Is it time to throw out the electoral college?

Colorado will vote this November to award electoral votes based upon the proportionate popular vote:

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/election/article/0%2C1299%2CDRMN_36_3077685%2C00.html


Right now I'm voting for awarding electoral votes based on the popular vote here in Colorado. IMO, the electoral college has out lived it's usefulness.

How would you vote? why?

I'm a swede, but the current electoral college system of the US smells of 200 years ago to me.

Percentile vote should determine the leadership in any country.

*thumbs up*

You really want to reduce Colorado's influence on Presidential elections to less than D.C.?

The electoral college has only outlived its usefulness if you believe states and state borders have outlived their usefulness.

How is that? The Presidential election is a federal event- how many Representatives your state has shouldn't factor into it at all. Many of the reasons to have an Electoral College (such as slow speed of communication) are terribly outmoded.

http://images.usatoday.com/news/electmap.jpg
Fly over country!

The electoral college system is much more equitable than a simple majority rule. It forces politicians to pay more attention to rural issues. Otherwise you have the injustice that you see in county politics where you have large cities dominating over a smaller rural population.

I think that the problem with most electoral votes is the 'all or nothing' setup. It would be better if more states took the 'Bush got 60% of the popular vote, he gets 60% -or closest # available - of our electoral votes, Kerry got 38% he gets 38% etc.

Or just round it off for the 3 top candidates. Obviously it would have to be fair for 3rd party candidates, but really if someone gets 1,000 votes in a state of 5million, he shouldn't get 1 electoral vote.

If a state's presidential election goes for a candidate... they win the state and the state's electoral votes. Simple and fair.

Electoral College protects states rights and gives individuality to states. Without it California, New York, Chicago and few other places would dictate who wins or loses.



The issue in Colorado is a joke too. We have 9 votes for the state. State is mainly republican when voting. So yea a lot of time 9 votes go to republican issues on voting (not always). Now other side trying to squeeze out few more votes by dividing the state. Basically they want Denver and Boulder voters who are predominantly democratic when voting to count for their causes. So example they want states 9 votes to be 5 for Bush, 4 for Kerry. It’s a move by people out of state too (from California) but don’t see them trying to divide up the big states were his side has the majority do ya? California has 55 votes but they wont try to get them to give up that power and make it popular vote.



Take away Electoral College in Colorado (or any state really) then why would national elections issues even bother with our state? Why show up and waste your time when you only hope to win over 1 vote total. If somehow this passes in Colorado then our state will be a joke and something no candidate will bother with in the future. Why blow millions on TV adds in a state like this when you could put the money into a big state try to win 51% of vote and gain massive votes. 9 votes though small means something still and makes issues that affect Colorado have to be taken into consideration at a national level (if they want our votes). Divide it up then you will have more than likely the standard votes along party lines and 1 toss up vote. 1 vote wouldn’t matter enough to warrant anything.



And notice how this isn’t national change, this is trying to kill just a few states voting power. Could claim all high and mighty trying to make each vote count if was trying to do it nationally, but they are only trying in few states (Colorado only one supposedly to make ballot that I know of though there is some issue over way they got sigs). Other states they are trying this in also vote predominantly republican on issues.



Also fact they trying to make it retro is BS also. Group admitting that Kerry can’t get enough momentum to win at all and would need these votes to win? Why should it be retro anyways? Only reason is to affect presidential election outcome in case it’s not to their liking. So for arguments sake Kerry gets 49% and Bush gets 51% then after all the grandstanding, court battles, recount drama now they can add "well Colorado votes need to change cause we duped them into giving up their voting status". Win on issues and substance not Mickey Mouse bullshit.



Those guys who founded this country were more than just disgruntled tea drinkers. They actually had some brain power. Even back then most people lived in few places. By making Electoral College they ensured everyone had a fair share in national stuff. Contrary to what is shown on internet and TV there are people who still live in places called small cities. Farming communities still exist. Not everyone lives in a big metropolis. What is an issue to them is just as important as an issue to people living in the big city. By having Electoral College it forces a balance to needs of all instead of just satisfying people who live in major population centers who have no idea what goes on in other areas of the country.

This isn't something I would wish on my state, if Colorado voters really want some kind of alternative to the "winner-take-all", I would suggest the models of Nebraska or Maine and not a percentage of popular vote.

But I really just posted to point out an error in the article. It states that Gore would have won 269 to 268 had this been in effect in 2000. That is not correct.

From the FEC:
The candidate for president with the most electoral votes, provided that it is an absolute majority (one over half of the total), is declared president. Similarly, the vice presidential candidate with the absolute majority of electoral votes is declared vice president.

In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect. Similarly, if no one obtains an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate makes the selection from among the top two contenders for that office.

269 is not an absolute majority of 538. A candidate must have 270 electoral votes to be elected. Congress would have chosen in the event the article describes.

Fil

I agree, Electoral College is a good system. It levels the playing field and makes demogogery (fuck I KNOW i spelled that wrong, but dont feel like checking it) a lot tougher.
The founders of the US were pretty concerned about the cities dominating the nation and tried to create a system where rural areas and agri-based culture could have power to protect themselves from sprawl and urban issues. Success is built from the foundry of forced compromise. Nobody ever gets EVERYTHING they want.

I am *for* the electoral college... mainly cause I am the only person I know who understands it and I look really smart to my friends when I explain it to them..... and they still don't get it.....

Damnit.... I agree with LL. How can this be?

Thats twice.. once more and Armageddon

It looks ugly on paper, but there are sound reasons for its existence.

OK, I see the problems with the system proposed in Colorado if other states are doing the all or nothing approach. I understand the goals of the electoral system...to empower smaller population states in the election. But if the the entire system were revamped to include the 2 extra electoral votes to each state but do it with "Distribution of electoral votes in proportion to voter support of candidates". How would this still not achieve the original goal. Why should a canidate who one by a single vote, or more realisitically a single percentage point get all 55 of California's votes and the guy that got 49% of the popular vote get 0...your inviting disaster. I understand that this kind of system would weaken the current 2 party system....and I like that, we need more choices.

What are other disadvantages of doing it this way?

Electoral College protects states rights and gives individuality to states. Without it California, New York, Chicago and few other places would dictate who wins or loses.

The states can dictate their "individuality" by passing laws to reflect the needs and desires in those areas- provided that they don't go against the Constitution. I'm all for moving power away from the Federal Government and back towards the states.


The founders of the US were pretty concerned about the cities dominating the nation and tried to create a system where rural areas and agri-based culture could have power to protect themselves from sprawl and urban issues.

Which is fine, provided that is something with which you agree. However, if the majority of people in the country are living in large, urban areas- why shouldn't they have more say based on their numbers?


Having said that, if someone had used the argument "The President is supposed to represent the whole country, not just urbanized areas"- I'd agree with you, and that is the best reason to keep the damn thing in place.


Not that it matters much, anymore. The office of President has become more of a figurehead to their parties now than ever before. The best people for the job don't run, and instead we get jokes like Kerry and Bush running for the office.

I'm surprised nobody has said this yet:

(begin sarcasm)
Hell, let’s just return the vote to those who own property. Eliminate everyone who rents from the vote, right off the top. That would eliminate most of those pesky urban votes from LA, NY and Chicago right off the top, as well as the vast majority of younger people as well.

However, if the majority of people in the country are living in large, urban areas- why shouldn't they have more say based on their numbers?



They do have more say in every aspect of government, with the possible exception, depending on whose number crunching you want to believe, of the Presidency.

The left looks down on rural folks, especially the south, and that's where this whole issue comes from. They want to take power away from them and put it more in the hands of large urban centers which tend to favor democrats. The fact is... your vote does count in your state, just because someone doesn't like the way the rest of their state votes, well what can I say... tough. I'm a conservative in one of the most liberal states in the country, and I wouldn't want to change how our electoral system works. Ask the people in eastern Washington how they feel about state politics screwing them over every year and you'll see what it would be like for rural America if we didn't have the electoral college.

I think that "looks down" is perhaps the wrong term to use. Using tobacco as an example, perhaps "Moves against the entrenched interests" would be more accurate.



As I (sarcastically) said above, simply restore "must own real estate" as a requirement to vote, and those large urban centers lose most of their voting base (and their power). Moving to a majority vote of proprety holders would favor the Conservatives to such a degree, I fail to see why members of that branch don't pursue such a solution.

Moving to a majority vote of proprety holders would favor the Conservatives to such a degree, I fail to see why members of that branch don't pursue such a solution.
Could have something to do with piece of paper...what is it called....hmmmmm..oh yeah, the freakin' constitution. ;)

Oh, yeah, I forgot, the Constitution has never changed.

So women can't vote and slavery is OK?

ps: The Pople speaks with the infallible voice of Yahweh, too.

Esbat, I believe Ailwon's point is that introducing such a change to the constitution would be unconstitutional; you'd have to get rid of that whole 'equal protection under the law' part.

I see Esbat didn't recognize that I was kidding with him...because I realized that he must have been kidding. :rolleyes:

Considering how my subsequent posts deal directly with my (sarcasm) above, I thought it would be clear I was still being (mostly) sarcastic.

Esbat

To know him is to frequently miss his jokes. :D

Keep the electoral college. Doing away with it probably wouldn't result in an overnight change that anyone would notice, but how long would it take for our logging, mining, agriculture, and other crucially important industries to be compromised since they mostly occupy relatively low population areas?

It's easy to get caught up in the urban-centric, service based trend our economy has followed for the past couple decades, but it's important to realize that it is only afforded by the underlying strength of our more traditional industries. When it comes down to it, protecting our basic needs is a lot more important.

Considering how my subsequent posts deal directly with my (sarcasm) above, I thought it would be clear I was still being (mostly) sarcastic
As I was in response...nevermind :rolleyes:

Anyways...back to the topic at hand

Anyone have a reason why it wouldn't work if the whole electoral sytem was overhauled so that the votes were handed out proprtionate to the popular vote (with states still getting 2 votes automatically, to help ease population size differences) and the winner getting those extra 2 votes.

I know one of the problems would be a weakening of the two party system...personally, I'm ok with that. don't like either party that much :')

Basically, it boils down to the issue of individual rights versus the rights of society as a whole. The electoral college serves as a compromise between two different schools of thought. One school says the needs of most members of society (also known as the majority) greatly outweigh the needs of the individual (also known as the minority). At the opposite end of that spectrum, those needs are flip-flopped.

If our country was smaller in both geographic size and population, removing the electoral college would make sense, but due to those factors, and more importantly, our diversity, it doesn't.

I'm not sure on what the actual statistics are (if someone can provide those, that would be awesome), but let's assume that 25% of US citizens live in 'rural America,' and 75% of US citizens live in 'developed America.' While making that 75% chunk of population a priority makes sense, it only makes sense to a certain point. Make the majority too much of a priority, and you will abandon that minority, which is arguably just as important to our well-being, for the reasons Sanchek stated.

Also, you can bet that the majority of our population lives in a minority of our geographic area. If someone would like to provide this statistic, feel free; my rough estimation would be that 75% urban/suburban majority of our population lives on 40% of the Continental US (including Alaska would inflate that statistic dramatically, I'm sure). So, what happens if you show too much favoritism to the more populated areas of the country? The people living in the rural areas will move to the more populated areas and increase the population density, amplifying many of the problems already associated with overcrowding: crime, sanitary concerns, housing availability, pollution, etc.

Like Thormir said, the Electoral College looks like a mess, and if you're not very familiar with the demography of the United States, I can understand where the confusion arises. For a smaller country, a simple show of hands for elections makes perfect sense; however, due to the unique position of the US, the Electoral College is ideal as possible, and has suited our needs rather well.

Anyone have a reason why it wouldn't work if the whole electoral sytem was overhauled so that the votes were handed out proprtionate to the popular vote (with states still getting 2 votes automatically, to help ease population size differences) and the winner getting those extra 2 votes.



Read the thread lol. The electoral college is the most elegant system. Changing it changes the fundamental dynamic of state versus federal, and enslaves rural America to it's urban centers which already dominate politics in every way. It wouldn't increase the significance of an individual vote, but rather decrease it. Rural Americans might as well stop voting in Presidential elections at that point.

Winter, read my response, and address it, lol...

You still keep the 2 votes each state gets to offset the popuation differences. The winner of each state gets those 2 votes plus additional votes in proportion to the votes he got in that state. Hell, if anything it would give more power to rural areas as winning Kansas or Iowa would give them 2 votes just as it would California.

You win California(55votes) 60% to 40%, you get 60% of 53 or 32 plus 2 for winning the state. 34, the loser gets 21...swing of 13.

You win Colorado (9votes) 60-40, you get 6 to the losers 3...swing of 3

Winning California is worth 10 more votes. In the system now the difference is 46. Winning Colorado(et.al.) is much more insignificant. It seems like it might reflect the popular vote more closely while giving rural, smaller states more say. It would also give people in states dominated by a particular party some reason to vote...as you said was in the case in your state. In addition it would give a small hope to other parties to emerge and gain support. As it stands now, the US will never have a 3rd party because there is almost no chance of that party ever getting even one electoral vote in any election.

I think that if any state splits its electoral votes, all should. Because most states don't, the specific targetting of a few states to get it into law smacks of political maneuvering to gain an advantage for one political party. Smart move on their part, but bad for the American public in general. I live in Colorado and will be voting against it as it currently stands.

Rural Americans might as well stop voting in Presidential elections at that point.

We passed the point it was worthwhile to vote any opposition party in most states about 50 years ago, regardless of whether you're urban, rural, or extraterrestrial.

The EC system was originally designed as an effective vote accounting system, which happened to have some desireable side effects like preventing one or two high-population regions from dominating a presidential election, but it doesn't even always do that well. It's not a particularly clever system even though it has served us fairly well. You can easily argue that it balances out certain voting demographics, which is good, but it's not as good as:

1) Making it worthwhile to vote opposition in heavily biased states
2) Providing for a plurality of party options
3) Eliminating Strategic Voting


There are literally dozens of smarter, more modern voting systems out there (some involving an electoral college, some not. I'm fond of http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics/condorcet.html, myself). A very simple one would be simply dividing EC votes out to the congressional districts they represent. That would actually give more power to rural areas in most states since large population centers often exist in a much smaller set of congressional districts than they probably should. I'm not familiar with CO specifically, but I assume that the high-population areas like Denver are maybe 10% of the states congress seats. I may be wrong about that, but the basic principle remains the same even if you'd have to do re-districting to properly apportion individual EC votes to districts instead of a single state-wide lot.

The all-or-nothing system works, but other things would work a lot better (and no, direct percentage splits isn't one of them. Naturally it's on the ballot in CO ;-p).

Making it worthwhile to vote opposition in heavily biased states

Biased?

Providing for a plurality of party options

That is a high sounding idea. Feel free to explain how you will get this done.

Eliminating Strategic Voting

Explain how you will get it done.

Strategic voting goes on in every democracy. It's an academic red herring.

Having the government or people themselves vote on a new system is... impossible and can never work fairly. The EC works very well. We have 50 states... it all works out.

I think you'll find if CO gets it's latest EC mods passed that noone will bother to stump there for National office again.

Talk about making yourself limp...

Fandros

Nail on the head.

Try reading the Condorcet link, which nicely sums up most of it. The electoral college and our entire voting paradigm is a failure, and if you don't think so then ask yourself why voter turn out is so low. People know their vote doesn't matter and usually don't have anyone they even actually approve of on the ballot. Other than screaming partisan monkeys, I've yet to meet a single person that likes Bush OR Kerry and I think the last president I personally thought was qualified for the office was Eisenhower (who won on the strength of moderate Republicans and was then hamstrung by the right right radical Old Guard for the entirety of his tenure). The presidential elections in America are strategic voting at its worst. But it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Imagine a world in which you didn't just have to mark off the candidate you were least unhappy with. Bush Sr would have likely won in 1992 and Gore in 2000 if people had been able to use any of the dozens of voting systems that allow for weighted preferences or simulated-runoffs based on actual approval. Sadly we can see these systems used in everything from high school class "elections" to marketing research, and yet we have no chance to use them when expressing our democratic power matters for anything.

http://fairvote.org/ also has some basic information on alternative voting systems.

Heh, looking back at votes, there have been a depressing number of elections in which the president had a negative mandate. That's what people made fun of Russia for when they went democratic because their voting system is so simple-minded and dippy. And one of the best recorded turnouts for a third party candidate? Ross Perot in 1992 (who likely cost Bush the election, although you didn't see people slamming him like the did poor Nader) grabbed nearly 20% of the electorate, a little less than half as much as Bush or Clinton, and yet had absolutely no chance of getting elected at all.

We've been living with over half a century of bickering over campaign finance reform, and virtually no real debate over fixing much more fundamental problems with our democratic process.

Those of you that think the electoral college is out there protecting the rural heartlands from demagoguery in the urban centers ought to take a look at California. The Electoral College does balance out certain high population states versus each other, but not high-population areas in general, and disenfranchises millions.

The electoral college and our entire voting paradigm is a failure, and if you don't think so then ask yourself why voter turn out is so low.

/yawn

Compare our turnout to turnout in other countries - it isn't low.

But it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Imagine a world in which you didn't just have to mark off the candidate you were least unhappy with.


Don't just post links. Explain how it would be done. Give an example of a country where it's working better. Explain how every cohort is to be represented in a country of 300 plus million with vast economic, geographic, religious, racial, educational diversity. How do the people or the government itself choose a new voting strategy, all of which will have a bias in some form. Utopia doesnt exist fella. The EC is working great... except for the whiners. Libs are constantly railing that anything that isn't biased towards them is failing or broken. Take fox news for example. Cons have had to deal with liberal tv news sources for years. Now Fox News presents the same news with a slight right bias and you have libs screaming foul and whining about it across the country. Fox News is less conservative than Dan Rather is liberal. That's a fact.

If it's your opinion that our voting paradigm is a failure, prove it. Show how much lower our turnout is than other countries. Keep in mind the size comparisons. Show how it can work better, not in theory but in fact. If people don't understand how it works or feel that their candidate doesn't have a chance and therefore why vote.... that's their fault and their mistake. You can't blame the system.

Why should I regurgitate thousands of pages of information written up by people more intimately familiar with it than myself because it's not in the AyRo flame forum?

How about you look at one of the specific cases I did list, instead of grabbing one line out of a response. Here it is again:

If the electoral college is supposed to balance out high population areas against lower population areas, and that is good, then why is it not better to take places like California or Texas or New York that are historically solid one-party states and divide out the high-population areas from the low ones so that the opposition party voters aren't totally disenfranchised by an all-or-nothing vote they have no possible hope of ever winning?

Or how about South Africa. South Africa has hundreds of low population areas that would completely lose any sort of democratic voice -- EXCEPT they have a more modern voting system similiar to Instant Runoff that proportions party seats in their legislate based on the votes instead of winner-take-all races. People can vote in order of confidence for candidates, and then if they vote for a loser first, their second votes still count and influence big-party runoffs. (ball is in your court. Come up with a situation in which this is possibly bad. Dozens of non-US nations use a similiar system including hundreds of smaller elections in the US, including many city-level council positions).

The Colorado issue is ironically exactly what the electoral college was supposed to avoid, exact percentage splits, but that isn't the only alternative.


Compare our turnout to turnout in other countries - it isn't low


Our voter turnout is generally pegged at around 45%. That's down around the level you see in 3rd world countries. Most Western democracries are in the 70-80% range with a few even nearing 90%, and our excuse is not illiteracy.

I'm sorry the following link has no funny political invective making fun of Kerry so most of you won't follow it, but International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (http://www.idea.int/) , or http://fairvote.org/.

For more fun, the poster child for why all-or-nothing Electoral College lots are bad, California, has 44% voter turn out, compared to 60%+ in many "Swing states."

Uh oh, more links! http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/voting.html

There's no question there are better voting systems out there. However, the general American citizen wouldn't take the time or effort to understand the change. An opponent to a politician suggesting a voting change would have a field day. Just look at how the democrats have tried to demonize a change to update overtime rules to modern day.

It's like the jury system; it's no longer effective but because we've been doing it for so long it's practically impossible to eliminate.

California or Texas or New York that are historically solid one-party states


Maybe not so solid as you guess. Each presidential race within a state is a back and force struggle between parties. If you don't like the results one year, you're free to get to work and change it for the next election. There's nothing wrong with the system except that Gore apologists are still fuming over losing in 2000 and so attacking the electoral college.


Or how about South Africa. South Africa has hundreds of low population areas that would completely lose any sort of democratic voice -- EXCEPT they have a more modern voting system similiar to Instant Runoff that proportions party seats in their legislate based on the votes instead of winner-take-all races. People can vote in order of confidence for candidates, and then if they vote for a loser first, their second votes still count and influence big-party runoffs. (ball is in your court. Come up with a situation in which this is possibly bad. Dozens of non-US nations use a similiar system including hundreds of smaller elections in the US, including many city-level council positions).


See that's why I keep asking you to explain. You throw out broad issues which I'm convinced you don't really understand and then say see I proved it. What are you saying? That Congressional seats should be appointed based on a percentage of popular vote for a particular party? It's "more modern voting system" was designed to stop the violence in the country that was a hindrance to its previous elections.


"While the ... system acted as a symbol and guarantor of the rights of political and culturally defined minorities, experience in South Africa was that it weakened the link between individual voters and political representatives.


Why should I regurgitate thousands of pages of information written up by people more intimately familiar with it than myself because it's not in the AyRo flame forum?


I'm not asking you to, I'm asking that you complete a thought and explain yourself.


divide out the high-population areas from the low ones so that the opposition party voters aren't totally disenfranchised

Disenfranchised lol. People disenfranchise themselves. The vote isn't so one sided in any area that it could not be easily overcome if people were mobilized behind a candidate. All of the poor disenfranchised people you talk about have ample representation in the house of representatives, in their local government, and in the senate. If your entire point is to get more than 2 parties out there, then I can agree with that in principal. Just be more specific if you can.

I m curious about something. I think I got US system right so, if republican win in a state by 51% of the votes, they get 100% of the votes for that state right? So what about the 49% that didn't vote for the rep? They get told to fuck off if I got it correctly.

Hmm ya I Think I prefer the system in france, at least even if my state lose I still feel my vote was usefull and not used against my own will.

I think I got US system right so, if republican win in a state by 51% of the votes, they get 100% of the votes for that state right?

For the presidential election, yes, except in Maine and Nebraska, which do the much more intelligent thing of dividing their votes by districts and allocating the 2 remaining Electoral College lots to the overall popular winner.


There's nothing wrong with the system except that Gore apologists are still fuming over losing in 2000 and so attacking the electoral college.

It's so encouraging to see people sweeping issues that have been known and understood since before Gore was even born under the partisan rugs.


See that's why I keep asking you to explain. You throw out broad issues which I'm convinced you don't really understand and then say see I proved it. What are you saying? That Congressional seats should be appointed based on a percentage of popular vote for a particular party?

Try actually looking at the specific criticisms of the Electoral College system and then looking at the advantages of other voting systems before asking me to explain, since it's pretty obvious you're not even directly responding to what I'm saying and instead to your own pet issue, which is Democrats whining about Gore. I'm not a Democrat.

Let me repeat it, again:


If the electoral college is supposed to balance out high population areas against lower population areas, and that is good, then why is it not better to take places like California or Texas or New York that are historically solid one-party states and divide out the high-population areas from the low ones so that the opposition party voters aren't totally disenfranchised by an all-or-nothing vote they have no possible hope of ever winning?

Look at what the Electoral College is supposed to do versus what it actually does and find enlightenment.

California is one of our lowest voter turn out states. It also has the largest number of people who's votes get discounted every year. It may not be strictly causal, but it's quite obviously at least related. I don't care if the state goes Democrat or Republican, but it would sure be nice if the whole set didn't go to one or the other when the winner rarely a landslide but merely overwhelming. The Maine and Nebraska implementations of this more or less prove it doesn't cause wide-spread panic and riots.

"It's the way we do it" is not a valid defense for how it's done.

Look at what the Electoral College is supposed to do versus what it actually does and find enlightenment.


Ahh.. the heart of the matter. Enlightenment in your world is believing as you do.

Yeah France's system is wonderful where a guy like Le Pen can almost sneak through.


Majority fraud: running up the vote
The direct election system is subject to types of fraud that are impossible under the Electoral College system. With direct elections, there would be an incentive for Nebraska to produce more Republican votes or Massachusetts more Democratic ones. Majority fraud would be hard to combat, because the majority party would also be responsible for counting the votes.

The Electoral College system concedes some states to the party in power, but it eliminates any reason to run up the vote. Any fraud in the present system must be in swing states, where the parties can keep each other in check. Here is a dramatic example: in Illinois in 1960, it was a Republican electoral commission that eventually certified a highly suspect Cook county vote that gave the state to the Democrats.



Many direct election proposals allow for a minority vote to elect a President. The last serious proposal, advanced in the late 1970s, gave the prize to the candidate who receved the highest vote tally greater than 40%. Only if no candidate receved 40% would there be a runoff between the top two tickets.
In France for example you get protest votes that can accidentally lead to a party recieving vastly more support than it would otherwise, even though most of the people who cast that vote don't want or believe that the person could be elected.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/05/05/oakley.otsc/

Each state, some of which have a higher population than the total of France, decides who that state as a whole supports as president, then they give their electoral votes to that candidate. It works quite well considering the inherent problems in the size and diversity in the country.


Try actually looking at the specific criticisms of the Electoral College system and then looking at the advantages of other voting systems before asking me to explain, since it's pretty obvious you're not even directly responding to what I'm saying and instead to your own pet issue, which is Democrats whining about Gore. I'm not a Democrat.

I made one statement in regards to Gore apologists.. yet you choose to characterize my argument as centered around this. Nice debate tactic, but not centered around fact as you attempt to claim as your own.


"It's the way we do it" is not a valid defense for how it's done.
No one has used that defense. Again.. good debate tactic, but misleading. Only the ignorant are disenfranchised in the EC system, because they do it to themselves. The strength of the systems outweighs its weaknesses. It provides for a plurality of ideas rather than a plurality of candidates with one idea.




I don't care if the state goes Democrat or Republican, but it would sure be nice if the whole set didn't go to one or the other when the winner rarely a landslide but merely overwhelming.

Why would it be nice? All the votes are counted, all the opinions are made known. If the population of the state who lost felt so strongly for their candidate they would have gotten out the vote more strongly. In the absence of the electoral system, the state loses it's leverage over the presidency.

In the absence of the electoral system, the state loses it's leverage over the presidency.
We are not arguing here about not having an electoral system, just overhauling it to increase voter turnout and so it more truly represents the will of the people.

I agree with you, the current system is a good thing...but it needs to be better. We need better voter turnout and some capability for other parties to emerge if that is the popular trend. What incentive is there to vote if you live in a state dominated by the other party? I advocate a system where the majority winner gets the lion share of votes but other parties get some electoral votes to represent the populace in that state that voted for minority canidates.

Their votes are counted... everyone is aware of the numbers... why do they need electoral votes?

so it more truly represents the will of the people
better voter turnout
capability for other parties to emerge

Im pretty undecided on this subject, its extremely lame that if you live in a state such as California, New York, Texas, Utah, Georgia, or Massachucetts because there is literally no point in voting because the outcome is so far in favor of either republican or democrat. I live in California atm and theres not much incentive for me to go out and vote because I already know that Bush is going to loose California. But yea, with a popular system everything will be focused on a few big cities like LA, New York, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit and leave the rest of America unrepresented. I would really want my vote to count for more because I feel like it is worthless atm unless I am living in a swing state, but I don't want politics to be dominated by a couple of key cities.

Edit: Btw states that seem to be solid in on political party have not always been that way. California used to be a very conservative state, Nixon, Reagan and Bush Senior all won California, but it has became liberal overtime. Also Texas was one of the reasons Kennedy won against Nixon. Not the mention before the 1950s the South voted democrat or states right.(they were still mad at the republicans for beating them in the civil war I guess lol)