A good time to reform the Electoral College?

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

A flip of just 60,000 votes in Ohio would have make Kerry president. But it wouldn't have changed the fact Bush got (in that scenario) about 3.3 million more votes.

That would have been an ugly situation.

So isn't it time to reform the Electoral College? Not do away with it altogether, but re-balance it to reflect the voters' will more accurately? Someone I know calculated that each vote in Wyoming is worth 9 votes in California. That's an odd situation, if true (I haven't done the math, myself).

Some states have split from the 'winner take all' setup and divided their votes. Maybe that's part of the answer.

Thoughts?

klaucke · 11-11-2004, 07:25 PM

Quote: That would have been an ugly situation

Hmm, reminds of an election round year 2000, when I think someone didn't win the popular vote... can't recall exactly what the scenerio was.... all I know is that I think it turned into a very ugly situation

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

It seems to work quite well as is. The only ones who seem to consider it an "ugly situation" are those who cannot win within the current rules...and as thus, want to change them in their favor.

klaucke · 11-11-2004, 07:59 PM

The electoral college does not work "quite well." It works, but fundementally circumvents a basic principal of democracy. It was originally set-up so that the learned who made up the electoral college could vote for whom they considered the best candidate, we're the "average joes" unable to, being that a farmer knew little of politics.

Times have changed, the need is no more for such a system, and removal of the electoral college and instituting a flat vote would mean every vote truly does count.

dd74 · 11-11-2004, 08:02 PM

Isn't it time to just except the fact Bush won? Sheesh! Here's another lash for that dead horse.

klaucke · 11-11-2004, 08:05 PM

I have been a stark advocate of the removal of the electoral college long before I grew to dislike Bush, indeed, long before he was in office. It's not about this past election, dd74, it's about principal and truth.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by klaucke
The electoral college does not work "quite well." It works, but fundementally circumvents a basic principal of democracy. It was originally set-up so that the learned who made up the electoral college could vote for whom they considered the best candidate, we're the "average joes" unable to, being that a farmer knew little of politics.

Times have changed, the need is no more for such a system, and removal of the electoral college and instituting a flat vote would mean every vote truly does count.

The electoral college was set up because less populated states were afraid they would lose influence to the more populated ones...much as they would now. The US was not set up as a democracy, but rather a representative republic intentionally and for good reason.
You have posted nothing to indicate that the "average joe" is any more capable or informed today than in 1776.

Moses · 11-11-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fintstone
The electoral college was set up because less populated states were afraid they would lose influence to the more populated ones...much as they would now. The US was not set up as a democracy, but rather a representative republic intentionally and for good reason.
You have posted nothing to indicate that the "average joe" is any more capable or informed today than in 1776.

Exactly. Without the electoral college, Utah, Montana and the Dakotas would be forever disenfranchised. Also, the college isolates any voter fraud. Very effective.

jyl · jyl's Garage

The electoral college, by design, doesn't try to exactly reflect the population. Low-population states (the Dakotas, for example) have more electoral college votes per capita than high-density states (California, for instance). And the winner-take-all manner in which most states allocate their electoral college votes also skews things. Finally, in theory a state could choose to allocate its electoral college votes in a manner that doesn't reflect the popular vote within the state, which stems from the original idea that the electoral college would be a group of the state's wise men exercising their wise judgment (sounds quaint today)

Is this a bad thing? Well, it might not be how we'd design a system today. But I don't see that it's actually caused a real problem.

Certainly, the election system needs reforming. Elections should be run by non-partisan non-political figures (not by the co-chair of a candidate's election campaign, aka Katherine Harris in FL) . Elections should be run by competent administrators who make sensible decision (not by hacks who try to invalidate thousands of voter registrations because they're not on 80 lb paper, aka Ken Blackwell in OH). Election and campaign abuses should be vigorously investigated, by professional and non-partisan prosecutors, and punished with severe sentences (I don't often read about anyone getting jailed for election fraud). Voting machines should be audited, auditable, and provide paper trails that can be counted (unlike many of the new machines), and there should be enough of them that voters don't have to stand in line for several hours (as was the case in too many precincts this year).

Next to these real problems, I think the quirks of the electoral college aren't a big deal.

klaucke · 11-11-2004, 08:15 PM

I figured it was obvious that today we have capabilites that allow one to be better informed. Radio, television, the internet, transportation, national publications, and a greater population seem manifest. Less populated states still lose influence b/c the electoral college basis's it's number of reps per state on population.

This whole debate isn't about Republican vs. Dem vs. anyone else, theres no need to fling mud here. GWB rightly (I consider unfortunately) won. But that doesn't mean the system isn't in need of amends.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by jyl
The electoral college, by design, doesn't try to exactly reflect the population. Low-population states (the Dakotas, for example) have more electoral college votes per capita than high-density states (California, for instance). And the winner-take-all manner in which most states allocate their electoral college votes also skews things. Finally, in theory a state could choose to allocate its electoral college votes in a manner that doesn't reflect the popular vote within the state, which stems from the original idea that the electoral college would be a group of the state's wise men exercising their wise judgment (sounds quaint today)

Is this a bad thing? Well, it might not be how we'd design a system today. But I don't see that it's actually caused a real problem.
...

As you know, the design is such that each state is actually voting with their electoral college votes...each can allot them any way their state laws allow....however, any state that divides them in any matter other than all or none would foolishly reduce the influence of their own votes.

fintstone · fintstone's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by klaucke
I figured it was obvious that today we have capabilites that allow one to be better informed. Radio, television, the internet, transportation, national publications, and a greater population ......

As well as capabilities that allow one to be better misinformed. Look at how many time the major networks were caught in lies and forgeries this year...imagine how many times they were not. They were powerful enough to keep the election fairly close this year....who knows next time?

klaucke · 11-11-2004, 08:48 PM

I agree, but the electoral college and how it functions are not impacted by these facts. All collegiates in a given state swing in favor of the majority, effectively voiding any votes other than 51% of the winning candidate's. If the people choose to be uninformed and vote accordingly, so be it, it wouldn't be the first or last time, and at least it would be correct. The majority should decide our leader.

Leader · 11-11-2004, 09:00 PM

The states only began the "winner take all" approach to awarding their electoral college votes in the late 1800's. Before that, they all did pretty much whatever they liked, even occasionally ignoring completely how the popular vote went in their state.
Now, only two states allocate their EC votes in direct proportion to the popular vote. A third state, Colorado, tried to vote such a system into law in this election. It didn't pass.
But, it's all a moot point. The Electoral College won't be changed because two-thirds of the states would have to approve it. The little states will never agree to diminishing their own power.

gaijinda · 11-12-2004, 10:10 AM

I like the electoral college. It keeps fraud, no matter how bad, limited to one block of votes. Considering the mis-cast and mis-counted votes where I live, I would want to impose them on the rest of the nation. And why should a region with high voter turnout, dominate a region with low voter turnout? We are a large, diverse country. Not a platform for more coca-cola like advertising. Leave the process alone. It works.

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

Without the EC, politicians could visit nine cities and take the entire election. There's no way you could argue that that's fair to the rest of the country.

Mule · 11-12-2004, 11:15 AM

Let me guess, you want to split the electoral votes of the red states according to vote percentages & leave the blue states alone?

ubiquity0 · 11-12-2004, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bryanthompson
Without the EC, politicians could visit nine cities and take the entire election. There's no way you could argue that that's fair to the rest of the country.

True, but as it is now how much attention do the 35 million people in California get, or the 19 million people in New York? By the same standards is that fair to those people?

I wonder how many combined visits Bush & Kerry made to Ohio. Dozens? And to California? None? IMO thats a blessing, but others may disagree

gaijinda · 11-12-2004, 11:43 AM

Bush won the popular vote, with some of the largest population centers being conceded to Kerry. NY, NJ, IL & CA. With different rules, and a different campaign, this last election would have been a republican romp.

Superman · 11-12-2004, 11:57 AM

YOu Republicans who are defending the EC are funny. We're over what happened in 200, perhaps you should move on too. If what TW had alluded to had actually happened, you'd be taking a different tone. Sure, you'll deny it. But if Dubya had garnered three million more votes than Kerry but lost the election by a hundred votes in Ohio, we'd be hearing your suggestions about election reform.

Bryan, which nine cities in America represent the majority of people living in this country? And what is the population of this country? I'm just going from memory/estimation here, but I'm still sure you are incorrect. This nation must be somewhere around 300 million persons or so by now, and New York, by far our largest city, should be somewhere nearing 10 million. So, nin New Your Cities still comes nowhere near the majority of Americans.

You guys will stop at nothing to attempt to justify your ideologies.