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.

[Kadagar_AV]

What's wrong with having one vote per person?

And the candidate with the most votes wins?

Doesn't have to be rocket science.

[a completely inoffensive name]

What's wrong with having one vote per person?And the candidate with the most votes wins?Doesn't have to be rocket science.

The public doesn't deserve to vote for president in the first place.

[Ja'chyra]

God forbid any backwards country that would elect someone to rule without having the majority, or even the most, votes.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Strike For The South]

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.

Now you sound like my mother

I am big proponent of taking as much of the franchise away as possible

Every time I have to vote for a judge, I have a stroke

[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?

[Lemur]

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?

What constitutes a "party"? Would that mean that the Anarchists and the Tea Party would get the same pot of money that the Democrats and the Republicans get? Wouldn't that be open to abuse?

How much money? A Presidential campaign cycle costs our nation roughly the amount we spend on chewing gum for one year. Is that enough? Too much? Too little? Who decides?

And then there's the whole SOCIALISM thing, which we tend to scream whenever anything isn't done by Goldman Sachs or Halliburton. It's an endearing tic of ours.

[Sir Moody]

What constitutes a "party"? Would that mean that the Anarchists and the Tea Party would get the same pot of money that the Democrats and the Republicans get? Wouldn't that be open to abuse?

How much money? A Presidential campaign cycle costs our nation roughly the amount we spend on chewing gum for one year. Is that enough? Too much? Too little? Who decides?

And then there's the whole SOCIALISM thing, which we tend to scream whenever anything isn't done by Goldman Sachs or Halliburton. It's an endearing tic of ours.

for the US it would probably work better as each "Candidate" rather than each party - and why does it matter how much as long as they spend the same?

[Kadagar_AV]

What constitutes a "party"? Would that mean that the Anarchists and the Tea Party would get the same pot of money that the Democrats and the Republicans get? Wouldn't that be open to abuse?

How much money? A Presidential campaign cycle costs our nation roughly the amount we spend on chewing gum for one year. Is that enough? Too much? Too little? Who decides?

And then there's the whole SOCIALISM thing, which we tend to scream whenever anything isn't done by Goldman Sachs or Halliburton. It's an endearing tic of ours.

IIRC

I think there are 2 levels.

level 1. partys with X thousand signed members, they get a smaller amount of money, mainly to produce voting tickets and stuff.

level 2. partys backed by more than 4% of the population, 4% is also the minimum required to be represented in parliament. This money should go to adverts and stuff.


How much money... You would have to decide that yourself. Enough to make yourself heard, but not so much that you deafen people is what I would recommend.

The bolded part though is why I agree it's unlikely to be taken seriously anytime soon.

[Beskar]

Why not do it so the percentage of the vote is divided between the candidates? So instead of all of California's 55 vote the same way, it is split.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why not do it so the percentage of the vote is divided between the candidates? So instead of all of California's 55 vote the same way, it is split.

Why not just do a popular vote then...you are representing the same thing at that point except with the number 55 instead of 38 million.

[gaelic cowboy]

Why not do it so the percentage of the vote is divided between the candidates? So instead of all of California's 55 vote the same way, it is split.

You could still end up with someone not being the popular vote prez