Constitutional Change for elections

[Noir]

Ring a ding

I'm not sure if there have been many debates on this or not, but I haven't seen any so I shall ask;

Why do y'all still use the electrol college system? I assume that back when the constitution was written it was used becuase there was only one way to decided an election, by representitives of each state meeting to sat who their state voted for. However, surly that is not needed in our age of high speed mass communication. Also problems can arise if a member of the electoral college does not vote the same way his state did (which they can AFAIK) and so forth

Is this college not now an outdated relic of a bygone age?

[Immanuel]

The Electoral College was set up so that states with smaller populations would have an equal say in who would be President. Realizing that at the time South Dakota did not exist as a state let's compare South Dakota to New York today. Without the Electoral College a Presidential candidate could completely ignore the needs of the people of South Dakota and focus only on the bigger states like New York and California simply because there are not enough votes in South Dakota to worry about. Under the Electoral College system South Dakota might actually mean something in the election and a Presidential candidate risks his campaign by ignoring the Midwest regions completely.

The system is setup to equalize the value of each of the states without completely eliminating the value of population which is why states with higher populations have more representatives.

I don't think it is an outdated relic. The same reasons for the need of the Electoral College exist today as they did back when it was set up, in fact, one might even think that the magnitude of the problem may even have increased with the population advantages of New York and California over other states.

My personal opinion is that we do still need the Electoral College.

Immie

[Noir]

but I thought the number of college votes was proportional to the size of population in your state anyway, ergo California (sp?) and Texas and so forth with large populations will get more of a say than south Dakota and other small states.

Like I don't know how many votes S Dokata has but if I memo right cali has 50 odd and Texas has around 30, so surly the EC does nothing to equate the power of each state.

[Psychoblues]

Is it the proportional issue with which you are confused or simply the concept, noir?!?!?!?!?!?!??!



but I thought the number of college votes was proportional to the size of population in your state anyway, ergo California (sp?) and Texas and so forth with large populations will get more of a say than south Dakota and other small states.

Like I don't know how many votes S Dokata has but if I memo right cali has 50 odd and Texas has around 30, so surly the EC does nothing to equate the power of each state.

Like you, I am dissatisfied with the EC but I recognise it as the law of THIS land and I hold only a marginal say in the matter. Maybe that is as it should be, think so?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!???!

How 'bout a shigger of pineapple juice?!?!???!?!??!?!?!?!?!???!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

it's kept us happy for a couple hundred years.....why mess with it?.....

[Psychoblues]

Happy?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!?! Us?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!



it's kept us happy for a couple hundred years.....why mess with it?.....

Please expound, pimp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[PostmodernProphet]

Please expound, pimp!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


sorry.....if anyone sober shows up, I'll discuss it with them.....I don't like you enough to talk with you....

[Psychoblues]

I'm not drinking right now, pimp. But you didn't have to bitch me out like that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



sorry.....if anyone sober shows up, I'll discuss it with them.....I don't like you enough to talk with you....

Could I offer you some Holy Water?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Joe Steel]

but I thought the number of college votes was proportional to the size of population in your state anyway, ergo California (sp?) and Texas and so forth with large populations will get more of a say than south Dakota and other small states.

Like I don't know how many votes S Dokata has but if I memo right cali has 50 odd and Texas has around 30, so surly the EC does nothing to equate the power of each state.

EC votes are not exactly proportional. The US Constitution guarantees each state two Senators and one Representative regardless of its size and one Electoral College vote for each Senator and Representative. That creates problems:


Let's look at the numbers in more detail, since people get confused with why the Electoral College empowers small states less than the Senate does. In my analysis on www.ontheissues.org/askme/Electoral_Amendment.htm I compare how many people one Elector represents in the smallest state (population-wise) and the largest state (I updated the numbers for newer census numbers)
- Wyoming gets 3 votes in the Electoral College (2 Senators plus one Rep)
- Wyoming's population is 501,000
- So Wyoming get one Electoral vote per 167,000 people. (501,000 / 3).
- California has 55 Electoral votes (2 Senators plus 53 Reps)
- California's population is 35.5 million.
- So California gets one Electoral vote per 645,000 people. (35.5 million / 55).
- Comparing the Electoral votes per person, Wyoming's people get almost 4 times as much representation as do Californians in the Electoral College
Now let's do the same numbers for the Senate:
- Wyoming gets 2 votes in the Senate
- So Wyoming get one Senate vote per 251,000 people. (501,000 / 2).
- California gets 2 votes in the Senate
- So California gets one Senate vote per 1,780,000 people. (35.5 million / 2).
- Comparing the Senate votes per person, Wyoming's people get over 7 times as much representation as do Californians in the Senate.
So, sorry to Gore supporters and about.com - the Electoral College worked as intended in 2000. If you don't like the way it worked, you CAN work to change it - see http://ontheissues.org/askme/Electoral_Amendment.htm for how....

Wyoming and California (http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/electoral.htm)

[Psychoblues]

That's a bit comprehensive, don't you think, js?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!???!



EC votes are not exactly proportional. The US Constitution guarantees each state two Senators and one Representative regardless of its size and one Electoral College vote for each Senator and Representative. That creates problems:

It confuses the hell out of most Americans, could you expect any foreigner to dig it?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Joe Steel]

That's a bit comprehensive, don't you think, js?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!???!

Hope springs eternal...


It confuses the hell out of most Americans, could you expect any foreigner to dig it?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!??!

Psychoblues

It's just arithmetic. I thing the point will come through.

[Psychoblues]

I thing a lot of thinks.


Hope springs eternal...

It confuses the hell out of most Americans, could you expect any foreigner to dig it?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!???!?!?!?!??!

Psychoblues

It's just arithmetic. I thing the point will come through.[/QUOTE]

Get an education, js. You might be surprised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Joe Steel]

I thing a lot of thinks.


It's just arithmetic. I thing the point will come through.

Get an education, js. You might be surprised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

What's your point?

[Psychoblues]

What did I say about an education, js?!?!??!?!!?!?!?!?!?



What's your point?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Joe Steel]

What's your point?

Do you have a point?

How about just telling me what it is.

[Psychoblues]

Quoting yourself is not helping in this conversation, js.


Do you have a point?

How about just telling me what it is.

Perhaps that education is where you are lacking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Joe Steel]

Quoting yourself is not helping in this conversation, js.

Perhaps that education is where you are lacking?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!?!?!?

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

No. I'm sure that's not it.

I think I may be overestimating yours, though.

[Psychoblues]

You have clearly demonstrated that your estimations are worthless many times here, js.



No. I'm sure that's not it.

I think I may be overestimating yours, though.

Maybe this is just one more of the multitudes?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!??!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Whether or not I get PB's point on education, there is something to the basic point. Having studied the electoral college system in some depth during constitutional studies, as well as in political science classes in college, my basic premise was always that more direct election of candidates was best. I mean the EC system had basically been inserted by the Framers based on the fear of 'mob rule.' We have that from Madison as well as the Federalist papers.

Oh there were times when reading or a professor was explaining, that I'd have a glimmer that would make me nod my head, but I remained convinced that it was an anti-populist system. Then came 2000.

Over the summer I'd written lesson plans for my students to debate the age one should be enfranchised. The debate itself was required for a program I was applying for the following year. Well with 7th graders, nothing goes as quickly regarding such studies as one projects. By election day, we'd not delved very far into the research and I was still trying to have the kids understand they had to argue their side, regardless of their personal beliefs.

For some reason, after the election, we decided to change the topic to the Electoral College. ;) I was personally convinced that it should be abolished, but kept emphasizing the previous attempts to explain that it was important during the research, to go where the evidence laid, gleaning what would prove up the position 'their side' was given.

By the end of January, (I was shocked at how much work some of the brightest students had done over Christmas, as were their parents), we'd gone through the writing and practice debates 5 times. Then came the 'mock debate', with an assembly for 5-8 grade and parents invited. We had a 'panel' of judges, invited from the community. A professor of mine, two lawyers, the mayor, and chief of police. The local paper had sent a reporter and photographer to cover.

I wasn't surprised by time that the 'keep the electoral college' side won, I'd heard and read their findings too often. The two sides introductions had 'set up' the opposite expectation of the audience, both adults and students. In the end, the 'keep' side won, to rousing applause. The kids got their pictures in the paper and I got an award from the city and local ABA. LOL! Something I'd never expected. Oh yea, I got accepted into the grad program for Constitutional teaching for the following summer.

About 8 of those 18 'kids' still keep in contact with me, though graduating college last year or this, (3 of them graduated early). Nearly all of that class completed AP studies in social studies through high school, the idea that they could read and understand focused studies of original documents I believe had a lot to do with building their confidence to do that.

Am I convinced that the Electoral College should 'remain?' I still have mixed feelings on that, in spite of evidence to the contrary, I maintain a belief in the choice of the people, but right now it's part of our system. Of the few elections decided by the EC, the determinations have fallen both ways on the political spectrum. Perhaps in times of real turmoil in the nation, it's the best system to prevent mob rule after all?

[DannyR]

The primary reason I see for keeping the electoral college today is that it divides the election into smaller units.

Looking at the complete mess that recounts cause in states such as Florida and Wyoming, imagine the scale of that if a presidential race actually was done just by population and was only a couple thousand votes different. Rather than having legal battles in just one or two closely contested states, EVERY state in the nation could be open to such recounts, hoping to collect a few votes here or there.

Other than that, I see no need for it. If our technology develops to the point where voting is much more secure and reliable across the board, I would refer elections be done by popular vote rather than electoral college. With today's communications, I don't think the argument that candidates would only campaign in larger states really matters, as their positions are still broadcast everywhere (and you still need rural votes to win)

[Joe Steel]

I wasn't surprised by time that the 'keep the electoral college' side won, I'd heard and read their findings too often. The two sides introductions had 'set up' the opposite expectation of the audience, both adults and students. In the end, the 'keep' side won, to rousing applause. The kids got their pictures in the paper and I got an award from the city and local ABA. LOL! Something I'd never expected. Oh yea, I got accepted into the grad program for Constitutional teaching for the following summer.

What was the basis for the decision?

Judges? Audience applause?

[Joe Steel]

The primary reason I see for keeping the electoral college today is that it divides the election into smaller units.

Looking at the complete mess that recounts cause in states such as Florida and Wyoming, imagine the scale of that if a presidential race actually was done just by population and was only a couple thousand votes different. Rather than having legal battles in just one or two closely contested states, EVERY state in the nation could be open to such recounts, hoping to collect a few votes here or there.

Yes, I see.

How about if we just get a few really smart guys to choose the government for us. That would be even less messy.

[Nukeman]

The problem I see with the EC over popular vote is like in California if a candidate receives 51% of the vote from the state they receive ALL 55 EC votes.

Since you only need 270 EC votes that puts you 18% of the way there with only 1 state. We all know California usually goes liberal but the sate is very divided and as such the EC votes should represent that. I don't believe in a all or nothing EC Vote for each sate. It should be a percentage of total votes, if there are 40 votes in a state and one candidate received 75% of the popular vote then they should get 30 votes and the other candidate should receive the other 10... Of course this is just my opinion.

[Kathianne]

What was the basis for the decision?

Judges? Audience applause?

The panel.

[PostmodernProphet]

What was the basis for the decision?

Judges? Audience applause?

I expect it was Congress.....

[Nukeman]

Yes, I see.

How about if we just get a few really smart guys to choose the government for us. That would be even less messy.
Fine with me because we know that they would be conservative given that they are "smart".......:poke::beer:

[5stringJeff]

Yes, I see.

How about if we just get a few really smart guys to choose the government for us. That would be even less messy.

That's called an oligarchy, and would be the antithesis of anyone purporting to believe in democracy or liberty. But, then again, this is Joe Steel, so I shouldn't be surprised.


The problem I see with the EC over popular vote is like in California if a candidate receives 51% of the vote from the state they receive ALL 55 EC votes.

Since you only need 270 EC votes that puts you 18% of the way there with only 1 state. We all know California usually goes liberal but the sate is very divided and as such the EC votes should represent that. I don't believe in a all or nothing EC Vote for each sate. It should be a percentage of total votes, if there are 40 votes in a state and one candidate received 75% of the popular vote then they should get 30 votes and the other candidate should receive the other 10... Of course this is just my opinion.

That would essentially turn the EC results into the popular vote results. At that point, the EC would be redundant.


I think the EC is purposeful and needed just as much today as it was in 1788. The reason is that the States are supposed to choose the Chief Executive, not the populace. The federal government, as a creation of the State governments, was supposed to be representative of both the People and the States - thus, popular election of representatives and state legislature elections of Senators. By having the Chief Executive chosen by State, it assured everyone that the few most populous states couldn't elect someone sympathetic to their views at the expense of smaller states. It's the same reasoning as that behind equal representation in the Senate - it's designed with the States in mind.

[Mugged Liberal]

"I wasn't surprised by time that the 'keep the electoral college' side won, I'd heard and read their findings too often."

It's odd how certain subjects come up again and again. I debated this subject in high school in 1949 arguing for direct election. I won some and I lost some.

I still opt for direct election. No election is immune from dispute in a close race but the uncertainty and danger of chaos will be less likely if the Electoral College is abolished.

As to a concern for States Rights there is the fact that in this case as in many others conditions have changed so dramatically since 1787 that our venerable and beloved constitution needs to be updated. As we move further into the internet age of the 21st century this will become even more glaringly necessary.

[DannyR]

How about if we just get a few really smart guys to choose the government for us. That would be even less messy.Yes it would be, but it also moves us further away from the idea of a democracy.

Our government was made with multiple compromises at every stage of its development. You might not think "messy" is an excuse not to have popular vote, but I think potential months of confusion trying to establish who exactly won an election is a valid cause for alarm, and as long as we keep seeing states unable to certify close elections in a timely manner - we just aren't there yet for moving the Presidential race to a national scale.

[Kathianne]

Yes it would be, but it also moves us further away from the idea of a democracy.

Our government was made with multiple compromises at every stage of its development. You might not think "messy" is an excuse not to have popular vote, but I think potential months of confusion trying to establish who exactly won an election is a valid cause for alarm, and as long as we keep seeing states unable to certify close elections in a timely manner - we just aren't there yet for moving the Presidential race to a national scale.

And the EC as both Jeff and I explained, is one of those compromises.

[DannyR]

As to a concern for States Rights there is the fact that in this case as in many others conditions have changed so dramatically since 1787 that our venerable and beloved constitution needs to be updated. As we move further into the internet age of the 21st century this will become even more glaringly necessary.An amendment might not even be necessary. There is currently a movement out there trying to get states to pass laws forcing them to assign all their electors to the national popular vote winner, even if that person didn't win in their own state.
Under the U.S. Constitution, the states have exclusive and plenary (complete) power to allocate their electoral votes, and may change their state laws concerning the awarding of their electoral votes at any time. Under the National Popular Vote bill, all of the state’s electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). Currently its been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and Maryland

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/editorials/nytimes.php
This pretty much bypasses the need for a constitutional amendment as it could force election of a popular vote just by manipulating electors on the state level.

[Joe Steel]

That's called an oligarchy, and would be the antithesis of anyone purporting to believe in democracy or liberty. But, then again, this is Joe Steel, so I shouldn't be surprised.

I'm impressed.

You found the irony.

Our electoral college isn't all that much different from what I proposed.


That would essentially turn the EC results into the popular vote results. At that point, the EC would be redundant.

Your point?


I think the EC is purposeful and needed just as much today as it was in 1788. The reason is that the States are supposed to choose the Chief Executive, not the populace. The federal government, as a creation of the State governments, was supposed to be representative of both the People and the States - thus, popular election of representatives and state legislature elections of Senators. By having the Chief Executive chosen by State, it assured everyone that the few most populous states couldn't elect someone sympathetic to their views at the expense of smaller states. It's the same reasoning as that behind equal representation in the Senate - it's designed with the States in mind.

Oh. I see.

You're an anti-democratic elitist.

Tell me why the population of any state should matter more than the population of any other state.

[PostmodernProphet]

the electoral college protects us from the assholes, regardless of which party the assholes currently belong to.....that's why it won't ever, and shouldn't be......changed.....

[Joe Steel]

Yes it would be, but it also moves us further away from the idea of a democracy.

Our government was made with multiple compromises at every stage of its development. You might not think "messy" is an excuse not to have popular vote, but I think potential months of confusion trying to establish who exactly won an election is a valid cause for alarm, and as long as we keep seeing states unable to certify close elections in a timely manner - we just aren't there yet for moving the Presidential race to a national scale.

I'm not sure I'm following you.

Our problems in 2000 Florida and 2004 Ohio revolved around counting the vote and determining which votes were valid. Eliminating the popular vote would have done away with that cause of alarm. Are you saying that would be a good reason to keep the Electoral College?

[DannyR]

Our problems in 2000 Florida and 2004 Ohio revolved around counting the vote and determining which votes were valid. Eliminating the popular vote would have done away with that cause of alarm.

Yes, elimination of a popular vote obviously solves election problems if you don't have an election *lol*, but democracy is worth a little pain. Its the scale of that pain that is the issue.


Are you saying that would be a good reason to keep the Electoral College?Until such time that such vote counting issues are standardized and no longer cause problems.

Waiting on one state is chaotic, but manageable. An extremely close popular vote in a national election however would cause recounts in every state, all with varying standards and levels of authenticity. Thats a whole other level of chaos we don't need right now when many states are still experimenting with electronic voting and other methods.

[5stringJeff]

Oh. I see.

You're an anti-democratic elitist.

Tell me why the population of any state should matter more than the population of any other state.

Because the US government is a federal government, not a national government.

[emmett]

How about if i just volunteer to appoint officials from now on?