The Electoral College Reform Discussion Page

[a completely inoffensive name]

For those who dont know what the Electoral College is, see this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29).

I believe that the Electoral College has become obsolete and outdated at this point in America. Since it's introduction it has been weak and with flaws, with the twelfth amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) being ratified in 1803 (less then twenty years since the Constitution even came about) changing how the electors voted for president and vice president.

The allegations that the Electoral College is working as the framers intended is false on multiple grounds:
1. The framers of the Constitution did not intend for the Electoral College to last and suspected greatly that after George Washington left the office that nobody would receive the required majority and thus included the House of Representatives provision.
2. The electors were created for the purpose of having the elite choose who would be the commander in chief in charge of doing what is right for the country. The people had their representatives. The states had their senators. This is no longer the case since the electors are simply followers of the winning popular vote candidate of the state for which they come from.
3. As with the election of the House of Reps, the framers did not take into account political parties which has caused a situation of candidates battling over several key "battleground" states leaving the vast majority of states which are "locked" with a large majority following of a certain political party untouched by the candidates.
4. It does not represent the people's interests. At least three times I can remember off the top of my head, the presidential winner has not won the popular vote. If you are to say the point isnt for the people to choose who the winner is, then the people shouldnt be voting for the electors (which is how we technically vote for the candidates; we vote between groups of electors who are committed to a party, and the group who has the most votes wins and thus that group commits all their votes for the candidate/party) in the first place.

I am currently pondering of a suitable replacement for this system and I don't have any proposals just yet, but I wanted to post this to get the thread moving and maybe get some additional ideas from other org members.

[jabarto]

I agree. The only argument I hear about keeping the electoral college is that it prevents federalism, which is kind of bogus in itself.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I agree. The only argument I hear about keeping the electoral college is that it prevents federalism, which is kind of bogus in itself.

It's actually supposed to promote federalism since the states are to chose how the electors are chosen. However, the states have since nearly it began given the choice of electors to the people, so the people indirectly chose the president now, which is counter to federalism since it really makes the states pointless in this regard.

[jabarto]

It's actually supposed to promote federalism since the states are to chose how the electors are chosen. However, the states have since nearly it began given the choice of electors to the people, so the people indirectly chose the president now, which is counter to federalism since it really makes the states pointless in this regard.

Maybe I chose my words poorly. I meant it more in the regards of preservation of state's rights, a concept that I deeply resent.

Or maybe that's wrong too. It's been a while since I seriously argued about the electoral college.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe I chose my words poorly. I meant it more in the regards of preservation of state's rights, a concept that I deeply resent.

Or maybe that's wrong too. It's been a while since I seriously argued about the electoral college.

Yeah it does preserve states rights since it is the "states" that are choosing the president with its electors. States have the ability to choose how their electors are chosen.

Elaborate on why you don't care for states rights and why it should not be a factor in choosing the president please.

[jabarto]

Yeah it does preserve states rights since it is the "states" that are choosing the president with its electors. States have the ability to choose how their electors are chosen.

Elaborate on why you don't care for states rights and why it should not be a factor in choosing the president please.

State's rights have historically given strong benefits to corporations at the expense of the people. Look at the credit card companies. They're all based in Delaware because that state is a corporate haven. But the kicker is that they can still operate in other states, even in ways that are illegal there, simply because of "state's rights". And since coporations are far more mobile than the average person...well, you can put two and two together. This isn't even touching on things like racism, for which some modern conservatives STILL trot out the "states' rights" line and which has, in the past, been an argument for such lovely things as segregation.

To clarify, I think the states *should* handle things that are unambiguously local, but there should always be federal oversight, and things that aren't unambiguously local - like healthcare, poverty, rasicm, etc. - should be entirely left to the federal government.

[Crazed Rabbit]

:rolleyes:
The reason that credit card companies can operate in other states is because people want to use their services. In fact, IIRC, the reason they can operate in all states is because of the opposite of state's rights - the commerce clause, preventing states from taxing or regulating goods from other states as though both states were sovereign nations. What you want is more states rights, so some states can ban certain credit card company practices.

I wouldn't mind a divvying up the electoral votes based on what percentage a candidate won in a state. So getting 40% of the vote gives you 40% of the electoral votes.

Having a simple majority vote would simply lead to candidates pandering to the largest groupings of people, and ignoring the rest.

CR

[Beskar]

:rolleyes:
The reason that credit card companies can operate in other states is because people want to use their services. In fact, IIRC, the reason they can operate in all states is because of the opposite of state's rights - the commerce clause, preventing states from taxing or regulating goods from other states as though both states were sovereign nations. What you want is more states rights, so some states can ban certain credit card company practices.

I wouldn't mind a divvying up the electoral votes based on what percentage a candidate won in a state. So getting 40% of the vote gives you 40% of the electoral votes.

Having a simple majority vote would simply lead to candidates pandering to the largest groupings of people, and ignoring the rest.

CR

Actually, he was advocating taxing them all the same. Then doing the same with national health service, etc, opposed to just "state" services.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Actually, he was advocating taxing them all the same. Then doing the same with national health service, etc, opposed to just "state" services.

I'm pretty sure he's not talking about taxes.

CR

[Hosakawa Tito]

Having a simple majority vote would simply lead to candidates pandering to the largest groupings of people, and ignoring the rest.

CR

This was the major reason that the electoral system was enacted. Less populous and smaller states feared domination by the largest states and urban areas.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well yes, but at the end of the day there's something deeply worrying in a system designed to give a few states an artificially bigger share of the electoral pie; especially when it comes to deciding something that affects *all* citizens of *all* states. I think it would be fairer to have each US citizen's vote have the same weight irrespective of the State they are in.

There are other constructs, inherent in a federal system, that allow smaller states to run their own affairs the way they want it without having big states imposing their ways upon them.

[Major Robert Dump]

They do that with the electoral college, too. States with few votes or votes that come late in the game get altogether ignored. I can count he Democratic pres candidates visits in the last 4 elections on 1 hand, even the the state legislature has been historically democratic.

[gaelic cowboy]

Just messing around on some interactive map and its possible to win on ten states with 271 votes that seems wrong I mean as a candidate you won yeah but you have not even won the most states just the biggest.

Instead of just going completely popular vote why not mix it slightly every state will have a odd number of electoral votes for dispersal to the candidates. The candidate who wins the most votes per state then get one extra vote added to his tally. I think this would be a fairer system as it would ensure you had to win the most states and not just the big ones

[Ironside]

I wouldn't mind a divvying up the electoral votes based on what percentage a candidate won in a state. So getting 40% of the vote gives you 40% of the electoral votes.

Having a simple majority vote would simply lead to candidates pandering to the largest groupings of people, and ignoring the rest.

CR

Divvying up the electoral vote in that way would have very similar effects as a general popular vote. Same pros and cons.


They do that with the electoral college, too. States with few votes or votes that come late in the game get altogether ignored. I can count he Democratic pres candidates visits in the last 4 elections on 1 hand, even the the state legislature has been historically democratic.

"Counts to 4 on 1 hand..." :juggle2:

[Crazed Rabbit]

"Counts to 4 on 1 hand..." :juggle2:

You know over half a dozen candidates try to get the Democratic party's presidential nomination each election cycle (without a Democratic incumbent) right? ~;p

That's 10 or so serious candidates over those 4 cycles, and 25 or more in total.

CR

[Ironside]

You know over half a dozen candidates try to get the Democratic party's presidential nomination each election cycle (without a Democratic incumbent) right? ~;p

That's 10 or so serious candidates over those 4 cycles, and 25 or more in total.

CR

But that part ignores the colour of the state... Most of the time, with the exceptions where non-democrats can vote for the democratic candidate in the primaries.

Order of election and number of electorate votes still matters heavily though.

[ArpeggiateTHIS]

I think the USA has bigger internal problems than the EC. Take the Supreme Court, for instance, it's a bi-polar institution, swinging from right to left since it became active in constitutional interpretation. Presidents are using it to leave their legacy upon the US after their terms have expired, what's going on there? Bush is still haunting you!

I'll be entirely miffed with the system if they declare the new h__lth__re (dare I say that word?) bill unconstitutional. Damn that John Roberts.