Proposal to Update the Electoral College 922
A Stanford Professor has put down an idea (and also co-wrote a 620-page book for those who are that interested) on how to update the often criticized Electoral College system for presidential elections. Under the proposed system participating states would form a compact to throw all Electoral College votes behind the winner of the national popular vote regardless of which candidate won in any individual state. This proposed system would also make it much easier to bring the system up to date since it would not require a constitutional amendment to change or disband the Electoral College.
interesting theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry. (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, Professor Koza might as well get something for his troubles. Someone slice up a banana for him, and put his favorite video on.
Why this won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
The electoral college is in many ways a bad idea in modern times, but a constitutional amendment is the best way to go about fixing it.
Semantics (Score:4, Insightful)
Can't Win? Change the rules! (Score:2, Insightful)
---
You can also create new lines here if you want
Generated by SlashdotRndSig [snop.com] via GreaseMonkey [mozdev.org]
No (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is really the way we want to go, then we should eliminate state government, replace it with regional governors to attend to regional issues, and stop pretending that states matter.
This = PR (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to say that this is a bad idea, but just to note that it's only the method here that is new, not the end result.
Worst ... idea.... ever (Score:5, Insightful)
it's more complicated than this... (Score:5, Insightful)
The electors, who are actually elected federal office holders, albeit with a very short term and only one permitted act, cannot be bound by any state or federal law to vote one way or another. It's not possible to prevent 'rogue' electors from voting for anyone they wish, anymore than it's possible for a state legislature to force the state's senators and representatives to vote a particular way on a bill.
Right now, electors represent the party of the candidate they pledge (i.e. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc). You would have to change this to non-partisan electors who agreed to vote with the national popular vote. And even then, you could not guarantee that the electors would do that, since they can't be forced to vote one way or another
The only way you will ever change this is to ammend the Constitution. And it's not clear that it should be changed. The Electoral College reduces the weight of large states and increases the weight of the small states, which makes it less likely a candidate will try to run up huge numbers in CA, NY, FL, TX, OH, VA and other large states so he/she can ignore the smaller states. Right now, you gain nothing from winning NY with say 70% of the vote vs 50%+1. That helps keep a few large states from dominating the process - the leveling effect limits their impact.
Of course, I know a lot of people don't agree with me. But that's no surprise, they mostly object to my calls to repeal (among others) the 17th Amendment and restore a true federal system.
It's an interesting thought, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
It does make recounts rather a mess. One advantage to the electoral college system is that as messy as the Florida recount was, at least it was in only one state. The election of 2000 was very close even in popular terms, and without the electoral college every single state would have ended up having a recount, because every single vote would matter. But gosh, other countries manage to work it out.
The states that have already talked about signing on are big states: California, New York, Colorado, Illinois and Missouri. States who are under-represented in the electoral college. The little states, who currently benefit from having their individual votes be worth nearly 3 times as much as a voter from California or New York, will pitch a major hissy fit.
I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect that such a scheme will tend to favor Democrats over Republicans, at least with the current distributions. Those small states tend to be red states. Certainly the one recent example where one can point to a candidate getting an advantage from the electoral college favored a Republican over a Democrat, so any attempt to swing it towards a proportional vote will be greeted in red states as an attempt to make it more blue.
Re:interesting theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Reform, but do not destroy (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't work (Score:4, Insightful)
- It's a "boil the ocean" solution; it doesn't work at all until it is fully operational. Nothing ever works like that with 50 states. This is also related to the next reason:
- The benefits of cheating are too large once half or so of the electoral votes are in the agreement. The benefits of defecting, or threatening to defect, become large, because suddenly the votes become bargaining chips, useful to extract concessions from the other states. This makes it effectively impossible to get to all 50 agreeing anyhow; the more people in the agreement before it gets to 50, the larger the spoiler effect.
This would make things even worse, because of the horrible bargaining and politicing that would ensue around the electoral votes. Indeed, this would come to swamp the entire procedure, and the game would become getting the states to commit electoral votes, instead of convincing the people to vote for you. Hopefully, it's obvious why this is bad.There's no idea so bad you can't extol its virtues for 600 pages.
Finally, to use the previous election for concrete names, do you really thing California is going to stand for seeing its electoral votes go to Bush? Or Texas for Gore? Unlikely.
I object on precedent grounds (Score:5, Insightful)
Setting up an end-around will only weaken the sanctity of the document.
Peering into the future, the subsequent election of CowboyNeal ought to be a sufficient caution for us all.
Re:Why this won't work (Score:3, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, under our current system those states get boat loads of attention... any by attention I mean money... in an effort to lock in votes.
In summary, no one likes this idea.
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
As it stands now, The average citizen in Wyoming is 1/160,000th of an electoral vote. The average citizen of New York State is about 1/300,000th of an electoral vote.
Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?
One man (or woman)... one vote. Any system which gives greater weight to a citizen of one state's vote over the citizen of another state is a flawed system.
The electoral college system guarantees that the citizens of lightly-populated states like Wyoming, Montana, Deleware, and the Dakotas have a greater percentage say in who is the President than a citizen of California, Florida, New York, or Texas has.
That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is. That way, there won't be campaigning in just "swing" states... because every vote in every corner of the country counts the same. The Democratic candidate would have a reason to go to Texas and campaign... the Republican candidate would have a reason to go to Massachusetts to campaign... there are votes to be gotten there and they would count the same.
I am just as much a citizen of this country as some farmer in North Dakota is. His vote shouldn't be worth twice as much as mine.
Why tip-toe forward instead of walking? (Score:3, Insightful)
The Electoral College was useful in the pioneer days when information took much longer to get from place to place. Not everyone had the opportunity to be informed, so they voted towards a certain party and the state threw all of its electoral votes behind the winner of that popular vote.
The modern day is much different. Information is instantaneous, and people are finding out every little nuance about politicians if they dig deep enough. While the modern citizen probably isn't well informed, they do have the ability now to be informed- they merely need to go to a library to use a comptuer for an hour, or read a few newspapers. This means that citizens can discern which candidate they want. Votes are tallied quickly with the use of punch cards and now electronic voting machines (faults aside). The public's vote should be the only thing that counts now.
Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Sorry. (Score:3, Insightful)
A Maine/Nebraska (or finer-grained) scheme would also address problems such as those in the 2000 election, thanks to, at most, 3 electoral votes being up for grabs, instead of an entire state's worth.
Re:Worst ... idea.... ever (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:interesting theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Then again, I'm arguing with someone who said "The solution is to education people..."
GG.
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Because that was the way our founding fathers configured it. Intentionally.
Or perhaps I should say that our Founding Fathers configured it so that each state would have a say, not the individual. The only reason why a person in New York has a vote at all is because the state of New York decides that you have a vote. Comparing your vote to the fellow in Wyoming is ridiculous. He's voting for how his state's electoral votes will be counted, and the New York fellow is voting for how his state's votes will be counted.
If Mr. New York wants to be a prick about it (Whaaa! Mr. Wyoming has more of a fraction of his state's vote! Whaa!) then I suggest that the state of New York remove voting privledges from its population, and decide the matter inside the state government. The population will then be forced to chose between their existing leadership and the right to vote for their state's electoral votes.
The only way it's "patently unfair" is if Mr. New York thinks his state should decide the outcome of ALL federal elections. In which case, what do we have states for anyway? Better dissolve the individual governments, and subject them all to total rule from the Federal government. It's so much better to give the President and Congress absolute power so that we can ensure that they are absolutely corrupted. While we're at it, why don't we dissolve the Senate? Wyoming has way too much power there, as well. Ooo, and why don't we eliminate the Supreme Court? They've been a real pain in the rear for the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York.
In case you're not catching on to the sarcasm, the electoral college is one of the many checks and balances built into the US constitution. Each of those checks that gets knocked out further weakens the nation. Thus whining about your "right to vote" is exactly that: Whining. The nation might even be a better place if we removed your right to vote. At least THAT would be constitutional.
Re:interesting theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, rather, it could do the opposite. A voter could be in a state with a small population where his vote would count more. Perhaps he would be in a state that is nearly split down the middle, and his vote may matter more with the electoral college than with the gross sum voting system. The electoral college is there to give each region (state) as much power as the next region in the federation, creating a balance of power in the federal level.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
States are only "artificial" if you have no concept of American history and have never traveled through the United States. People from other countries don't understand regional or state-specific differences in the U.S. Moreover, American history is taught with poorer and poorer standards, and with less focus on state history. For instance, I received no education in Maryland history even though I attended high school there. So even Americans don't understand why we have states instead of a unitary government.
Division of power between a number of levels and branches of government is fundamental to the liberal philosophical tradition. Read Locke and Montesquieu. Liberal institutions which diffuse power to intermediate and co-equal entities is essential in preventing the centralization of power. It is centralized power that is far more prone to abuse than decentralized power--that should be obvious. Why then would you want to eliminate the substantive role of state divisions, when they are there to fundamentally split power, prevent swaying of the masses through temporary demagogy, and check the central government?
Re:Worst ... idea.... ever (Score:5, Insightful)
The framers of the constitution, for all that they believed in democracy, didn't really trust it to the extent that we do today, since no one really had any experience with running an entire country on democratic principles. The biggest lesson they took away from the ancient Greek polis and the Roman republic was how susceptible it was to being taken over by a charismatic leader and turned back into a monarchy.
The Electoral College was a mechanism put in place to prevent the rise of populist demagogues, on the assumption that the elected officials at the state levels would be less likely to be swept up in mob psychology furor to throw over the democratic structures in order to put a hero on the throne.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Federalism is about the states having power. It's also about the Federal Government being limited in its scope, something that most of us ignore these days. See the 10th Amendment to the constitution sometime. Revel in the fact it is a dead letter.
States do matter. Without the states there would be no United States. Sometimes one really wishes the South won the War of the States... Certainly not for the sake of salvery, but because it was a war about a limited federal government. Oh well...
Re:interesting theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Semantics (Score:5, Insightful)
The author of this idea should focus on convincing states to implement a better system for assigning the votes of their electoral college reps. Taking the power of this choice from the states is just one more way that we're seeing a homogenization of states that, IMO, benefits only the majority.
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed. That's EXACTLY why the electoral system is in place, to stop mob rule.
Please, go READ the words of the founders, they'll tell you exactly why mob rule is a bad idea. We are a Republic and NOT a Democracy for a very good reason.
Re:Outdated System (Score:3, Insightful)
Until some moron comes along and claims that it's "unfair" that the Senator from New York should have the same power as the Senator from Wyoming. Why don't we kick out all the checks and balances while we're at it?
Have you been paying any attention? If the less populated states are not represented, they will be at the mercy of the large states. Causing damage to the less populated states (unintentionally or otherwise) could cause a complete economic collapse of US production and trade! I know the big shots in New York think they're the only ones of any importance, but the truth is that they're only managing the movement of goods that are produced elsewhere.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the problem, and the reason these sorts of proposals keep getting raised, is because, in many ways, the US already has become one big country with one government. Yes the states remain, and so do state governments, and indeed they still wield considerable power. The balance, however, shifted some time ago, and the concentration of power and importance in the federal government has been steadily increasing. States are already becoming less and less important. As someone else pointed out, US and State history is, these days, taught in such a way that many people don't see the states as primary but rather see the USA, governed by the federal government as primary, and the States as convenient divisions. In many ways people think of themselves first as an "American", and only later as an Ohioan, or Nebraskan, or what have you (there are, of course, cases of dominant or important states, like New York, California, and Texas that still carry some primacy in the minds of their citizens). Consider, for instance, how often you see US flags being waved rather than, say, State flags. In fact I wonder how many people could actually recognise all 50 state flags? At this point what the founder intended has to face up with the current reality where centralised federal government has grown and ossified. I think this sort of proposal (popular vote for President) is stemming from the desire to do something about this clash of original intention with reality - you either need to change the voting structure to reflect reality, or change the reality to better reflect the original intent that lies behind the voting structure.
Re:interesting theory (Score:3, Insightful)
But these days I can't decide between one vile reprehensible scum bag and another. Nearly daily I stand in awe seeing how these people are fucking up an otherise perfectly fine contry. I am beginning to think we'd be better off deciding law and foreign policy with one of those ping pong ball lottery machines.
Also I don't actually live in the US any more and given the state of things I have zero confidence that my vote is actually counted... actually now that I've said that I guess I shouldn't feel any different that people that vote using Diebold Machines.
Re:interesting theory (Score:4, Insightful)
There aren't enough senior citizens for them to make up the vast majority of voters in the US. Sure, a larger percentage senior citizens vote than other age groups, but that doesn't make them the vast majority of voters.
The polls in most states are open at least 12 hours, and if that still doesn't work for you could get an absentee ballot.
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
YOU DON'T VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. That's not screaming; I'm just too lazy to use em tags. States determine how electors are assigned, and it's as simple as that. Your involvement is only indirect.
As said in way too many other posts here, the level of abstraction helps prevent stupid, flavor-of-day ideas from pervading our federal government. All we need is Hugo Chavez to appeal to misguided people at the last minute.
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:interesting theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Do I know that the entire system would collapse if everybody thought that and stopped voting entirely? Sure. But I only control my own vote, and I know it doesn't matter.
It's the same reason you have to legislate things like pollution controls. Otherwise even rational environmentalists would still pollute, since the emissions from your tailpipe alone will never matter. What matters is whether the masses polute, and to affect that you need laws.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why this won't work (Score:2, Insightful)
That's only a great way of making others want to return the favor. It's also part of the reason for this proposal, which will make those several Californians or Texans or residents of any other darkly red or blue state believe again that their votes matter.
Less disilusionment = more voting, which is the whole point.
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry.. I get the point entirely.
My view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is as much a U.S. citizen as the rancher in Wyoming.
Your view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is less of a U.S. citizen than the rancher in Wyoming.
The Electoral college doesn't stop the "mob rule" scenario. It just rewards a different mob. It is the reason that Homeland Security money is being disproportionately given to communities with almost zero chance of being hit with a terrorist attack, at the expense of big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas.
Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed.
Really.. so it is preferable that the will of a MINORITY of the people supercede the will of the majority? Think about your statement. You are advocating that a "mob" made up of a minority of the people "screws" the majority. That system is better HOW?
The REAL heart of your argument is this... when the "decision makers" are made up of urban, inner-city folk that aren't like you... it's a mob. When the "decision makers" are made up of bible-thumping, gun-toting, rugged individualists that are a MINORITY of U.S. population, it's "what the founders intended".
Bullshit. If Gore would have gotten 1000 more votes in Florida in 2000, would the resulting government be "mob rule"? How is a government run by a man who CAME IN SECOND NATIONALLY less of a mob?
Prior to 1865, blacks in slave states were considered 3/5 of a person in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.
You are advocating for a system that says a California citizen is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming citizen in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.
As far as electoral standing goes, today's Californian is worth less than a pre-civil war slave.
Re:Sorry. (Score:3, Insightful)
The U.S. government was designed to be limited. It has fallen far short of that ideal and has become quite authoritarian... but making it even more top-down centralized is not going to suddenly give power to the people.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
As it currently stands, the people are electing the president, but we are treating them as if the states are the ones doing it. The power has already been voluntarily transfered from the states to the people, but the voting system does not acknowledge this in any way.
Federalism is a good idea. It is a good idea to have certain aspects of governance be adminstered by local subgovernments. But that is all states are: local subgovernments. And as it currently stands, the local subgovernments have no direct impact on which president is elected. But the system treats elections as if they did. Thus the problem.
Re:interesting theory (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with voluntary voting systems - such as in the USA - is that the voluntary voters aren't necessarily informed. However the voluntary voters are almost certainly opinionated.
The end result is the vote is decided by minority groups with political agendas. Mandatory voting forces the politicians to appeal to the largest demographics, rather than the noisiest minorities.
Re:interesting theory (Score:5, Insightful)
I know...this is the very thing that keeps me from wanting to do away with the Electoral Collge...and go just to popular vote. The lessor populated states would lose their voices basically to a few east and west coast states...and Texas.
The EC allows for each state to have enough voice in the vote and be important enough for the candidates to have to listen to their needs and visit with them (at least in theory).
You gotta remember...this is a union of STATES, each one actually, is similar to a small country joined together with the other states. And as large and varied as the cultures, resources and environments as the US is...this isn't necessarily a bad thing. People in Maine have distinctly different outlooks and needs than someone in Texas or Alaska, and that should be addressed by the candidates...although I'll admit, that has faded to a large extent. But, doing away with the EC or this proposal making popular vote the way, doesn't sound right.
However, I would think that possibly breaking up each states Electoral Votes proportionally to the votes within EACH state...would be more fair....I could see that being a better modification.
Re:interesting theory (Score:5, Insightful)
An example of the weakness of a true democracy is that, as I have seen mentioned by someone else on Slashdot in the past, 50.0000000000001% of the population could, potentially, vote to have the remaining portion of the American public executed because they don't like them (for whatever reason. race religion, etc.). In the U.S., that pesky thing called the Constitution would stop you from implementing that plan. Of course you could, theoretically, amend the constitution but I have heard arguments to the extent that amendments aren't capable of running counter to the content of the body of the constitution and, either way, you would then need much more that a simple majority.
In the end, everyone is supposed to be able to vote if they want to and, with some limited and controversial exceptions, (like prison convicts) they have that ability. On the other hand, as someone else mentioned, to simply force all people to vote, whether they want to or not, would be neither good for our society as a whole or an accurate implementation of even true democracy. If you really think about it, not showing up at the voting booth is a form of abstention and abstaining is a perfectly legitimate vote (especially if you don't know enough to make an informed decision)
-GameMaster
Re:interesting theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:interesting theory (Score:3, Insightful)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colle
Doing it that way everywhere would certainly yield an electoral college result that is significantly more representative of the collective will of each state's voters.
Further, the electors of the electoral college are representatives of the various states, and therefore state laws govern their actions. You'd need a constitutional amendment to change that, and all bets are off if that happens.
Remember -- you don't vote for President. Your state does. Tradition may argue otherwise, but "each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..." That's the law, and it's one of those big nasty constitutional ones.
Re:No (Score:2, Insightful)
Due, in no small part, to the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Easier communication and transportation played a significant role as well, of course. But when States (as governmental bodies) ceased sending their own representatives to the national government, that was the death knell of federalism.
Re:interesting theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly! According to the original design, the public is not supposed to be voting for the President at all. The public is supposed to vote for their representatives in state government, and then their state government is supposed to choose electors who then choose the President. Heck, for that matter, we originally didn't even have direct election of US Senators -- they were chosen by the state legislature too!
In my opinion, that was actually a better system than we have now, for two reasons. First, it would stop the presidential election from being a "popularity contest" as it is today (e.g., ever since television the winning candidate tends to be the one with better looks), and second, it would increase the importance of local elections.
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
- Communism
- Democracy
- Fascism
- Anarchy
All four of these are perfect forms of government. All four of these are impossible to correctly implement with human beings. We are not a democracy. If you want your vote for the [INSERT FRINGE SINGLE ISSUE PARTY] party to count, move to the UK.Re:interesting theory (Score:4, Insightful)
Other than that, yes, the college is outdated and should be tossed.
Ken
Re:interesting theory (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that this brings up the issue of why our federal government deals with every teeny tiny issue. The interstate commerce clause leads the way in legislative abuse.
Re:interesting theory (Score:2, Insightful)
Personally, I prefer the current system due to the fact that a presidential candidate would not get within 200 miles of my town were the popular vote the deciding factor. You might have visits to the top 30 or 40 metro areas and that'd be that. Hardly inclusive, and hardly representative of the American cultural spectrum.
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Senate is fixed (and unamendable) by the Constitution - the House of Representatives is not, though. And if any other system is flawed, we really should be abolishing states altogether.
The Electoral college doesn't stop the "mob rule" scenario. It just rewards a different mob.
You're wrong. The Electoral College system has one huge advantage over the "one vote per person" system. It's flexible. One vote per person is not.
Remember that the House of Representatives has an adjustable number of people in it: it hasn't been expanded since 1911, and all it takes is a congressional resolution to do so.
Taken to an extreme, if the House had 1 member for each person in the US, the Electoral College would essentially be "one vote per person". The difference that the two extra votes from the Senate give would be negligible. Thus, the Electoral College system (and, in fact, our entire government) has a nice, easily adjustable system that goes from "Democracy-like" to "Republic-like". Going purely to a popular-vote based system shoves that slider all the way to "Democracy-like".
If, right now, the Electoral College is favoring "mob rule" by smaller population states, that just tells you that the size of the House should be increased (which it should be). The ideal goal is a balance between the two.
I don't get it. You're crowing to change a system that fundamentally mimics the legislature. Why aren't you crowing to fix the legislature as well? Why is a democratic President so much more important than a democratic legislature?
You are advocating for a system that says a California citizen is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming citizen in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.
See above. Even if you fix this, a Montana citizen still has 1/2 the representation that a Wyoming citizen does in the House of Representatives, and a California citizen has a minimal representation in the Senate compared to a Wyoming citizen as well.
Why is this okay, but the Electoral College is not? Your argument essentially undermines the entire foundation of the country.
Which is fine, mind you! It might be the way to go - but it's not the way that the founders of this country wanted to go.
Re:interesting theory (Score:3, Insightful)
I find this to be the solution to most voting complaints. Most things can and should be solved at the state level. People who strongly desire imposing a universal solution on all 50 states like proportional systems, and like the idea of getting rid of the electoral college, and speak disdainfully about the need for substantive state powers. People who want instant runoff voting can implement it at state level, and people who want proportionally assigned electors can implement that through state law. None of this needs to be implemented at a federal level.
Change can and does happen faster at a state level: state legislators are more accessible to local activists than federal representatives (who are completely swamped), and states were intended to be laboratories of democracy and innovative government (according to Supreme Court Justice Brandeis). Pursuing universal solutions through the federal government when there is no need for nation-wide uniformity robs the country of states-as-laboratories and hamstrings one of the major advantages of a federal system of government.
I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)
Many of the original intentions of the founders no longer apply to the extent that they once did.
Yes, the founders originally intended to create a system that balanced direct democracy and rule by the Gentry class. Back then, the only people with any education to speak of were the wealthy. The only ones with opportunities to apprentice into government were the wealthy. Therefore they were the only ones fit to govern. That is no longer the case - we have universal (if mediocre) primary education, and anyone who shows merit and initiative can get an excellent university education, regardless of their class. While most politicians continue to come from political families, many others have risen from low beginnings, and have served the country well. The balances meant to keep the gentry in power are no longer necessary or beneficial.
Yes, the founders intended for the states to have more influence on the selection of national leaders, but they also intended for the scope of the national government to only deal with large inter-state issues that the individual states could not. Things like interstate and international trade, treaties, and national defense. The federal government has greatly exceeded those original aims, and now passes laws, collects taxes, and runs social programs that directly affects the individuals in our country, rather than indirectly though the states. Therefore, the citizens should have direct representation in the federal government, rather than indirectly through the states.
Yes, the founders originally created a system where representation was dolled out according geo-political boundaries, both in national government, within the individual states. But at the time, opinions and interests were very much clustered geographically. The difficulty of travel, the tightly knit communities, and the fact that the economies of each location was determined largely by it's natural resources, led to this. Again, this is something that no longer applies to the extent that it did when our country was founded. Now opinions on national issues vary as much between members of a community as they do between communities, and only the most popular opinions from each location get any representation in congress. Geographic representation used to promote a wide spectrum of views in congress, now it marginalizes them.
I agree that it is still useful for the states to have some degree of representation. My opinion is that for presidential elections the states should each have two votes corresponding to the two Senators, while the votes corresponding to Representatives should be determined by the popular vote. This would keep the current feature of smaller states having more influence than they otherwise would, while getting rid of the winner-takes-all garbage that turns elections into a political game and joke, rather than an accurate reflection of the will of the people.
I would even go so far to entertain the idea of electing the lower house itself according to some system of proportional representation, rather than districting. Why does my small arbitrarily (or gerrymandered) district need its own representative in Congress of United States of America? Really, now - are the views of its 0.25% of the population that much more different from the rest of the state to merit its own representation in the federal government? And yet a political party which holds over 10% of the registered votes - that represents views held by at least 10% of the population - by cannot get a single seat out of the 435 in the House.
Enacting proportional representation in the House, while maintaining state election(of populus or legislature) in the Senate, would preserve a balance between state (locally clustered) interests, and popular (distributed) interests. It would also break up the current two party syst
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, wait. That's what we have.
If you think that the major population centers aren't getting a fair enough shake, argue for an increase in the size of the House of Representatives. That's what it's there for.
Re:Semantics (Score:1, Insightful)
In my opinion, the more conflict inside government, the less gets done, and the less the government can infringe on our rights.
Re:I object on precedent grounds (Score:3, Insightful)
Pussyfooting around would draw out the process, and any hairsplitting and legalese generated would be used to do something completely sick and wrong that feels good to some minority, and then we'd all look back and say "Wow, that Electoral College thing looked good at the time, but the dumb ideas that followed sure turned out to have all the appeal of a cancerous, bleeding ulcer. Would that we had kept to the existing process, rather than delving into hacks."
Re:What about smaller states (Score:3, Insightful)
The same thing could be said about many other states. If Democrats are worried about losing electorial votes, it is because the political machines are rotting away and they are failing to get their message out and convince people to vote for them. It is not because the mechanics of the election are working against them.
It is a sad state that such raw politics such as "who is going to get the most votes" prevails rather than trying to inject true political debate into the process and encourage democratic participation. Or as important, to provide opportunities for more people thinking that their vote counts and can make a difference. The current electorial college fails miserably on this count.
Re:interesting theory (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't secure. How do you prevent vote-selling with Internet voting? What about preventing DoS attacks against identifiable segments of voters? Corruption by election officials?
The fact that somebody else is doing Internet voting doesn't make it a good idea.
Be honest with the ballots. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Clinton 43%
Bush Sr. 38%
Perot 19%
I would like to point out something implied by these numbers that also speaks against the electoral college.
Roughly 1/5th of the total votes were for a 3rd party candidate. One fifth. It's been a long time since that happened, and never in recent times has a 3rd party candidate looked stronger. And yet, on the only scoreboard that matters, the electoral votes, Perot got zero. He didn't even show up. What does that say about the viability of 3rd parties? A party that received 1/5th of the vote should be considered a major force. Instead, with zero percent of the electoral vote, the entire concept of third parties was seen as defeated.
The winner-take-all electoral college is a major reason why we are so strongly locked into a two-party system. Nobody -- especially in a closely contested state -- dares to throw their vote away on a third party, because the way the system is set up says they not only can't succeed, they can't even show up on the scoreboard.
Re:interesting theory (Score:2, Insightful)
The solution is the instant run-off system. It is a bit complex to describe but, quick and dirty, if one's first selection does not garner enough votes to win, the next selection is tallied. It would make third parties viable without abandoning the two party system that the US has adopted.
One can vote one's conscience with the confidence that if the non-mainstream party of choice does not win, the second choice can be the mainstream party that will do the least damage. ('Course, given the last 30 years, I couldn't tell you which one that is or if there is any real difference, but I digress...)
We attempted to institute the instant run-off system in Alaska but certain idiots didn't think it was fair if they "only got one vote". (Which meant that their first choice would have been elected.) They actually would have voted as many times as anyone else but they never seemed to understand this.
I finally told this group of idiots (I am still grumpy about it) that they could have 10000 votes to my one if I got to win every time.
Realistically, I don't think the US will ever change until we experience a catastrophe that requires us to rebuild our government. Either way, rough times ahead.
-------
Clever trolls are master baiters of the worst kind.
The whole purpose of the electoral college (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:interesting theory (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's A GREAT Idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
So what you're saying is that overrepresenting those who live in rural areas, who contribute the least to the economy and take the most from it (per capita), would make the US successful? Or maybe you're saying that having gun-toting, bible thumping rednecks have more of a vote would make the US successful?
Sorry for the stereotype, but I don't see how misrepresenting the majority will make a country successful. By the same argument, the system most likely to make the US successful would be a dictatorship, but it is certainly NOT what the intention was. As someone else mentioned, "all men are created equal" as stated by the creators of the country.
Re:No (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically, the electoral college is one of the last vestiges of Slavery with any weight in the Constitutions. In fact, Jefferson wouldn't have gotten elected if not for the Electoral College. I believe other early elections had the outcome affected also.
See here [blackcommentator.com], or just google for "Slavery" and "Electoral College".
My largest concern for the Electoral college is the sense of "my vote doesn't count", and the fact that we've devolved into two parties and that's it. The lack of any third party candidate to get real traction concerns me. Effectively there is a lot less of a market place where people can't pick from more people. It'd be novel to have a legitimate opportunity to clue the established political machine that things should change, without them having to make it blazingly obvious to the entire public that the system is incredibly broken.
Kirby
Electoral LOTTERIES are the solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Now let's look at the state of our governmental electoral process: that happens to be exactly how we currently acquire our leadership. Only those ambitious, alpha-male-ish, charismatic, and egotistical enough are even considered for governmental leadership. By definition, people so ambitious are almost always those who possess the LEAST ethics: they're willing to do ANYTHING to achieve and retain the desired seat of power.
Witness the plight of Dean Cain, a candidate who was supposed to be more ethical than average: at one point he made honest statements about his less-than-typical existential beliefs, which was a good, forthright, and ethical thing, but then - when it became a public relations mess for him as he realized it would hurt his campaign - he soon backpedalled and tried to reinvent what he'd said earlier. What other candidates have done and will do is far worse than that.
I suggest that what we need is in fact NOT a popular-vote "tyranny of the majority" electoral process, but rather a lottery system analogous to the one we use for selecting juries. It would involve ALL the Americal people in the process, as anyone might be selected for consideration. It removes the inherent unethical advantages that career manipulators and the wealthy have enjoyed over the process.
Thomas Jefferson, I recall, was the one who coined the term "tyranny of the majority", and feared the lack of ethics inherent in any unchecked simple-majority rule; it was the reason the founders selected a republican form of democracy. Jefferson and other founders had good reason to fear it: they weren't part of the majority. Jefferson, for instance, was not a typical Christian, though he called himself one publicly for fear of public reaction: he was a Deist at best, who didn't believe Jesus was anything more than a man and great "philosopher", and was so bothered by the "mystical" elements in the New Testament that he wrote his own "Jefferson Bible" with just the history, philosophy, and ethics he so admired.
Though I've been preaching this notion to anyone who'd listen for years, I'm neither the first nor the only person to invent this idea: it was proposed in an article in the national Mensa Bulletin in, IIRC, the summer of 2005.
An electoral lottery would likely prevent charismatic and cunning but otherwise stupid and illogical people from having an unnatural advantage in the process. I for one would much rather take my Presidential chances with some average (and perhaps more ethical) Joes than the likes of George W. Bush and John Kerry. The current process effectively excludes both ethical and intellectual people.
Re:interesting theory (Score:3, Insightful)
As a US citizen, I think the two-party system is one of our greatest strengths. At it's core, a two-party system is a huge moderating force, as both parties are forced towards the middle to appeal to the largest number of voters. Candidates cannot merely cater to an extremist minority faction and win an election with a small plurality (as has happened many times in history, including in your country, with negative results). Instead, only the candidates that espouse mainstream values can be elected. The result is a much more stable and predictable government.
The EC doesn't help rural voters... (Score:3, Insightful)
The correlation between the two (being a farmer or living in a low-population state) is very low. Connecticut or Rhode Island, for instance, are everything but rural states. But they have a low population thus they benefit a lot from the EC. On the other hand, Texas is a very rural state and is penalized heavily by the EC system.
I agree with you on one point : The electoral college is designed to NOT reflect the popular vote.
But the rationale you propose - ie. to protect rural voters from the tyranny of city-dwellers - doesn't hold water. Actually there are many instances where the EC actively discriminates against farmers. Rural people in New York State are effectively discriminated AGAINST twice by the EC system. First they happen to live in a highly populated state so the EC vote / population ratio is low. Second, they are bunched together with lots of city-dwellers and don't stand a chance of ever being heard within the state. Have you ever heard of a candidate visiting rural New York State?
The EC system might make sense for a number of good reasons (state rights, history...) that could, or could not, offset its blatant unfairness. But the protection against mob rule is NOT one of them.
The EC "protects" the minority only according to ONE possible subdivision of the US population : the state borders. People who happen to fall in the minority according to any other criteria are not protected. Gays, blacks, mormons, taxi drivers, holocaust deniers, left handed people, people who liked the da Vinci Code movie, slashdotters, you name it... All of these people belong to a minority that is not protected by the EC.
Mob rule is prevented by the whole constitution. The EC has nothing to do with it. All democratic countries in the world have constitutions that prevent mob rules. Only USA have the EC.