That Electoral College Thing

[OldGreyEagle]

Pack, I am sure you are advocating for removal of a . president, not his demise as that would not be "nice"

 

I am a little upset that a poor showing in the Iowa caucus and in the New Hapmshire Primary can wipe out half the field of potential nominees, the race is almost over before it gets started. Why be upset that Ohio and Florida chooses the president when we have a system that allows Iowa and New Hampshire frame our choices?

 

Without casting dispersions on either candidate, if possible, but in 2000 were the two best choices the country had Gore and Bush? In 2004 Bush and Kerry? To many times in recent memory I have voted for the lesser of two evils or the devil I knew versus the devil I didn''t.

[TheScout]

I am not sure Bush''s "poodle" got cast out too quickly. He stayed on for many years while being hated by large numbers of the Labour Party.

 

I doubt an American parliament would force a leader out much quicker. Congress could stop the war in Iraq very quickly by pulling funding but it does not.

[GernBlansten]

OGE, I share your frustration that most of us Americans never get a chance to vote for anyone but the dominant party candidates. That''s not the electoral college, its the two party system and the primary system. Its gonna get even worse this time around for those of us who live in states that still have their primary only a mere 4 months before the election. Of course its designed to get the candidate the party wants, not the one the people want. And with the electoral college, we will never have a viable third party.

 

Whats interesting is I haven''t heard a real compelling argument to keep the EC. I''m not convinced it gives small states anymore power, the senate gives them that.

[Lisabob]

I''d be happy to see ALL OF the states assign electoral college votes in a different way (perhaps proportional to the percentage of votes a candidate wins in the state''s popular vote).

 

What I really, really, really dislike is the current attempt in California to change their rules late in the game in order to get a one-time pay off. I don''t care for the "gotcha" aspect of that endeavor.

 

Similarly, I''d be happy to see ALL OF the states agree on a saner process for scheduling primary elections. Gotta say that as a Michigan resident, I''m seriously ticked off with my state''s Democratic party and their decision to front load our primary. But I''m even more seriously ticked off with practically all of the Democratic candidates who matter and their decision to boycott my state''s primaries. Makes me think long and hard about voting for John McCain! (Hey - psst - Obama, Clinton - I hope you''re reading this!)

 

This is something that the national party committees and the state party leaderships need to get fixed, and quickly too.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

The best I have felt about voting for a candidate was 1980. It was Reagan vs Carter. I lived in Indiana at the time and it was evident that the state was going to Reagan big time. I ended up voting for third party candidate John Anderson not so much that I thought he could win, but to help him get the percentage of popular vote he needed to get matching federal funds for his campaign. He did receive it.

 

Oddly enough, even though the 1980 election was termed a huge "landslide" victory for Reagan, he received 489 electoral votes to Carters 49, Reagan received 50.7% of the popular vote with Carter getting 41% of the popular vote. So much for a landslide

[eisely]

The electoral college and the process for selecting candidates are two different subjects.

 

Going to a more truly parliamentary system has a great deal of appeal. If you eliminated the two year terms for the House of Representatives and treated it as a "house of commons" for lack of a better phrase, you could select the prime minister out of that house. You might preserve a presidency for ceremonial purposes. The primary benefit of going to a prime minister coming out of the legislature would be that it would make the parties more responsible. Right now there are serious disconnects between the conduct of the legislature and the executive and it does not seem to matter who is president.

 

One "reform" that should be avoided is going to a proportional voting system where parties put up slates and get seats based on their shares of the votes. This is the Israeli system and it too gives too much influence to fringe elements.

 

We probably got better candidates out of smoke filled rooms than out of the current primary system. The primaries make both major parties too susceptible to their more extreme activists, as these are the folks most likely to vote in the primaries.

[Beavah]

We probably got better candidates out of smoke filled rooms than out of the current primary system. The primaries make both major parties too susceptible to their more extreme activists, as these are the folks most likely to vote in the primaries.

 

Amen to that.

 

Problem with a parliamentary system is that yeh have to also look at places like Italy and Israel, not just Britain. If yeh don''t have a clear majority party in parliament, the small nut-job parties end up having a disproportionate influence because they''re needed to form a governing coalition. Anyone want GreenPeace (if you''re right of the aisle) or Jerry Falwell (if you''re left of the aisle) effectively controlling such a coalition government?

 

And of course, those parliamentary systems have a wonderful track record for stability. What''s Italy on now? Something like 100 different governments in the last 70 years?

 

Still, it would be nice to be able to recall a real dunderhead as packsaddle suggests. Perhaps a no-confidence vote of the state legislatures, weighted by electoral college votes for the state. Get enough state legislatures to vote no confidence in the president so that a supermajority of EC votes are in favor of removal and he''s toast.

 

Beavah

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Oddly enough, does anybody remember the reason the Hippies and Yippies protested at the 1968 Democratic Convention, it wasnt all about counter culture you know...

[packsaddle]

OGE, you still feeling the bruises? Anyway while I strongly advocate his political demise, as I mentioned in another thread, once he goes back to his natural state, the alcohol and drugs will probably take care of everything else.

 

I wonder what it would take to switch to a parliamentary system? Probably impossible for all practical purposes I guess.

[GernBlansten]

A constitutional convention. Didn''t Jefferson think we needed one every 20 years anyways?

[Lisabob]

eisely - yes I''m aware that they''re two different things but hey, we''re not going to make headway on getting rid of the electoral college so we might as well look at the things we can remedy.

 

pack - don''t hold your breath. We''d need a whole new constitution. Put it in the column of things that ain''t gonna happen. And I''m ok with that - parliamentary systems are even more prone to abuses in some ways because you practically always have unified gov''t!

[LongHaul]

Lisabob, You have told us how you feel about the DNP and it''s response to Michigan''s decision to disregard Bi-partisan mandates for scheduling state primaries. You''ve told us how you feel about the Democratic candidates'' response to Michigan''s decision to disregard Bi-partisan mandates for scheduling state primaries. How do you feel about your states decision to move it''s primary out of pure greed? I''ll have to say that Michigan''s Gov. Jennifer Granholm didn''t try to say it was to get better choices or improve the election process, she admitted it was to try and get more campaigning done in Michigan and more campaign money spent there. The candidates have to consider "party policy" if they want to survive in "party politics."

LongHaul

[Lisabob]

Sure Longhaul, that was part of the motivation and Granholm hasn''t been shy about saying so. She has, however, also made public statements to the effect that the current primary system is broken and needs fixing, and that she doesn''t see why MI or FL should sit around waiting for a solution when the national party organizations seem so content not to bother finding one.

 

No, I''m not fond of the approach Granholm has championed on this issue, although in general, I like her. I''d like to see a national process for scheduling primaries, rather than a patchwork mess as we have now. And there have been several potential blueprints floating around for years now, so it could be done. In fact I fully expect one upshot of the current MI/FL mess to be that in 2012 the parties will come to some big agreements on how to re-do the primary schedules.

 

But in the meantime, I think it is fair to say that the Dem party is giving the short end of the stick to its own potential voters in two pretty big states, by encouraging candidates to boycott these primaries. I believe this election is more important than the 2004 election in many ways and while I realize I probably can''t change things, I''ll be darned if I''m going to sit idly by and quietly accept it while my own party''s candidates boycott my vote! Seriously, McCain did pretty well among Democrats in MI in 2000 and I think he could again, given the Dems'' apparent disdain for us up here. And while it would be a cold day down under before I personally would vote for Rudy for dog catcher, let alone president, I know a lot of other Dems who might.

[Lisabob]

About this:

 

The candidates have to consider "party policy" if they want to survive in "party politics."

 

Well yes and no. The national parties do not have nearly as much hold over the candidates as they might like. Supposing that Obama or Biden or Edwards (three who are boycotting MI) wins the Dem nomination, the likelihood of the national party refusing to back or fund them is less than zero. Won''t happen, because the decentralized party needs the candidates as much or more than the candidates need anything other than the basic name recognition that goes along with being in the party. And no way is the party going to kick them out! And run who instead...Kucinich? So the national parties play this game where they pretend to have control (via money) over the candidates, but at least the front runners can call that bluff any time they want to.

[Hunt]

My understanding of the reason for the electoral college is not that it gives more power to the small states, but rather that it prevents a person from becoming President as a result of overwhelming support in one part of the country. In a direct, nation-wide election this can happen. With winner-take-all electoral votes, it is much less likely. I think this made more sense when there were clearer differences in interests between different sections of the country.