Electoral College

[Mikkel]

I'd stick with Option 3 and say that we should have proportional votes going to candidates, rather than the winner-take-all system.

This, I think, represents the will of the people more directly (if, in 2000, florida were distributed proportionally, then Gore would have recieved 12 and Bush 13, and Gore would've become President) without creating the chaos that would ensue as a result of abolishing the institution altogether.

Maintaining the college also favors small states (3 automatic votes, regardless of population), which I think is healthy for the country.

2 states have proportional voting today, Nebraska and Maine. They have it such that the winner of each congressional district gets 1 vote and whoever wins the state as a whole wins the 2 senate seats. This isn't exactly what I had in mind, ideally, but it's getting close. Neither state, of course, has more than 5 votes, so their influence is very little.

Edit: Just an add on. If we switched to a proportional type of system for voting, then it would force candidates to focus on winning over the whole country, rather than just a few key swing states. Mind you, I live in Ohio, so that wouldn't be good for me, but I think it would be better overall.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I'd stick with Option 3 and say that we should have proportional votes going to candidates, rather than the winner-take-all system.

This, I think, represents the will of the people more directly (if, in 2000, florida were distributed proportionally, then Gore would have recieved 12 and Bush 13, and Gore would've become President) without creating the chaos that would ensue as a result of abolishing the institution altogether.

Actually, you'd have to factor in that maybe Gore didn't win the other states outright like New York or Cali under a districted system, or Michigan, etc. I think it's an assumption that he would have won, in fact, we on the right had a perfectly legitimate claim to New Mexico, they had voting anomalies as well.

Maintaining the college also favors small states (3 automatic votes, regardless of population), which I think is healthy for the country.

No argument here.

2 states have proportional voting today, Nebraska and Maine. They have it such that the winner of each congressional district gets 1 vote and whoever wins the state as a whole wins the 2 senate seats. This isn't exactly what I had in mind, ideally, but it's getting close. Neither state, of course, has more than 5 votes, so their influence is very little.

In the grand scheme of things, I think things have balanced out pretty well in our current system as well.

 

[Navy Pride]

I figured this whole thread was sour grapes over the 2000 presidential election in Florida........

Hey Libs, Gore lost, Bush won.....get over it.......

 

[TimmyBoy]

Popular vote and democracy is mob rule. The majority may violate the rights of the minority. Is this what people want?

 

[Mikkel]

Actually, you'd have to factor in that maybe Gore didn't win the other states outright like New York or Cali under a districted system, or Michigan, etc. I think it's an assumption that he would have won, in fact, we on the right had a perfectly legitimate claim to New Mexico, they had voting anomalies as well.

Yes, sorry I didn't specify. What I meant was if Florida (since voting policy is decided on a state by state basis) and only Florida were represented proportionally would Gore have won.

I figured this whole thread was sour grapes over the 2000 presidential election in Florida........

Hey Libs, Gore lost, Bush won.....get over it.......

I, at least, know that when I cite the 2000 election it isn't because of sour grapes, but rather because it is the most recent election in which the difference between the electoral college vote and a popular vote would have mattered. Be careful not to infer more than is being said simply based on the author's partisan leanings.

 

[Mikkel]

Popular vote and democracy is mob rule. The majority may violate the rights of the minority. Is this what people want?

The purpose of checks and balances in this country is to subvert a tyrannical majority from taking power. The executive branch isn't the only source of power in the country. It's lasted over 200 years, and lets hope it lasts at least another 200.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This, I think, represents the will of the people more directly (if, in 2000, florida were distributed proportionally, then Gore would have recieved 12 and Bush 13, and Gore would've become President).

Except that Gore would have lost about 20 of the 54 CA votes.
If all the states went to a proportional system like you suggest, Bush would have still won, and picked up a few EVs in the procees.

 

[Mikkel]

Except that Gore would have lost about 20 of the 54 CA votes.
If all the states went to a proportional system like you suggest, Bush would have still won, and picked up a few EVs in the procees.

Yes, I addressed the issue in an earlier post. I meant, if only Florida were proportional, would the outcome been different.

I did the math, however, to see what the outcome would be under my particular voting system through all of the states and found how many electoral votes each of the candidates would have won. Bush won 273, Gore won 258, and Nader won 4.

Yes, Bush still won, but it wouldn't have been a landslide like many people (conservatives) on this forum claim it to be. So to sum up- Gore won the popular vote by a hair. Bush won the winner-takes-all model by a hair. Bush won the proportional Electoral College by a hair.

My theory is that the main reason Bush won in 2000 is because of the 2 extra votes every state gets, giving smaller, less populated (more conservative), states more of a voice in the college than larger states, which gave Bush the win despite the fact that he lost the popular vote.

 

[cnredd]

Yes, I addressed the issue in an earlier post. I meant, if only Florida were proportional, would the outcome been different.

I did the math, however, to see what the outcome would be under my particular voting system through all of the states and found how many electoral votes each of the candidates would have won. Bush won 273, Gore won 258, and Nader won 4.

Yes, Bush still won, but it wouldn't have been a landslide like many people (conservatives) on this forum claim it to be. So to sum up- Gore won the popular vote by a hair. Bush won the winner-takes-all model by a hair. Bush won the proportional Electoral College by a hair.

My theory is that the main reason Bush won in 2000 is because of the 2 extra votes every state gets, giving smaller, less populated (more conservative), states more of a voice in the college than larger states, which gave Bush the win despite the fact that he lost the popular vote.

Why do you continue to live under this notion?...

Will of the states!...Not the people!...

 

[Mikkel]

Why do you continue to live under this notion?...

Will of the states!...Not the people!...

I'm not arguing otherwise. I was simply pointing out the influence the electoral college has on our voting process.

Why do you continue to live under the notion that I have some sort of notion?
I have not expressed one 'notion' implying that we should choose our president by the will of the people. In fact, I stated otherwise:

"Maintaining the college also favors small states (3 automatic votes, regardless of population), which I think is healthy for the country."

So please don't assume, because you know what happens then.

 

[cnredd]

Why do you continue to live under the notion that I have some sort of notion?
I have not expressed one 'notion' implying that we should choose our president by the will of the people. In fact, I stated otherwise:

"Maintaining the college also favors small states (3 automatic votes, regardless of population), which I think is healthy for the country."

Okay...

Now let's check out the two paragraphs BEFORE you wrote that...

I'd stick with Option 3 and say that we should have proportional votes going to candidates, rather than the winner-take-all system.

This, I think, represents the will of the people more directly (if, in 2000, florida were distributed proportionally, then Gore would have recieved 12 and Bush 13, and Gore would've become President) without creating the chaos that would ensue as a result of abolishing the institution altogether.

So please don't assume, because you know what happens then.

I make a assu out of me?(Sorry...I'm not good at this.)...:2wave:

 

[debate_junkie]

People seem to have a problem understanding that the President is not, and should not, be elected by a will of the people...

It is the will of the states...Otherwise California would have more weight than every other state...If a candidate campaigned and won ONLY in the top ten populous states, he could ignore the other 40 and still win...That would be a total lack of representation to the least inhabited ones...

People will claim that certain states get ignored anyway, but that's just because of the present political climate...If you named 5 swing states now, they could very well be different from 5 swing states three elections from now...

But the underlying statement from above still holds...The President is NOT to be elected by the people...never was...

But at the same time, redd, take PA for example... in '04, Pittsburgh and it's surrounding suburbs, Philadelphia and it's surrounding suburbs voted Democratic. The REST of the state was red.... voted for Bush, and yet Kerry got the electoral vote... 2 cities trumping an entire state's vote... that's the part that I don't get... haven't gotten... and will never get.

 

[Mikkel]

Okay...

Now let's check out the two paragraphs BEFORE you wrote that...

I'd stick with Option 3 and say that we should have proportional votes going to candidates, rather than the winner-take-all system.

This, I think, represents the will of the people more directly (if, in 2000, florida were distributed proportionally, then Gore would have recieved 12 and Bush 13, and Gore would've become President) without creating the chaos that would ensue as a result of abolishing the institution altogether.

I make a assu out of me?(Sorry...I'm not good at this.)...:2wave:

Fair enough. In my defense, that was my personal preference, or how I would like to see things, not how I think they are. And in relation to my second to most recent post, you can see that my preferred system represents the states about as well as the current system, at least in relation to the 2000 election.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, I addressed the issue in an earlier post. I meant, if only Florida were proportional, would the outcome been different.

OK - gotcha.

Yes, Bush still won, but it wouldn't have been a landslide like many people (conservatives) on this forum claim it to be.

I havent seen anyone ever cl;aim that Bush won by a landslide.

My theory is that the main reason Bush won in 2000 is because of the 2 extra votes every state gets, giving smaller, less populated (more conservative), states more of a voice in the college than larger states, which gave Bush the win despite the fact that he lost the popular vote.

Maybe so - but given that this is to represent the equality of one state compared to any other, there's nothing wrong with that.

And... its not clear that Bush lost the popular vote -- after all, not every state was re-counted.

 

[Mikkel]

"that idea has been kicked around, under that scenario, then the Democrats never win another presidency"
-LaMidnightRider (on proportional distribution of electoral votes)

So, no, he didn't claim bush won by a landslide, but he did claim that Republicans would have a huge advantage in this scenario, which isn't really true.

 

[The Real McCoy]

I figured this whole thread was sour grapes over the 2000 presidential election in Florida........

Hey Libs, Gore lost, Bush won.....get over it.......

Did you notice I was the one who started this thread? I sure hope you're not calling me a liberal because I'd take great offense to that.

 

[LaMidRighter]

"that idea has been kicked around, under that scenario, then the Democrats never win another presidency"
-LaMidnightRider (on proportional distribution of electoral votes)

So, no, he didn't claim bush won by a landslide, but he did claim that Republicans would have a huge advantage in this scenario, which isn't really true.

If you look at the district map and the trend holds, I am correct, but you do have a point that any advantage can shift, thus I would be assuming and you are correct.

 

[JOHNYJ]

It shouldn't be winner takes all.The electoral votes should be praportionate with the vote in the state.

 

[The Real McCoy]

It shouldn't be winner takes all.The electoral votes should be praportionate with the vote in the state.

So would you rather see the electoral college abolished or reformed to an inner-state district by district system?

 

[Skip]

I was going to create a new thread concerning the college before I found this one, hence the revival.

I voted for the popular vote, not because of "sour grapes from 2000" as party hacks such as Navy Pride contend, but because of the nature of politics today. In this modern day, will we ever again see a Democrat try to contend for votes in Texas, or a Republican in New York?

With the abolishment of the electoral college, we won't see candidates fighting for battleground states - they'll be going for independent voters. If those voters happen to be in Austin or Albany, you can bet that the entire scope of presidential politics will change and finally EVERYONE'S vote will matter for something. I predict that voter turnout would rise.

 

[Stinger]

People seem to have a problem understanding that the President is not, and should not, be elected by a will of the people...

Sigh................no matter how many times we try to educate them. I can only surmise that the high school civics classes do not teach civics anymore else people would know why there is an electorial college.

People even think they have a constitutional right to vote for the President.

But the underlying statement from above still holds...The President is NOT to be elected by the people...never was...

And never will, the states will never change the constitution to allow it.

 

[TurtleDude]

I say we scrap it. The 2000 election is a perfect example. Gore wins the popular vote and Bush wins the electoral college vote. I think it should be based upon who received the most votes.

THen the GOP would have spent years tracking down all the obvous cases of vote fraud in states that Bush won like Ohio. WIth the electoral college, the fact that he won Ohio even with well known vote fraud for Gore in Cleveland, there was no need to investigate that. States where the margin was large, there was no need to go through the expense of counting absentee and provisional ballots or running down complaints

 

[Skip]

There was no need to counting the actual votes of U.S. citizens, is what you're saying...

 

[Stinger]

There was no need to counting the actual votes of U.S. citizens, is what you're saying...

Not only need but no constitutional right to have your vote counted when it comes to the President and Vice-President. It's up to your state. If your state decides it wants to have an election to decide whom it's Electorial votes will go to then you have an equal right, as the rest of your states citizens, to participate in that election. If your state decides it wants to select the Electors by someother fashion then you don't get to vote.

Once again, the STATES elect the President and Vice-President.

This was all taught to me in my civics and government classes don't they teach it anymore?

 

[The Mark]

Not only need but no constitutional right to have your vote counted when it comes to the President and Vice-President. It's up to your state. If your state decides it wants to have an election to decide whom it's Electorial votes will go to then you have an equal right, as the rest of your states citizens, to participate in that election. If your state decides it wants to select the Electors by someother fashion then you don't get to vote.

Once again, the STATES elect the President and Vice-President.

This was all taught to me in my civics and government classes don't they teach it anymore?

And in addition, it makes sense. After all, I wouldn't like to be living in one of the lower-population states where my voice would have little effect in a popular vote. Still, it seems some peoples idea of some changes being needed has merit. I would wish for changes in all the states that assigned each electoral vote a certain precentage of the population of that state. Thus, in the states with large cities, there would probably be a EV assigned to that city and some of the surrounding area, and the other EV's would be spread around the rest of the states area. It would seem that this would have a nullifying effect on the influnce that huge cities (such as new york city) have on the final outcome of that states EV's.