Ways to fix the electoral college

[BradCKY]

A. Refine the electoral college to only include congressional seats and not Senate seats (it wouldn't fix it but it would be a middle of the road way of making it MUCH more fair because it would be based on population instead of number of states) I say this because option B probably would run into serious opposition.

B. Eliminate it and make it based on the popular vote.

What do you think, I know most people here want B, but would A be a good start?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. It depends on what other steps are taken

If we institute ranked voting, would that also be the case in the EC?

[Bucky]

4. Ranked voting will *never* happen

It's simply too complicated to sell to people--nevermind selling it to enough people to get an amendment passed. But ranked voting also ignores one of the principal virtues of the current system: it produces a clear winner. Despite only getting 44% of the vote in 1992, Bill Clinton came into office with a sense of mandate. You want that in a leader.

The great big mass of humans called the United States requires some sense of centrality, of a unity of purpose, in order to function as a single republic. Sure, the current voting system produces the occasional sillines of pundits pronouncing on what "the voters are telling us." This is preferable to the diffused message that would come from ranked voting. The final decision is, well, decisive.

edited to fix to/too confusion

[GreenPartyVoter]

7. No, it does not make for a consensus

Did you feel like there was a consensus when $hrub waltzed into the Oval office?

Ranked voting increases not decreases your odds of electing an official that the majority of people want.

[kiahzero]

18. FPTP is less decisive

Ranked voting, especially Condorcet, gives more of a mandate. The candidate that wins a Condorcet election is the candidate that is the most preferred out of the entire field. Not only this, but Condorcet also gives a clearer message than FPTP voting - the views of the electorate are accurately representated, right down to cylical ambiguities.

On edit: To wit, nothing in the Constitution mandates the use of FPTP voting in Presidential or any other type of election. So it wouldn't take a Constitutional Amendment to change the way we vote.

[ulTRAX]

20. The is NO legitimate mandate from the EC

Bucky wrote: "But ranked voting also ignores one of the principal virtues of the current system: it produces a clear winner. Despite only getting 44% of the vote in 1992, Bill Clinton came into office with a sense of mandate. You want that in a leader."

My my.... we have been propagandized, haven't we. This is why I keep saying we Progressives MUST get back to first principles because so many who SHOULD know better are lost in the anti-democratic politics of 1787 they learned in 4th grade history.

Mandates come from CITIZENS.... not anti-democratic vote weighing schemes. In theory someone can win by ONE vote in all the states and sweep the EC vote yet lose the national vote. What sort of mandate is that? Does Bush have such a mandate? Should Clinton have had one when some 60% of the vote was against him? Your notion that such votes are "decisive" is laughable. The ONLY decisive vote is the popular vote.... and if it's a true majority.

[BradCKY]

5. Anything would be better

Than assigning a state 2 electoral votes based on senators on top of the congressional seats, since every state has 2 senators regardless of population.

[Deb-Ter]

26. BradCKY,

I'm probably being dense here, but what difference would it make if we took the two Senate seats away from everyone? The fact that it is given to each and every state would negate any positive coming from removing it from every state. If everybody is lower by 2 votes there isn't really any difference.

[terryg11]

2. I wonder how many here would support B

if Bush won the popular vote in '04 and Kerry won the electoral?

Would choice A be enough of a difference to even warrant the change? Just wondering if it's worth taking baby steps in a process like this if you are going to change it.

[BradCKY]

3. If I'm not mistaken

I believe Gore would have won the election with A, because of how many states Bush won (quickly looking at the map Gore won 20 states plus DC).

Therefore Gore would have 42 less electoral votes, but Bush would have 60 less elecotral votes.

This would take states like Wyoming (population 500,000) down to 1 electoral vote.

[terryg11]

6. possibly but I'm a believer in the Florida conspiracy

If the republicans hadn't tampered with things down there (purging voters illegaly for one) then Gore might very well have won the electoral collge anyway.

[BradCKY]

8. Sure

I won't even get into the whole Florida mess right now, we all know about the problems there LOL.

I'm just saying we wouldn't have needed Florida if they did it the other way.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

12. I would

Less enthusiastically maybe, but I would. The one with the most votes should win. Anyway, any change would apply only to the future, and dissonances between popular and electoral votes may happen either way.

[Poiuyt]

14. I would (after the fact)

I would love to see that happen because then Republicans in Congress might actually do something to eliminate that arcane system

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. No way any would happen. The way things are now...

...if scratching you left year at 9 am is believed to make people 0.000000000000000000000000000000000001% more likely to vote Republican, scratching you left year at 9 am shall be made mandatory for all Americans.

[Poiuyt]

10. Proportional Representation

Basically, political parties in the legislature receive a number of seats (approximately) proportional to the percentage of vote they received. This is much fairer than the winner take all system that we now have and is the way that much of the world votes.

http://www.fairvote.org/pr/
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/prlib.htm

[GreenPartyVoter]

11. Yep, PR, ranked voting

and the other reform ideas mentioned on my website would go a long way toward improving our country. You elect better officials, you get better policies.

[slackmaster]

13. Both proposals are pie in the sky

Either one would require a Constitutional amendment, and it takes only any of 33 Senators, or 144 Representatives, or 13 state legislatures to block an amendment.

Look at the EC from the perspective of the 13 least-populated states. I'm sure that people in every one of them (and several more) will deny that the EC is broken. It gives them a significant lever, and unless you can come up with something just as good to give them in return they will never give it up.

[BradCKY]

15. I see one way to convince them

That would be a democrat winning like Bush did! (without the popular vote like others on this thread have said) :)

[slackmaster]

22. Yes, that would be about the only way to change their minds

Unfortunately the smallest states are all HEAVILY Republican.

[ulTRAX]

21. The Constitution is virtually REFORM PROOF

slackmaster wrote: "Both proposals are pie in the sky. Either one would require a Constitutional amendment, and it takes only any of 33 Senators, or 144 Representatives, or 13 state legislatures to block an amendment."

This is scandalous. It SHOULD make anyone who values democratic principles furious that now a little over 4% of the US population can in theory block ALL reform wanted by the other 96%.

"Look at the EC from the perspective of the 13 least-populated states. I'm sure that people in every one of them (and several more) will deny that the EC is broken. It gives them a significant lever, and unless you can come up with something just as good to give them in return they will never give it up."

Isn't the REAL question what is the moral justification for THESE citizens to be granted in perpetuity special powers at the expense of others? This was the nations FIRST affirmative action plan. And why stop with ONE group? Why are not racial minorities, or poor people, or women, or Gays, deserving of special powers regardless of state residence because they have been at a historical disadvantage? There is NO way to have civic equality in an anti-democratic system that gives SOME citizens a bigger vote than others. I'm surprised the Right hasn't discovered its internal contradiction on this issue. But then I've always suspected the Right isn't interested in civic equality... only playing the race card.

[BradCKY]

16. Bump

Bump.

[bullimiami]

17. simple

just mandate that all of the states assign proportional electorals.

as it stands now some states assign the electors propotionally and some states are all or nothing.

this would seem to clash with the equal protection clause.

it would required a constitutional amendment to enforce it.

[ulTRAX]

19. The EC is an anti-democratic abomination

The EC can NOT be fixed. It is nothing but a vote weighing that at BEST can only validate who the voters have chosen at the polls... and at worst create morally illegitimate minority government such as we now have under Bush. Such minority government makes a mockery of the concept that government derives its JUST powers from the CONSENT of the governed. It has irreparably changed the course of US history for the worse... and who is responsible? Who is to blame? An unelected unaccountable Star Chamber called the EC? Is this the way self-government works?

The EC is irredeemable UNLESS one is stuck in the mindset of 1787 politics which holds that SOME US citizens deserve special powers based on their state residence at the expense of other citizens. What is the moral justification for giving ANY US citizen a bigger vote. This system gave one citizen in Bush's Florida lead a vote that weighed 1000X the vote of a citizen in Gore's national lead in deciding the outcome. Such vote weighing schemes are ILLEGAL at all other levels of government.

Our Constitution is virtually reform-proof. Since the EC can not be changed without a Constitutional amendment... there's no sense wasting time with a minor tweak of an irredeemable anti-democratic concept when the ONLY solution is a true popular vote with some run-off system to insure that any President gets 50%+1 of the vote.

[slackmaster]

23. It had the consent of the governed in 1787

So did the difficult process for amending the Constitution.

The EC is irredeemable UNLESS one is stuck in the mindset of 1787 politics which holds that SOME US citizens deserve special powers based on their state residence at the expense of other citizens. What is the moral justification for giving ANY US citizen a bigger vote.

Actually the purpose of the EC was and is is to prevent the interests of small STATES from being overrun by larger ones. It's exactly the same reason every state gets two Senators regardless of population. Would you change the Senate to proportional representation as well? How about doing away with the Senate entirely? It's not FAIR that tiny Alaska gets 2% of the members of the Senate and California gets only 2%, after all.

In the big picture, the two-Senators-per-state system has far more frequent and widespread impact on the distribution of power than the Electoral College, which has gone against the popular vote only a couple of times in history if you count 2000 as such an event. Democrats are feeling stung by the EC right now, but most of the time it makes no difference.

Besides the process of 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures, there is also the option of holding a new Constitutional Convention to make structural changes to the government or its processes. I'd be very afraid of going that route with the current bunch in power.

[ulTRAX]

24. where do you see any consent of governed?

slackmaster wrote: "It had the consent of the governed in 1787. So did the difficult process for amending the Constitution."

The Constitution was sold as the only alternative to the nation degenerating into chaos. Even then it was barely ratified by the Constitutional Convention and barely ratified by the states. None the less a secular religion has grown up around this document that it approaches perfection. We've all been indoctrinated in this in grade school. It emphasizes the politics of the era and how the compromises in the Constitution were brilliant given the divergent interests of the states. OK... I'll grant that. They probably would never have reached an agreement if slavery was not permitted... etc.

But that was then. We've had 220 years to see what the defects of the Constitution are. We can see them or gloss over them. What you describe as "consent" is merely a combination of Constitution being virtually reform-proof combined with a collective blind spot. We, today, place OUR interests as secondary to the will of the Framers. This secular religion prevents us from looking back at first principles... such as what constitutes morally legitimate democratic government. Once we do employ those principles rather than the secular religion, those defects become painfully obvious.

UlTRAX: "The EC is irredeemable UNLESS one is stuck in the mindset of 1787 politics which holds that SOME US citizens deserve special powers based on their state residence at the expense of other citizens. What is the moral justification for giving ANY US citizen a bigger vote."

"Actually the purpose of the EC was and is is to prevent the interests of small STATES from being overrun by larger ones. It's exactly the same reason every state gets two Senators regardless of population. Would you change the Senate to proportional representation as well? How about doing away with the Senate entirely? It's not FAIR that tiny Alaska gets 2% of the members of the Senate and California gets only 2%, after all."

Thanks for the 4th grade history lesson. Don't you think I'm aware of "why" we have an anti-democratic government? What you can't seem to comprehend is that someone, today, might REJECT that rationale as obsolete and dangerous. As for the Senate I am in favor of reforming it into a national parliament based on party elections and proportional representation. I do NOT see any moral legitimacy to us the Constitution to grant SOME US citizens more power and privileges at he expense of others citizens. Why is someone's choice of state residence a moral justification for such civic inequality? Why not OTHER groups? Women, people of color, Gays and Lesbians, poor people... people with handicaps. The Framer's solution was the best they could do at the time... but if you look in the mirror you can see what an ideological straight jacket even Progressives have allowed themselves to accept. The simple truth is there are ways to protect civic equality.... where all votes weigh the same... AND protect minority rights... and that's teh Bill of Right's approach. There's NO need to have an anti-democratic government that sometimes allows the minority to rule. Where is there EVER a moral justification for that?

"In the big picture, the two-Senators-per-state system has far more frequent and widespread impact on the distribution of power than the Electoral College, which has gone against the popular vote only a couple of times in history if you count 2000 as such an event. Democrats are feeling stung by the EC right now, but most of the time it makes no difference."

The BEST the EC can do is ratify the popular vote... in which case it's unnecessary. At it's worst it can impose an election loser upon the nation. So much for self-government.

"Besides the process of 2/3 of both houses of Congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures, there is also the option of holding a new Constitutional Convention to make structural changes to the government or its processes. I'd be very afraid of going that route with the current bunch in power. "

As a first step I think we have to look at reforming the amendment process. Currently states with a mere 4% of the population can, in theory, block any amendment. Amendments should not be easy but I believe that the process should not be state based... but population based. One idea is that states comprising 60-70% of the population would be sufficient for ratification.

[apsuman]

33. here are your answers

Here are your answers.

"Thanks for the 4th grade history lesson. Don't you think I'm aware of "why" we have an anti-democratic government? What you can't seem to comprehend is that someone, today, might REJECT that rationale as obsolete and dangerous."

Sure I see how a person could think that. Now all you have to do is convince enough other people that 1) the problem exists (this is actually pretty easy) and 2) get them to all agree on the EXACT SAME solution. Amending the Constituion was designed to be hard. It is supposed to be hard.

" As for the Senate I am in favor of reforming it into a national parliament based on party elections and proportional representation. I do NOT see any moral legitimacy to us the Constitution to grant SOME US citizens more power and privileges at he expense of others citizens."

The fact that you do not see it does not mean it is non-existant. The model for european government is that power comes from God and is invested in the Sovereign, who then doles it out to the people. The model our founders came up with is that power comes from God to the people who then dole it out to the States, and in turn the States yeild sovereignty to the federal government. The States are one of the fundamental building blocks of our government. They retain (some) sovereignty. OUr government works because so much of what we do is NOT lorded over by the federal government. Each state gets to make it's own laws and for the most part gets left alone by thge federal government. So the answer to your question as to why some people get more power it is only because the states retain sovereignty.


" Why is someone's choice of state residence a moral justification for such civic inequality? Why not OTHER groups? Women, people of color, Gays and Lesbians, poor people... people with handicaps. "

Because here in America we strive for equality not get-even-with-em-ism. If a group suffered civic inequality of 35 years does not mean that they should then get 35 years of preference. Every one of the groups you mentioned has publically advocated equality, not for a period where they get the most for some time. If there is inequality we should strive to end it, not make it the exact opposite for pay back.

[slackmaster]

35. Nice bit of circular reasoning

Thanks for the 4th grade history lesson. Don't you think I'm aware of "why" we have an anti-democratic government? What you can't seem to comprehend is that someone, today, might REJECT that rationale as obsolete and dangerous.

I see no justification for you insulting me like this. I fully understand your beef with the EC, and I'm not arguing against your reasoning.

The BEST the EC can do is ratify the popular vote... in which case it's unnecessary. At it's worst it can impose an election loser upon the nation. So much for self-government.

So sorry, but the candidate who gets the most electoral votes is by definition the winner. The people do not elect the President. It's always been that way, and it will always be that way until the EC is abolished.

As a first step I think we have to look at reforming the amendment process. Currently states with a mere 4% of the population can, in theory, block any amendment.

And changing that process would require <drum roll>...

A Constitutional amendment.

The EC isn't anti-democratic; it's simply non-democratic.

[jsw_81]

25. Give the popular vote winner a bonus

[neverborn]

27. B.

Please.

[Bigfoot]

28. Eliminate the Electoral College?

Tell me that our party has not moved left of Lennon.

**suddenly re-thinking what party I am in**

Our Electoral College is the very soul of our fair election system.

Please attend:

1) Blacks are less than 7% of the popular vote. If we went on a straight vote, you take their VOICE. If you want STATES like Louisiana, and Georgia, you HAVE to speak to blacks. That is just one example of how our system is MORE fair than one man, one vote.

2) Our Electoral College gives justice a chance. Women's suffrage would not have been a viable platform to run on, for example, in the political pressures of a straight democracy.

We have a democratic republic where both population and states are evenly weighted. I don't follow gay rights, black rights or women's rights, however, I do care that our system makes sure they ALL have a voice. A system so uniquely fair, it could only be American.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

29. While getting rid of the EC would be a long and complicated process

individual states have the option of deciding how to allot their votes. Originally, there was no necessary connection between the popular vote and the electoral vote, only that the states would choose a certain number of electors, who would then vote however they pleased.

I believe that Maine allots its electoral votes proportionally, while the others are all "winner take all" states.

The "winner take all" system gives an exaggerated picture of "red states" and "blue states." For example, Oregon is a "blue state," but only because a few populous areas are Democratic. If turnout had been low in the urban areas in either 2000 or 2002, Bush would have taken Oregon and it would have a Republican governor today.

I'm sure the reverse is true for some of the alleged "red states," that they are red by only a percentage point or two.

On the whole, though, the EC is a relic of the 18th century belief that countries should be governed by the "rich, well-born, and able," a relic of the era when only white male property owners could vote.

[Bigfoot]

30. nice job of parroting mis-information but the truth is..

Not only does it give geographically regional groups a say in the process they wouldn't otherwise have, (we as democrats aren't against that now are we?) as I pointed out, but has other built-in checks to the system as well:

* Filters the vote so in case of regional antagonism there's a reasonable solution (which was the founders' intent).

* Gives small states a larger say; otherwise they'd be entirely ignored (also the founders' intent).

* Provides a framework for oganizing a campaign. Without it, candidates wouldn't have a focus like they do now.

This is high-school civics 101 people. I am seriously considering registering as independent now. My god...what have we become, if not educated?

[karabekian]

31. its here to stay

small states will never allow the EC to go. There are more small states than large ones.

[Zinfandel]

32. Get rid of it.

The only tree times it's decide the election over the popular vote,in US history all three times it benefited the republicans.

[LDS Jock]

34. I vote B.. but

I know it will never happen. The small states would never radify an amendment which would take away their advantage. The republicans wouldn't want it either, since it takes away from their base of all those states without a lot of people in the middle of the country which always go red. Personally, I feel we have one person, one vote direct elections. When Hillary was elected to the Senate, didn't she say she would sponser a bill to do away with the electoral college? Anyone else remember that or did I dream it?