That Electoral College Thing

[OldGreyEagle]

So, the Electoral College, never has had a good football team but sure does like to hang around...

 

After the hue and cry of the 2000 election there were quite a number of disgruntled politicians decrying the inane and arcane insitution of the Electoral College. Many swore that this vestigal contrivance had definitely outlived its usefulness and it was time to end its existance. But yet it lives

 

Why should we eliminate the Electoral College and go to a pure popular vote wins all? Or perhaps there is value in the Electoral Collge system, what do you think?(This message has been edited by OldGreyEagle)

[GernBlansten]

Retire the electoral college. I thought I knew why it was a good thing, but seeing the shenanigans of the past few elections, I just can''t see any benefit to it. Go with the popular vote. Or better yet, do what many cities do for mayoral elections, a runoff. If a single candidate does not get the majority (50+%) of the vote, a runoff election of the top two is held. This would allow for much more diversity in the field without having spoilers like Perot and Nader swing an election by siphoning off votes in key states.

[frank10]

The E.C. was designed to give small states a voice in electing a president. It was created for exactly the same reason as the senate.

Would you like to remove that as well? (Bet folks from RI would think not!)

 

BTW: as it stands now, a voter in RI has almost 3times the voting power of a voter in CA.

[GernBlansten]

a voter in RI has almost 3times the voting power of a voter in CA.

 

Is that a good thing?

[TheScout]

The electoral college contains the problem of election errors. When a recount is needed it can be done is just one state. If the elections were based on a nationwide popular vote, a recount would have to be done throughout the country. That would be a nightmare.

[eisely]

As noted in an earlier post, the electoral college was created to deliberately give more weight to states with smaller populations. I don''t see that as a bad thing. It forces politicians, particularly those running for president, to be attentive to the issues in the less populous states, not just a few big metropolitan areas. Living in the lala land of California, it suits me just fine that the smaller states have bigger voice. I would hate to see the things that California is attempting forced down the throats of the rest of the country.

 

I think another reason for the electoral college was that the writers of the constitution did not trust direct elections all that much. The house of representatives was the only part of the federal government to be elected directly by the people. The senate was originally chosen by the legislatures of the various states until that part of the constitution was amended. I forget which amendment that was, but I don''t think that happened until after the Civil War.

[GernBlansten]

I understand the framers desire to dilute the election from population centers. What has evolved is a few battleground states become the election. The framer''s could not have wanted that. The candidates focus on these key states and ignore the rest. California will always go blue. Texas will always go red. Any state that votes predominately in one color will be ignored. I''m really getting tired of Ohio and Florida deciding who our president is.

[TheScout]

California could easily play kingmaker by choosing either nominee that it wanted.

[Beavah]

It''s really moot, eh?

 

No way yer going to get 75% of the states to ratify that constitutional amendment, eh? It would take a lot of small states giving up their clout to get that through. Ain''t going to happen. The electoral college is here to stay.

 

Problem right now is that we haven''t recognized that there''s such a thing as a statistical tie. When things are close enough, you can recount 20 times and get 20 different answers and outcomes. Polling just ain''t an exact science. The Florida 2000 vote was a statistical tie the moment it became clear that the outcome depended on interpretations of dimpled chads. Then both sides got into tryin'' to manipulate the outcome.

 

Why not fix the statistical tie problem in state law? After one statewide recount, any election closer than .1% is a statistical tie and gets resolved just like a tie. Flip of the coin, hand of poker, whatever. Save everyone a lot of grief, money, court costs and incivility. We all know that with weakly kept voter rolls, people who can''t read ballots, etc. an error rate of 1/1000 is about right.

 

Beavah

 

 

[eolesen]

If you'd like a repeat of 1861, change the electoral system....

 

Just 9 states account for 51% of the population (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, PA, OH, MI, NY), and 83% of the population lives in 25 states, so any changes to the electoral system would wind up leaving at least half of the states with no effective voice in who becomes President.

 

 

I do believe the electoral college works, with the exception of the "winner takes all" approach some states use to allocate their votes. But, no one system is ever going to satisfy everyone.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

[GernBlansten]

I thought the vast majority of states use the winner take all method. Although 24 states electors are not bound by state law to vote for the majority candidate, very few deviate from the popular vote.

 

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html#popular

 

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

 

Which States bind electors to popular vote results? Refer to Electors Bound by State Law and Pledges to find out.

 

The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not require that electors be completely free to act as they choose and therefore, political parties may extract pledges from electors to vote for the parties'' nominees. Some State laws provide that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or may be disqualified for casting an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector. The Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on the question of whether pledges and penalties for failure to vote as pledged may be enforced under the Constitution. No elector has ever been prosecuted for failing to vote as pledged.

 

Today, it is rare for electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party''s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of electors have voted as pledged.

 

[Aquila]

Sure would be nice for those votes to be broken down according to Congressional District rather than a winner takes all scenario.

[packsaddle]

Scrap the whole thing and go to a parliamentary system so we can quickly dump a deadhead like we have now.

[TheScout]

Under a parliamentary system one would still have to elect a president so we would still be arguing.

 

Likewise a "deadhead" Prime Minister could likely be more powerful then a President since he would effectively control the legislative branch as well.

 

The British Prime Miniter has more powers than the President could ever dream of.

[packsaddle]

I guess I''m focused on being able to boot him out more quickly. As it is we''re stuck with our bad choice until some arbitrarily chosen calendar date rolls around. If the PM knew he was up for recall at any time, he might just be a little more responsive to the people. Bush''s poodle was put down neatly and quickly. I''m envious of that ability.