USA: Time to ditch electoral college?

[Lemur]

Now that we're past the election, what do Orgahs think?

Best argument I've heard for ditching the Electoral College: Force national candidates to focus on large population centers, instead of swing states.

Best argument for keeping EC: Prevents nationwide recounts.

Thoughts?

-edit-

Note that I think it's damaging to our system when a candidate wins the EC without winning the popular vote. Undermines confidence, builds resentment, deligitimizes the administration, etc. This rare but incredibly harmful outcome is my main objection to the Electoral College. It is not enough to hold free and fair elections; the population must feel that their voice was heard, that majority counts. When the EC and popular vote diverge it's just bad all around.

[rvg]

imho it's time. It's been a fine institution all along, but has largely outlived its usefulness. I do not dislike the Electoral College, but have serious reservations about its usefulness.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I say keep it. I don't want a government that has the public directly electing all of Congress and the President.

[gaelic cowboy]

How about a mix of the two

Each state apportions there electoral college votes on a popular basis but the one with the most votes gets two more votes based on the senate seats available.

so for example in the state blah blah

Candidate x get 51% = 6 EC votes + 2 extra

Candidate y gets 49% = 5 EC votes

your votes then counts not matter where you live but you still have power in small states because of these two extra votes.

[Lemur]

Pretty sure the EC is only invoked for the Presidential election; the Seventeenth Amendment provides for direct election of US Senators.

-edit-

Ah, sorry, I had a reading comprehension fail. I get your point now. Apologies.

[Fisherking]

Electoral College or direct election makes little or no difference. It is the winner take all laws enacted in the States that cause the problem. If each district that elects an elector were independent then every vote would count.

As long as you have winner take all it is going to be the same.

[Lemur]

If each district that elects an elector were independent then every vote would count.

That would still leave the option for a candidate to win the electors without winning the popular vote, an outcome that I believe is extremely negative.

[Sarmatian]

Best argument for keeping EC: Prevents nationwide recounts.

You're not going to have nationwide recounts. Citizens vote in their local place and that place keep records of all citizens eligible to vote in there and record of how many people voted. If numbers don't add up, you do a recount locally and if necessary, repeat the process locally.

If that's what you mean by recount - counting again if something doesn't add up?

[Lemur]

GC, I'm not seeing how your proposal would avoid the possible outcome in which the EC winner is not the popular vote winner. Explain a little more, please?

[Xiahou]

The EC should stay- and let's repeal the 17th Amendment while we're at it.

The president is chosen by the states. The popular vote is not necessary- it just usually works out that way.

[Lemur]

The popular vote is not necessary- it just usually works out that way.

Hmm, don't you worry about the effect on the public when the EC winner is not also the popular vote winner? The last time that happened was 2000, and the public reaction was pretty ugly.

Whoever wins a presidential election, I'd like them to begin their term without that sort of cloud hanging over them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The EC should stay- and let's repeal the 17th Amendment while we're at it.

The president is chosen by the states. The popular vote is not necessary- it just usually works out that way.

I agree completely with this. The public treats the presidency as a dictator, which is horrendous and should be squashed before the deification becomes worse. If the public wasn't allowed to vote for president, the issue of swing states becomes moot.

[Lemur]

Oh, I get it, @Xiahou is proposing that there be no national vote at all. Sorry. Long day, not enough coffee, my reading comprehension is full of fail.

[Kadagar_AV]

In Sweden, IIRC, every party get the same amount of money from for the election, so that who has most money don't dictate who wins.

I can see the sense in that, why wouldn't that be working in the US?

[Xiahou]

Oh, I get it, @Xiahou is proposing that there be no national vote at all. Sorry. Long day, not enough coffee, my reading comprehension is full of fail.

No, no no. Voting is fine, but people need to remember that the states choose the president- not the masses. The state's all have chosen the general setup where their citizens get to pick the state's electors, but it wasn't always this way.

Like I said, the states choose the president. The popular vote usually aligns with the outcome, but it's not necessary. If it bothers people, it's because they're ignorant of our system of government and assume that some miscarriage has happened because the popular vote didn't align with the electoral outcome.

At one point in time we had wonderful restrictions on campaign financing. I think a simple repeal of the citizens united decision would solve must of those problems.

The Washington Post would like a word with you....

"Record spending by independent groups, which in many ways defined how campaigns were waged this year, had no dis#cern#ible effect on the outcome of most races, according to an analysis by The Washington Post."

Citizens United struck a great blow for free speech and limited government. It was the right call.

[gaelic cowboy]

the country is not that big that you couldnt just do one man one vote and add them all up so to be honest I think it suits the politicians to keep it.

If you were worried you can just double or even treble the amount of polling stations so that the amount to be counted can be kept manageable on a local level.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Would should ditch the electoral college. With the electoral college it often comes down to a few states, and sometimes to a tipping point state. If the tipping point state has a lot of defense industry jobs, the candidates may have to promote big defense industry spending. If the state has a bunch of union manufacturing jobs, the candidates may have to promote protectionism.

Having the race confined to a few states makes it easier for campaigns to win by sheer organization as well.

I wonder about a lot of reforms really.

What do you think about the single 6 year term for president?

[Lemur]

What do you think about the single 6 year term for president?

I'd be interested to see if any other countries have tried it, and if so, how it worked out. I can imagine many, many possible outcomes, so I'm keen to read about real-world consequences.

[Sarmatian]

What do you think about the single 6 year term for president?

I'm not sure what would that achieve.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm not sure what would that achieve.

The idea is that they will focus on doing the best job they can instead of focusing on getting reelected.

interesting:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21101269861263

I can't read the rest of the article but apparently it was proposed at the constitutional convention, and proposed as an amendment in 1826, and has been endorsed by 15 presidents as of 1988.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What about some reform of campaign tv ads? It's tempting to say "ban them" but I don't know about that really--there could be an important criticism that needs to be made of a candidate that isn't getting mentioned in the media.

Maybe we should make it a rule that you can only buy national ads. If you want to say something, you gotta say it to everybody, not just to a certain part of a certain state.

[CBR]

i.e. the Nebraska-Maine method

And the horrible blue versus red state thing will be gone with one swift stroke. Of course those 50 shades might be too much for the more tribal minded people.

[CrossLOPER]

eliminate the electoral college

fuse both potential terms into one

mobocrasy

presidents who have no fear of the public after being voted in and stay in office for more than half a decade

endless parade of George W. Bush presidents

You guys are just running out of topics, aren't you?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Keep it. If States want to enfranchise their voters, it's up to the States to determine a popular vote allotment of electors. Good luck getting a super-majority to repeal a Constitutional provision when you can't get a simple majority to say that the sky is, primarily, blue.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Keep it. If States want to enfranchise their voters, it's up to the States to determine a popular vote allotment of electors. Good luck getting a super-majority to repeal a Constitutional provision when you can't get a simple majority to say that the sky is, primarily, blue.

You don't need a Constitutional Amendment to get rid of the Electoral College.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...rstate_Compact

[ICantSpellDawg]

Interesting. I don't see a problem with big democratic states signing this law. It would be hilarious to see a Republican win the popular vote and force Illinois, California, NY and Massachusets to give him/her all of their electors. We'd just need to find the sweet spot. Hey, to prevent this, who don't big Democratic States just pass laws promising all electoral votes to the Democratic candidate in advance of the actual vote?