Abolition of the electoral college v2.0

[Goobieman]

The idea of this proposal is to move the nation to a popular vote without amending the Constitution. It wouldn't take effect until enough states had signed on to have a 270 EV majority.

So in theory it would be giving individual states EVs to the winner of the popular vote, but in reality it would simply be a nationwide popular vote.

My question was in response to your argument that it doesnt make sense to give all of a state's EVs to one person just because he won a majority of that state.

In that context, your argument, that we should to give all the EVs of a state to the person that had more votes across the whole contry makes even LESS sense.

Rather than your grandiose plan, why dont you argue to have each state allocate its EV proportionally to the vote within the state?

 

[Kandahar]

My question was in response to your argument that it doesnt make sense to give all of a state's EVs to one person just because he won a majority of that state.

In that context, your argument, that we should to give all the EVs of a state to the person that had more votes across the whole contry makes even LESS sense.

Not really, because they are two completely different things. One system unilaterally disenfranchises 49% of the voters in a state. The other is an agreement between states to move to a popular vote; the assignment of EVs is just the means by which that is accomplished.

I agree that this proposal wouldn't make much sense if only one state was doing it this way, but it's worded so that it won't take effect until a majority of EVs has agreed to it.

Rather than your grandiose plan, why dont you argue to have each state allocate its EV proportionally to the vote within the state?

That would certainly be an improvement from the current system and I'd welcome that change. But this plan is better.

 

[Goobieman]

It's just not going to happen because the chances of a national election being that close are very very very small. See below.

Its happened before. No reason to think it cannot happen again.

There's also only a small chance that the EV and PV votes will point to different winners -- but that they can is the basis for your argument.

Well I for one have been discussing it since before then. Just because you and your buddies haven't ever discussed a political point unless it's currently in the news, doesn't mean that we're all like that. Don't project your own faults onto the rest of America.

Again, likewise.
That YOU find it an issue worthy of the changes you suggest doesnt in any way mean it IS an issue worthy of the changes you suggest.

Will you or will you not admit that until 2000, the vast majority of the people of the US did not care about the way the EC system worked, and that the main reason the vast majority of the people who do care NOW car eonly because Gore lost?

You almost never can find 0.5% in a single state either; recounts at that margin are mostly just a formality, and it takes a much slimmer margin than that to trigger any kind of serious investigation.

We're not talking about "serious investigation" - we're talking about a recount.
Since there is no margin of victory within a state (under your system), then any and every state could be recounted.

The more votes that are cast in an election, the slimmer the margin of victory has to be for the loser to have any credible chance of overturning it.

I believe this is what Al Gore would call "fuzzy math"
You're talking about the same % across a large and a small base. The larger difference in victory id cancelled out by the larger base from which that victory came.

Debates about the electoral college have been mostly nonpartisan from my experience, with both Democrats and Republicans arguing both sides. The only one who has tried to make it a partisan issue is you.

And the vast majority of the people that presently care about it, who didnt give a rats *** until Gore lost.

Their location obviously, and that's exactly the point. Rhode Island has a lot more in common with New York than it does with Wyoming. The small state vs big state dichotomy is no longer an accurate model of American politics.

So... whats your point?
Given that the states elect the President, and that every state is an equal member of the union, why should WY and RI have (even) less parity, just because they are small?

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what some of those small state values are.

YOU were the one talking about small state values v large state values, not me.

So the states should elect the president because the states elect the president. Makes sense... :roll:

You're the one proposing the change.
The onus is on you to make the argument as to why the change should be made.

 

[Goobieman]

Not really, because they are two completely different things. One system unilaterally disenfranchises 49% of the voters in a state.

Not any more than any other election.

Voting for an set of electors is no different than voting for a congressman senator or mayor - the winner gets the prize and the loser doesnt. If your candidate's slate of electors isnt chosen, you're no more disenfranchised than if your congressional candidate isnt chosen.

Thus, the entire basis for your argument is flawed.

 

[Kandahar]

Its happened before. No reason to think it cannot happen again.

No it hasn't. When, in all of American history, has the popular vote of a presidential election ever been so close that there was serious dispute as to which candidate won it?

There's also only a small chance that the EV and PV votes will point to different winners -- but that they can is the basis for your argument.

No it isn't, and if you had bothered to read what I posted you'd see that I already made that clear twice.

Again, likewise.
That YOU find it an issue worthy of the changes you suggest doesnt in any way mean it IS an issue worthy of the changes you suggest.

It's not the most pressing issue facing America, but it would allow a much more representative government. Therefore it's a worthy issue.

Will you or will you not admit that until 2000, the vast majority of the people of the US did not care about the way the EC system worked, and that the main reason the vast majority of the people who do care NOW car eonly because Gore lost?

What you imagine to be the motives behind EC reformers is of little relevance to the merits of doing so.

We're not talking about "serious investigation" - we're talking about a recount.
Since there is no margin of victory within a state (under your system), then any and every state could be recounted.

OK, then let them have a formal nationwide recount if the margin is 0.5% or less. You do realize that a formal recount is not the same thing as holding ballots up to magnifying glasses checking for hanging chads, right?

I believe this is what Al Gore would call "fuzzy math"
You're talking about the same % across a large and a small base. The larger difference in victory id cancelled out by the larger base from which that victory came.

Maybe I'm not explaining this clearly, so let's use an example:

Suppose I'm running for class president in a classroom of ten students. When the teacher reads off the results, it turns out I lost 60% to 40%. If the teacher misread a single vote, it would significantly alter the outcome of the election, so I can credibly demand a recount.

Now suppose that my classroom has a hundred million students. 60-40 is now a humiliating defeat, and not the best recount in the world could possibly undo my opponent's margin of victory.

It's the same thing with a 50.5% to 49.5% outcome. I just chose the bigger numbers to illustrate the point.

And the vast majority of the people that presently care about it, who didnt give a rats *** until Gore lost.

Again, what you imagine their motives to be is irrelevant to the merits of having a popular vote.

So... whats your point?
Given that the states elect the President, and that every state is an equal member of the union, why should WY and RI have (even) less parity, just because they are small?

Let me ask you this: How much time do presidential candidates spend in Wyoming or Rhode Island under the current system? None.

So if you're worried about the small states having no voice, they don't have a voice under the current system. Most of the large states don't either.

New Hampshire is the only small state that politicians ever visit (during the general election), and that's because it's a battleground.

YOU were the one talking about small state values v large state values, not me.

Right, I said that small state values (that conflict with large state values) don't exist. You said that they do, so I was asking for some examples of small state values.

You're the one proposing the change.
The onus is on you to make the argument as to why the change should be made.

1. To make the executive representative of the people
2. To allow red states and blue states to be represented by the executive
3. To give voters of either party in red states and blue states a reason to go to the polls
4. To make national campaigns national, instead of statewide
5. To reduce the interests of a few battleground states that most of the nation doesn't care about

 

[Goobieman]

No it hasn't. When, in all of American history, has the popular vote of a presidential election ever been so close that there was serious dispute as to which candidate won it?

2000

It's not the most pressing issue facing America, but it would allow a much more representative government. Therefore it's a worthy issue.

Congress represents the people in our system of government.
Why should the President, as the head of state of a Republic, also represent the people?

What you imagine to be the motives behind EC reformers is of little relevance to the merits of doing so.

The "merit" in their argument doesnt exist - it revolves around Gore not winning according to the rules, and so the rules should be changed.

OK, then let them have a formal nationwide recount if the margin is 0.5% or less. You do realize that a formal recount is not the same thing as holding ballots up to magnifying glasses checking for hanging chads, right?

The FL election contest started out as a formal recount. Then came the lawsuits, which resulted in the ballots being cheched by magnifying glasses.

It's the same thing with a 50.5% to 49.5% outcome. I just chose the bigger numbers to illustrate the point.

The margin was, in effect, 50.25/49.75.
And, again, larger voter base = more votes to draw from. The percentage is the same and so are the chances of finding the votes.

Again, what you imagine their motives to be is irrelevant to the merits of having a popular vote.

The "merit" in their argument doesnt exist - it revolves around Gore not winning according to the rules, and so the rules should be changed.

Let me ask you this: How much time do presidential candidates spend in Wyoming or Rhode Island under the current system? None.

So...?
How is the time a candidate spends in a state relevant to the 'values' of a s tate of **** relative voice in deciding whi is President?

1. To make the executive representative of the people

Which is necessary, because...?

2. To allow red states and blue states to be represented by the executive

Which is necessary, because...?

3. To give voters of either party in red states and blue states a reason to go to the polls

Which they do not have already, because...?

4. To make national campaigns national, instead of statewide

All elections aer state elections - why do campaigns need to be national?

 

[Stinger]

Some politicians and professors have found an ingenious way in which the electoral college may be circumvented, WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. It's completely legal and constitutional. My only regret is that I didn't think of it first. Sheer brilliance.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060306ta_talk_hertzberg

Except it ignores the most important point, the states will never vote for such a change. If they would then the constitution would be amended. The STATES elect the President, the founding fathers designed it that way and it should remain that way. The plan, sheer idiocy

 

[Stinger]

It ain't gonna happen nor should it.....

Correct and correct.

 

[FallingPianos]

Some politicians and professors have found an ingenious way in which the electoral college may be circumvented, WITHOUT AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION. It's completely legal and constitutional. My only regret is that I didn't think of it first. Sheer brilliance.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060306ta_talk_hertzberg

amending the constitution would be both a lot easier, and a lot more simple.

 

[Stinger]

There is no way to even estimate what the popular vote MIGHT have been. Because most states are clearly in the corner of one candidate or the other it skews the voter base, those who will actually go out and vote because they know thier candidiate will lose their state. So unless there is some close state or local race up for grabs the likelyhood of thier voting drops. If we DID have a national vote then the whole vote would skew differently. So you can't possibly take the vote of an electorial vote and devine what the popular vote wooda cooda shooda been. Fro instance the second time Reagan ran I didn't go out and vote because I supported him and he was going to overwhelmingly win my state, I didn't have to go and vote for him.

And we are a Federal Republic, the states elect the President of the United States (not United People).

 

[Kandahar]

2000

No it wasn't. Not even the most partisan conservative Republicans were claiming that Bush won the popular vote in 2000. A 500,000 vote margin is well outside the realm of possible error.

Congress represents the people in our system of government. Why should the President, as the head of state of a Republic, also represent the people?

A better question is why the President should represent the interests of an arbitrary collection of "battleground states."

The "merit" in their argument doesnt exist - it revolves around Gore not winning according to the rules, and so the rules should be changed.

Speculation on your part. Irrelevant.

The FL election contest started out as a formal recount. Then came the lawsuits, which resulted in the ballots being cheched by magnifying glasses.

If your point was that a national recount every time the margin of the vote was less than 0.5% would be impossible, I was simply pointing out that that's not true.

If your point was something else, it doesn't make any sense because the margin would have to be much less than 0.5% nationwide for a candidate to have any credible chance of overturning the result.

The margin was, in effect, 50.25/49.75.
And, again, larger voter base = more votes to draw from. The percentage is the same and so are the chances of finding the votes.

No it's not. What part of my previous example don't you understand? Do you realize that 60-40 is a landslide in an election of a hundred million voters, but is very close in an election of ten voters?

So...?
How is the time a candidate spends in a state relevant to the 'values' of a s tate of **** relative voice in deciding whi is President?

Do you think that we'd have a Cuban embargo if Florida wasn't a swing state? Do you think politicians would even know what ethanol was, if Iowa wasn't a swing state? Do you think politicians would cynically argue for protectionism and union laws, if Ohio and Michigan and Pennsylvania weren't swing states? HELL NO.

These aren't issues that the rest of the country cares about, and politicians wouldn't either if those states didn't have a ridiculously high influence on the outcome of the national election.

Which is necessary, because...?


Which is necessary, because...?

Because we're electing a President of the United States, not a President of Florida/ Iowa/ Missouri/ Ohio/ Michigan/ Pennsylvania/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Nevada.

Which they do not have already, because...?

Because if the outcome of the election in my state is assured, there's no reason for me to go to the polls, or campaign for the candidate of my choice. This is true whether I support the winner or the loser, and is true regardless of how popular these candidates are nationwide.

All elections aer state elections - why do campaigns need to be national?

Because the president is the leader of the entire country. If campaigns don't need to be national, why do you care if the small states have less of a voice?

 

[Kandahar]

Except it ignores the most important point, the states will never vote for such a change. If they would then the constitution would be amended.

This plan circumvents the need for a 2/3 majority. As little as 11 states could do it. Whether it has any chance of passing I don't know, but it certainly is much easier than passing a constitutional amendment.

 

[Kandahar]

There is no way to even estimate what the popular vote MIGHT have been. Because most states are clearly in the corner of one candidate or the other it skews the voter base, those who will actually go out and vote because they know thier candidiate will lose their state. So unless there is some close state or local race up for grabs the likelyhood of thier voting drops. If we DID have a national vote then the whole vote would skew differently. So you can't possibly take the vote of an electorial vote and devine what the popular vote wooda cooda shooda been.

Nor am I attempting to do so. I agree that the electoral college skews the voter turnout; that's one of its biggest faults. The point I was making in my various examples is that, statistically, it's extremely unlikely that we'll ever have a presidential election where the winner of the popular vote is under serious dispute.

Fro instance the second time Reagan ran I didn't go out and vote because I supported him and he was going to overwhelmingly win my state, I didn't have to go and vote for him.

And this is one of the problems with the electoral college. Voters can be lazy and apathetic, and politicians can safely ignore their concerns.

And we are a Federal Republic, the states elect the President of the United States (not United People).

Under this plan, the states would still elect the president. They'd just appoint their electors differently...what, do you now have a problem with state sovereignty if they don't appoint electors the way you want them to? :lol:

 

[ludahai]

I did.
It was in 2000. 500,000 votes over 50 states?

And in most of those states, the absentee ballots were never counted because the popular votes in those states wasn't close enough to make a difference. Georgia is one of the few states where the law mandates the counting of absentee votes. Unlike Florida, it also mandates ALL absentee ballots arrive by 7PM on election night, the same time polls close.

This would be a mess. The Electoral College works as it was meant to. Remember, this is a Republic, not a Democracy. The States already stupidly gave away a major check it has on the federal government by agreeing to popular election of Senators. The States aren't going to make that mistake again.

 

[ludahai]

This assumes that every single person in California is going to vote the same way. If California is, say, 60% blue, it doesn't make sense to award 100% of its vote to the Democrat. This is harmful to the voters of BOTH political parties and reduces voter turnout, because the voter (correctly) believes that his vote does not matter.

There is a better way - actually 2.

There is nothing that states that the winner has to get ALL of the electoral votes in a state.

Maine and Nebraska apportion their EVs differently. The Statewide winner gets 2 EVs and the winner of each of the Congressional Districts gets 1 EV. Now, the major downside of this is that if you think Congressional redistricting is a bitch now, imagine it under this system.

The other is something that was on the Colorado ballot in 2004. It would award EVs proportionally based on the popular vote in the state. If Bush got 60% of the vote in Georgia and Kerry got 40%, Bush would get 9 of Georgia's EVs and Kerry would get 6. It wouldn't completely eliminate the possibility of a popular vote winner losing the election, but it makes a lot more sense than the proposal the thread is premised on.

BTW, the referendum on CO failed.

 

[ludahai]

I don't know if this is possible Stateside or not, but Taiwan also had a PResidential election in 2004 and it was incredibly close. President Chen was re-elected with 50.228% of the vote. Lien Chan, his challenger got 49.772% of the vote. There was a nationwide recount, and the loser lost his temper and his supporters rioted and made life miserable for a couple of weeks.

Now, in a small country like Taiwan, such a recount was a hassle, but doable - though it took several weeks. Imagine in a country with about 12 times Taiwan's population?!?!?

 

[Goobieman]

No it wasn't. Not even the most partisan conservative Republicans were claiming that Bush won the popular vote in 2000. A 500,000 vote margin is well outside the realm of possible error.

No one claimed that Bush won the popular vote.
The claim was that the popular vote in 2000 was close enough that your system would have resulted in every state being recounted as BOTH candidates would want to get every last vote they could find.

AND, there's more to it than just error - as pointed out elsewhere, when there is a large margin of victory, many states do not bother counting provisional and/or absentee ballots because they dont matter -- but in the scenario envisioned here, they WOULD matter and then they WOULD be counted.

By counting the provisonal ballots in the 2004 election, Kerry picked up a net 40,000 votes in Ohio - 0.71% of the total votes in the state. Given that, tell me why its not possible to pick up 500,000 votes acorss the country.

A better question is why the President should represent the interests of an arbitrary collection of "battleground states."

You are avoiding the question.
Congress represents the people in our system of government. Why should the President, as the head of state of a Republic, also represent the people?

Speculation on your part. Irrelevant.

This entire topis is speculation.
The entire topic, therefore, is irrelevant.
So, your point?

If your point was that a national recount every time the margin of the vote was less than 0.5% would be impossible, I was simply pointing out that that's not true.

My point is that your assertion - formal recounts v magnifying glasses - is flawed because the examinations w/ the magnifying glasses stemmed from a formal recount.

Given that both parties would want every single vote they could get, why should anyine think that the same level of scrutiny would not eventually extend to all the recounts?

No it's not. What part of my previous example don't you understand? Do you realize that 60-40 is a landslide in an election of a hundred million voters, but is very close in an election of ten voters?

The margin is 0.5%, not 10%.
As noted elsewhere, we arent talking about margin of error here -- there is a lot more to it than that.

These aren't issues that the rest of the country cares about, and politicians wouldn't either if those states didn't have a ridiculously high influence on the outcome of the national election.

Every state and every reigion has issues, and they all have influence over elections. That some states have more sway than others is the nature of the beast.

Because we're electing a President of the United States, not a President of Florida/ Iowa/ Missouri/ Ohio/ Michigan/ Pennsylvania/ New Hampshire/ New Mexico/ Nevada.

We're electing the head of state of a federal republic, not a representative of the people within the federal government. That very fact explains fully why the people do not elect the president, and the people do not have a right to vote for President.

Because if the outcome of the election in my state is assured, there's no reason for me to go to the polls, or campaign for the candidate of my choice. This is true whether I support the winner or the loser, and is true regardless of how popular these candidates are nationwide.

As stated elsewhere, this is no different than any other election.
That your vote is not directly represented in the outcome of the election in no way means you were/are disenfranchised, or that your vote doesnt matter.

You voted for a congressman. His loss was a foregone conclusion. Your "voice" is not heard in Congress. Were you disenfranchised?
No.

You voted for a slate of electors. Their loss was a foregone conclusion. Your "voice" is not heard in the electoral college. Were you disenfranchised? No.

Because the president is the leader of the entire country.

The President is the head of state and the head of government of the United States, He does not represent the people of the United States in either capacity, which is why the people of the United States do not elect him.

You're trying to make a fundamental change in the structure of the govenrment while circumventing the procedure for doing so. If you want a direct election of the President, then you need to change the Constitutiuon; that you do not have enough support for that change in no way justifies circumventing the procedures for doing so.

 

[Stinger]

This plan circumvents the need for a 2/3 majority. As little as 11 states could do it. Whether it has any chance of passing I don't know, but it certainly is much easier than passing a constitutional amendment.

The "plan" ignores the fact that the states won't do it and the people of the states would vote out any legislature that would engage in such a scheme. It still ignores the fact the is NO national popular vote an the minute the candidate from one party had a lead in the polls all the legilatures supporting the other candidate would renig. There could be no legal binding as all the other states would go to court an protest.

It's a hairbrained scheme from, as the article states "Its initial backers are middleweights at best."

Our current system works just fine, just as it was designed, it's one of the things that makes the United States what it is and has contributed to it's lasting as long as it has.

 

[Stinger]

There is a better way - actually 2.

And both really don't change the overall scheme, those states still retain their total electorial votes meaning the smaller states still get a slight increase in thier porportional voice in the matter.

BTW, the referendum on CO failed.

The vast majority of voters and not interested in changing our consitutionally dictated means of electing the two national office holders. It's system the strikes a balance between all the states.