote. And eliminating the EC would drastically reduce the possibility of an important recount, because winning an individual state just wouldn't matter. It's much less likely that a national popular vote will come down to a margin that would require a recount than that one individual state chosen specifically for being close would.

This reflects the original compromise between small states and large states.

Small states get a small advantage here, one that is part of the very fabric of our Republic's founding.

This is as the framers' intended though, to have each state elect its own set of wise electors

Shucks. Bummer, that's what you get for not living in an actual state (if this upsets you, vote to become a state, ala Puerto Rico). The President is the head of the states, and is the winner of a series of 50 state elections. Not the winner of the federal election.

This isn't a Democracy, it's a representative Republic. The Federal Government serves the fifty states that make up the union. Those 50 states each are required to hold their own election for president by selecting electors to elect said President.

I'm not sure I think the EC needs to be reformed, but all of these arguments are just begging the question. What is the policy justification for smaller states getting disproportionately more say?

People saying that political spending on advertising is out of control are misguided. Yes, Romney and Obama combined raised about $1.4 billion dollars to be spent on their campaigns. However, they have to compete with other groups and companies for advertising, like General Motors ($1.78 b), Verizon + AT&T ($3.5 b), and L'Oreal ($1.34 b).

Campaign advertising is guaranteed the lowest available television rate.

Getting rid of the EC will disenfranchise voters in every smaller or less populous state. If an attempt was made to disenfranchise a minority group in such a manner, people would start screaming like crazy. Any argument that that it's different because people can't choose the color of their skin or their sexual orientation but they can choose where they live is ridiculous. Should everyone fucking move to LA, Chicago or NYC just so their vote counts?

The system as it exists disenfranchises voters in every larger and more populous state. Removing it would actually make every vote equally valuable.

Stuff I want more:

-standardized, nationwide ballots
-same mandatory amount of early voting hours for every state
-more polling places, enough in each state to cut down on lines
-make Election Day a federal holiday

It'll probably never happen because Republicans benefit from all those headaches, but a federal mandate to take control of elections from the states and make them more functional would do wonders to get people more engaged. That's the way it should be, and that's probably why it never actually will be.

I basically agree with this, and I hope that Obama acts on it as he suggested he will try to. I wonder what you could do with executive power on it.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

Give me a good alternative.
Sell it to me Hawkian!
Pretend I'm Donald Trump and about to fire you.

 

[Hawkian]

Great responses so far!

This is good. We do need to get rid of the Electoral college. This might happen now due to salties.

Yes!

I sort of dreamed about this for years- a situation in which the far right was upset by the popular vote margin and started whining a bit, and Fox News itself might start the debate on the issue- it's the only way I can imagine it getting done.

Of course it still won't, for decades, but perhaps the seeds can be sown.

A few thoughts:

-Nobody cared about election reform when the Supreme Court hijacked the 2000 election. Didn't care til Obama got reelected.

Uh oh. Not even close to true.

-If we are going to talk about reform then we need to start with financing.

I am in favor of massive overhauls regarding campaign financing in this country, however I have to say that it has nothing to do with the electoral college.

-Popular vote won't fix any problem people have

This is not correct. It would fix a number of problems people have; the most prominent of which would be that each vote counted equally.[/quote]

-Popular vote will also result in rural areas being ignored even more than they are now.

Absolutely not even close to true.

The arrows indicate the states with small populations that were visited. The states not listed were not visited at all. Exactly how could the most rural areas of the country be ignored more than they already are?

Instead, if rural areas did happen to have "swing" political tendencies, candidates MIGHT in fact consider it worth their time to campaign in them in the hopes of swaying voters in a state that traditionally wouldn't have mattered at all.

i think it should be gone. how do we get rid of it? your post didn't get to that part, Hawkian!

get rid of it, i agree

but then what?

Huge post, without posting a possible solution. Nice.

Hehe, sheesh. I thought it'd be a good idea for you guys to start out offering some of those. I mentioned that I specifically left those propositions out, to see what would be posted. And voila, several ideas were floated! Let's look them over.

#1

Should be based completely on popular vote

This is the simplest and most direct solution, and the easiest to implement. It does not solve all of the problems with our electoral system or even come close, but it is a vast improvement.

For starters, here are some things it does right out of the gate:
-Makes every vote equal
-Eliminates swing states altogether
-Means that a candidate can't simply ignore "red" or "blue" states, since those with large populations now have their voting margins matter
-Allows candidates to campaign for votes regionally, since different areas of a state may have more votes up for grabs than others

However, it's nowhere close to perfect. The worst aspect is that...

Simply count up actual votes? Majority rules.

It's a flawed system when majority of the US can vote for someone, yet they don't get elected because of an archaic system that technology has made redundant.

...it does not eliminate this problem whatsoever. In fact, a popular vote tally would make being able to win without a majority part of the official electoral process, rather than a byproduct of it as it is with the EV. In 1996, under a strict popular vote tally, Bill Clinton would have been elected President even though a majority of the country voted for someone else.

There are ways around this issue, but all of them entail further reforms including changes to the mechanics of voting. I want these, desperately (maybe even more than I want to see the EC go) but they're outside the scope of this thread.

I'll propose a three part solution:
1. Make it so electorates are decided as (Highest State Population/Lowest State Population) + 2. This will at least make each state more proportional, while still giving a boost to lower population states.
2. Make all states divide out their votes by percentage similar to Nebraska and Maine.

I'm going to be honest with you, I don't understand point 1 at all. Could you clarify?

Third Party Optional:
3. Acceptance voting. When electing officials, just put a check next to every candidate you would be okay with having as president. Want to show support for Jill Stein, but still protect Obama? Pick them both!

This is one of several ways to change the method of voting to be more representative and democratic, and I'd support it. There are several options all with pros and cons. In the case of this suggestion, one flaw is that you don't allow for the indication of stronger support for one candidate or the other (or the others).

Keep the EC, have states award their state EVs proportionately based on state vote

+ Better representation of diversity of opinion in states, no more red/blue states
+ Still provides security mechanism for smaller states against California, Texas, NY, Florida.
+ Being awarded statewide presents EVs from being gerrymandered the way a district by district award would be.

Your + points are all valid except for the "security of smaller states" factor, which is just absolutely not part of the discussion. I believed it for years, that's what was taught to me in school and everything. The Electoral College protects the small states. It just doesn't.

I want you to bear in mind, I don't have any desire at all to change the way representatives in Congress are assigned and chosen. I think it's a fantastic idea for every state to have two Senators. I'm talking solely about presidential elections.

Of the available options, I would most be willing to support a strict popular vote tally, however, this would necessarily have to come alongside at least one of two further electoral reforms
Either:
-A contingency plan if a majority is not secured (a second election day in December? god help us all)
-Or a change to the fundamental method of voting we employ (which is called First Past the Post, and I'll talk a lot more about that in another thread) to be more representative and democratic.

 

[Devolution]

Small states already have power in the legislative. The EC sounds to me like a conflation of governance and voting on the off chance that if you make some smaller states more important in the federal voting cycle they won't be ignored. To me this is frankly a problem that needs to be addressed rather than use voting as a mechanism to make sure states aren't "neglected."

 

[jstevenson]

I believe that the popular vote should determine the president, but before this can be allowed to happen, some changes should be made:

1. Election Day should be on a Sunday. The fact that it's on a weekday ever year leads to it being much more difficult for low-income citizens to vote.
2. Early voting should last three weeks and exist in every state. It should be illegal to cancel early voting for certain days.
3. All US citizens who are 18 or over and are permanent residents of the United States should be allowed to vote. All adult citizens should automatically be registered voters.
4. No candidate should be allowed to spend more than $100,000 of his or her own money on a campaign, contributions to PACs should be limited to one million dollars, and 527s should be outlawed. Also, all campaign ads created by groups not affiliated with a campaign must first be screened by a nonpartisan fact-checking committee.
5. The federal government should have a national "get out to vote" campaign ever year, with a budget that is made up of tax money and donations.

Not that I don't necessarily agree with this, but I have some issues:

A. do we really want/need more people who aren't informed to vote? I think I have a fundamental challenge with get out the vote efforts, should we try to expand the electorate with people who don't understand everything they are voting for? I mean, we already make voting so damn easy.

B. Early voting - I dislike it only from the aspect that the election in theory measures us all at a certain point of time. Early voting extends that and means people could vote too early and not know what might happen in the final three weeks. I have the same issue with early Heisman voting for college football.

Honestly I think it'd be better long-term if we moved to a digital system with some sort of ID verification in terms of you getting your one vote in the system and that's it. The interesting thing about this is it could allow us to move to more interesting voting systems (beyond just one person one vote majority type things)

 

[Zaptruder]

EC is pretty much invented for the 19th century, same reason voting is done on tuesday.

Because people travelled around on horse and carriage back in the day, and couldn't get around fast enough.

We have planes, we have TV, we have internet. There are no excuses for the 'inability to address the nation'.

 

[jstevenson]

I'm not sure I think the EC needs to be reformed, but all of these arguments are just begging the question. What is the policy justification for smaller states getting disproportionately more say?

It's the original compromise reached during the founding of the nation.

Proportional House
Equal Senate
Mixture in terms of electors (mostly proportional, but small equal baseline)

 

[metalslimer]

A. do we really want/need more people who aren't informed to vote? I think I have a fundamental challenge with get out the vote efforts, should we try to expand the electorate with people who don't understand everything they are voting for? I mean, we already make voting so damn easy.

Fuck yes. Voting is the fundamental right and everyone who is a citizen should have that right no matter what they know or who they are voting for. It's crazy to suggest otherwise.


Also a bit of schadenfreude, but I kind of like having the electoral college just to hear people in the south whine about how much of the country is red but still votes in democrats.

 

[pigeon]

A. do we really want/need more people who aren't informed to vote? I think I have a fundamental challenge with get out the vote efforts, should we try to expand the electorate with people who don't understand everything they are voting for? I mean, we already make voting so damn easy.

The electorate is already filled with people who don't really understand what they're voting for. All we're doing without a GOTV effort is selecting for intensity over competence -- people will get elected based on their ability to inspire emotion rather than be right. GOTV at least allows persuasion to enter the picture.

B. Early voting - I dislike it only from the aspect that the election in theory measures us all at a certain point of time. Early voting extends that and means people could vote too early and not know what might happen in the final three weeks. I have the same issue with early Heisman voting for college football.

Why should the election measure everybody at a specific point in time? Why should that time be a day and not a week or a month (or an hour or a minute)?

It's the original compromise reached during the founding of the nation.

Proportional House
Equal Senate
Mixture in terms of electors (mostly proportional, but small equal baseline)

Do you not understand what "policy justification" means? I know the history. History is not a justification. What does it accomplish?

 

[Rentahamster]

Eh, the EC is working pretty much as intended and does alright.

Without even knowing how it works, we all at least know that the electoral college is the reason we have swing states.

Not necessarily, it's just a demographic thing. But...I guess you could put the blame on the "winner take all" aspect of it. If the EC votes were distributed proportionally, then that may or may not solve the problem, since some states might still not be worth campaigning in if they're way too blue or red anyway.

I think if I had the power, I'd have each state elect the president instant runoff vote-style, and then award the EC votes proportionally. But that's just me.

 

[Devolution]

It's the original compromise reached during the founding of the nation.

Proportional House
Equal Senate
Mixture in terms of electors (mostly proportional, but small equal baseline)

Things have changed since the founding.

 

[Almighty]

Keep the EC, have states award their state EVs proportionately based on state vote

+ Better representation of diversity of opinion in states, no more red/blue states
+ Still provides security mechanism for smaller states against California, Texas, NY, Florida.
+ Being awarded statewide presents EVs from being gerrymandered the way a district by district award would be.

This sounds like a much better idea then just tossing the whole thing to me.

Most of the problem to me seems to be caused by the fact that most states are winner takes all. Changing that would I think address a good chunk of the problems people seem to have with the EC.

 

[jstevenson]

Fuck yes. Voting is the fundamental right and everyone who is a citizen should have that right no matter what they know or who they are voting for. It's crazy to suggest otherwise.
.

I don't mean that we should take away their ability, I just mean do we really need to go much further beyond the current encourage / pull teeth / drive busses around / offer early voting for three weeks / give slices of pizza / offer absentee and permanent mail balloting etc. etc. etc.

 

[Hawkian]

This is true but fails to recognize what swing states actually are. Simply put, swing states are swing states because they represent the American electorate in miniature. California and Texas aren't safe states because of any characteristic about them or because anybody perceives a benefit to them being safe -- they're safe because they're far to the left and right, respectively, of the American mainstream, and so the left and right parties win them more or less automatically.

You can more or less plot all fifty states on a line from politically left to politically right -- and, in fact, 538 basically does so. At some point more or less near the center the parties will meet -- and the states right around that point will be swing states, because they'll be the only states to actually be competitive. But individual states will move around on that line as demographics (and demographic inclinations) change. Ohio is a bellwether state currently, and thus a big swing state -- but they used to say "as Maine goes, so goes the nation" because it was a bellwether in the 19th century. North Carolina and Virginia weren't swing states before Barack Obama. No state will be a swing state forever -- everybody will get their turn.

So it's a mistake to think that the electoral college ignores 40 states. They're all taken into account -- Democrats can't do anything that would make Californians turn Republican, nor can the Republicans afford to lose Texas. It just happens that if you live in one of these states you're currently pretty far politically from the fundamental political conflicts in America -- so it shouldn't be surprising that you're pretty far geographically as well.

Ironically, everything you just said is true but also misses a crucial point!

Swing states aren't swing states because they're cross-sections of the country at large- though you're correct that they frequently are- they're swing states because they're the ones that are politically either moderate or at least relatively balanced, but also have a significant enough number of electoral votes to shift the balance of the college toward one candidate. Sure, New Hampshire is a wee swing state, there's no doubt about it- but no one would EVER argue Obama should have campaigned just as hard there as he did in Ohio. And that is an enormous aspect of the problem- no matter what the makeup of a state, be it half blue and half red, or entirely moderate, or having experienced a recent demographic shift- the ones with the most electoral votes to be claimed will be given the most attention.

You're also right that swing states won't stay swing states forever, but I dispute the assertion that "everyone will get a turn." If California shows it can go either way it will be sought-after 24/7. If Rhode Island winds up looking the same one day candidates might both make a couple stops there toward beginning and end of the race (sort of along the lines of the role NH plays now).

Finally, the issue is not that the electoral college ignores 40 states- it's that it ignores the portion of any of the 50 states that voted for the losing candidate; their votes simply have no impact on the race whatsoever.

 

[Dead Man]

Is there any chance of all the states apportioning their electoral votes by percentage rather than winner takes all?

 

[Polari]

I agree, but isn't it a reasonably fundamental part of what constitutes the union?

 

[CrunchyFrog]

A few thoughts:

-Nobody cared about election reform when the Supreme Court hijacked the 2000 election. Didn't care til Obama got reelected.

-If we are going to talk about reform then we need to start with financing.

-Popular vote won't fix any problem people have

-Popular vote will also result in rural areas being ignored even more than they are now.

Agree with the bolded, ESPECIALLY the last one. OP says that rural areas and non-battleground states are ignored NOW? They'll be nonexistant once the pop vote means elections will be decided almost entirely by the northeast and west coasts.

I have to admit: Until this election, I hated the electoral college, and only really changed my mind several weeks ago, when I realized that it would ensure Obama's re-election.

But honestly, it needs to go. It really has no place in modern politics, gives far too much power and importance to smaller states, and leads to political candidates pandering to the wishes of certain states every election.

I believe that the popular vote should determine the president, but before this can be allowed to happen, some changes should be made:

1. Election Day should be on a Sunday. The fact that it's on a weekday ever year leads to it being much more difficult for low-income citizens to vote.
2. Early voting should last three weeks and exist in every state. It should be illegal to cancel early voting for certain days.
3. All US citizens who are 18 or over and are permanent residents of the United States should be allowed to vote. All adult citizens should automatically be registered voters.
4. No candidate should be allowed to spend more than $100,000 of his or her own money on a campaign, contributions to PACs should be limited to one million dollars, and 527s should be outlawed. Also, all campaign ads created by groups not affiliated with a campaign must first be screened by a nonpartisan fact-checking committee.
5. The federal government should have a national "get out to vote" campaign ever year, with a budget that is made up of tax money and donations.

Is there any reason we can't keep the EC and still do the bolded?

Keep the EC, have states award their state EVs proportionately based on state vote

+ Better representation of diversity of opinion in states, no more red/blue states
+ Still provides security mechanism for smaller states against California, Texas, NY, Florida.
+ Being awarded statewide presents EVs from being gerrymandered the way a district by district award would be.

This is the kinda system I've been proposing for years. The only thing is that ties may be more likely since votes can be more evenly distributed and not in random discrete packets.

 

[Hawkian]

Is there any chance of all the states apportioning their electoral votes by percentage rather than winner takes all?

There is very little chance of any electoral reform whatsoever taking place. But that is one potential solution (see my thoughts on it a couple posts up).

Agree with the bolded, ESPECIALLY the last one. OP says that rural areas and non-battleground states are ignored NOW? They'll be nonexistant once the pop vote means elections will be decided almost entirely by the northeast and west coasts.

This is absolutely, completely, 100% false. If you have any evidence to support the fact that they'd be ignored more than they are now, can you provide it?

Instead, in contrast to the current system where their votes count more than they should- but ultimately rarely count at all- every individual vote in the country would be equal.

edit: What regions of the country would you say decided last night's election?

 

[HylianTom]

I don't want to do away with the Electoral College. It's waaaay too tilted towards the Democrats, and the Machiavellian strategist within me (the one that has absolutely no pity or affection for the Republicans) loves that.

 

[Hawkian]

I don't want to do away with the Electoral College. It's waaaay too tilted towards the Democrats, and the Machiavellian strategist within me (the one that has absolutely no pity or affection for the Republicans) loves that.

Hahah. A pragmatist; I like you. The problem is that the electoral makeup of the country really does shift over time.

 

[jstevenson]

The electorate is already filled with people who don't really understand what they're voting for. All we're doing without a GOTV effort is selecting for intensity over competence -- people will get elected based on their ability to inspire emotion rather than be right. GOTV at least allows persuasion to enter the picture.

Fair enough, I just wonder where you eventually draw the line (or if you do at all). It feels like if voting is important to you and if you are invested in the outcome and you are knowledgeable, you'll go do it. Not sure what the right answer is there.

Why should the election measure everybody at a specific point in time? Why should that time be a day and not a week or a month (or an hour or a minute)?

The whole point is to evaluate everyone's decision at a certain point, you lock it in. There is a time frame on the election and the term. Again, I'm not saying three weeks is the wrong answer, but what if something happens in the week pre-ceding election that changes your mind. Maybe it's fine to let people lock in early, but it seems like it's getting more extreme.

Do you not understand what "policy justification" means? I know the history. History is not a justification. What does it accomplish?

Do things in the constitution need policy justification?

 

[metalslimer]

Hahah. A pragmatist; I like you. The problem is that the electoral makeup of the country really does shift over time.

Yeah, the electoral college is going to make Republican presidencies almost impossible in 20 years once southern states start going blue because of the Latino vote

Do things in the constitution need policy justification?

Uh yes. Why do you think the constitution is perfect, and please don't use the argument because its been around for 200 years.

 

[HylianTom]

Hahah. A pragmatist; I like you. The problem is that the electoral makeup of the country really does shift over time.

True. I'm willing to ride this shifting, buckin' bronco and see where it takes us. If we can stack the judiciary in the meantime, that'd be fantastic.

 

[Cyan]

Do things in the constitution need policy justification?

That depends on whether the Constitution is holy writ or not.

 

[Hawkian]

jstevenson, I haven't been ignoring you- I've really been trying to formulate a response to at least a few of your posts, but the honest truth is that I don't know which individual points to start with.

Almost everything you've been saying about the electoral college reflects the myths about what it purports to do but fails at miserably, and at first glance your suggestions seem to reflect a further suppression of the citizen's vote, which is not conducive to determining the will of the people in a representative democracy.

 

[Draconian]

I have thought for a while about this and I think I'm for getting rid of it completely. I'm really tired of feeling like I have to dupe myself into thinking my vote matters, when it really doesn't. Also, it would be nice if an election came down to something other than Ohio for a change.