With the 04 campaign in full swing after Kerry locked up the nomination, opinions have been flying around regarding whether Nader will take votes from Kerry and rob him from the election like Gore. Since he won the popular vote, it is time to change the way we do it (Senators weren't always directly elected).

Should America continue with the electoral college?


Should America adopt a new type of election altogether?
Since it is tremendously difficult to garner national support for small-party candidates, should America consider a runoff system like France? That way in the first round, you could vote for your favorite candidate without having to choose between the "lesser of two evils." This would lead to a second round (unless someone won over fifty percent outright) and everyone could vote again for the two candidates with the highest totals.

ABSOLUTELY NOT!! The electorial college was created by the founding fathers as a check and balance over the ignorant and illiterate masses.

We can argue about the state of public education, voter apathy, etc. However, the fact remains that the country is literate, and far from ignorant.

The time for the electorial college is past.





In what way? Eliminating the electorial college is something that should be done at this point in or history. Other then that I see no reason to make changes.

Well there is the idea that we make campaigns on all levels of government 100% publicly funded to eliminate the quid pro quo in politics. Of course that also limits our freedom of speech and how the heck would we pay for it?

The Electoral College does still have value to the population. If it were not in place, presidential candidates would campaign solely in the population centers of the US, rather than being forced to take their message across, more or less, the entirety of the nation. I don't know the statistics, but the ten largest US cities and the areas immediately surrounding them probably comprise a substantial amount of the country's total population.

If the Electoral College were removed, at a minimum, any mid-western state besides Illinios could pretty much hang up any chance of being a tour stop for a campaigning nominee. Sure, the system has its flaws, and in terms of illiteracy and ignorance, there isn't much need for the Electoral College these days. But, I suppose it's nice for the people in those less populous states to feel that they are really part of the whole election process, rather than always playing second fiddle to the most populous areas of the nation.

The fact is that the "country" is neither "literate" nor "far from ignorant". These terms are only meaningful when applied to individuals. However, I think I know what you were trying to say, and we could argue in another thread about the relative level of literacy and ignorance of the general population on any given issue.

But in actual practice, the electoral system has nothing to do with "ignorant and illiterate masses". Each state's legislature decides how "Electors" are chosen and the number of "Electors" each state is entitled to is determined by the population of each state (or to be more exact, the number of Representatives and Senators in Congress each state is entitled to (based on population)- Article 2 sec. 1- U.S. Constitution).

This reflects the Federal nature of our Constitutional Republic. This is the United States of America. Each state is an entity on it's own and maintains sovereignty on some issues (this being one) while it is subject to the sovereignty of the Federal government on others. I haven't researched the policies of other states, but in my state (California) whichever Presidential candidate receives the most popular votes wins the state's Electoral votes. I don't see how that prevents (or encourages) "illiterate ignorant masses" from voting. Each state is having an election to decide who the majority of voters in that state want to become President of the United States of America. I like the system. It at least encourages candidates to try to become President of the United States of America rather than Urban Tyrant of the "American People".

I wonder how many of those who did not vote for our current President and who now want to amend the Constitution by abolishing the Electoral provisions therein would maintain their opposition to our current system if Gore had lost the "popular" vote but received more "Electoral" votes and become President.

I say we keep the Electoral College, for the reasons so well stated by Argonaut.

But I would like to see some other changes in the system, something that would give third parties more of a chance. The French runoff system might be worth considering and wouldn't be too radical a change.

I am very much against the electoral college system. I hate, the idea of STATES electing the president, as opposed to the people. States are still government, as such the states should never have more of a say than the people, especially when it comes to electing our chief executive. Whoever appeals to the American population most should be president. Period.

If your going by the credo "One person, one vote," then the electoral college fails. Citizens are worth less in Texas than those that live in Hawaii, in terms of electoral points. That one person in Idaho carries more weight with his vote than I do. This seems to be a process of dehumanization, hardly reflecting those votes that do not concur with a states majority.

But, hey, as long as California continues to block Orange County, I'm all for it!



I agree. As it stands now, only the democrats and republicans have a chance of winning. Votes for the other candidates are viewed as "wasted." A run-off system would allow for people to vote for their first choice, then select the lesser of two evils. We might get a 3rd party candidate in the white house eventually.



Doesn't this make alot more sense? The places with more people would actually be campaigned in! As of now, all of the "sure bets" are totally ignored and swing states are heavily campaigned in. A presidents time should be shared proportionately with a states population (In my opinion). That would seem to reflect the idea that people are actually worth their votes. Of course, I know that somewhere in Hawaii, a person who, by virtue of living in such a small state, is worth more to the presidential campaigns than I am.

Absolutely and at a fundamental level. I think the party system is fundamentally flawed. On the one hand, it's convenient to be able to identify candidates by a party with which you feel an affiliation. On the other hand, it's too convenient--I believe it doesn't allow us to choose candidates based on their stands on issues.

I would like a system in which we would score candidates on how they stand on each of the "major issues," while giving the issues weighting according to our individual decisions as voters as to how important each of those issues is to us. For example, if I felt Homeland Security to be more important than The Environment, and I liked Candidate X's stance on HS equally to Candidate Y's on TE, my weighted score would favor Candidate X. (This is all easily computationally possible, by the way. Do we trust computer voting? Whole other topic...)

I also believe that candidates should not be allowed to use ANY money for campaigning. I think that all candidates should be allocated the same amount of airtime and all TV stations should be required to air Public Service Messages for those candidates for free. Perhaps the stations get a tax credit for doing so to offset the cost. Perhaps there is also a cable station set up that perpetually runs candidates' PSMs, giving all equal airtime at random intervals so no one gets the exclusive prime time spot. Perhaps there should be a government funded broadcast and production crew that the candidates can use to create their PSMs so they need not use private funds.

Backing slightly away from the "no money" stance, perhaps there is a general fund set up through taxpayer money that is distributed equally among all candidates for them to use to create PSMs and/or other forms of advertising. It probably wouldn't amount to much money. Great. Let's see the candidates get creative with whatever they're alloted. Some very excellent independent films have been made on shoestring budgets.

I also believe that every candidate should be required to participate in a series of debates in which the questions are determined by popular vote, not unlike the way I described the candidate selection process above. These questions would be sealed and under the control of a third party, not unlike the way the Oscar results are tabulated and safeguarded by Pricewaterhouse Coopers. Each debate would feature a new series of questions. Candidates may or may not all have to respond to each question. (Might be unfair if someone gets to hear others' answers and have time to prepare. On the other hand, randomization might alleviate that issue.) Regardless, all candidates MUST participate in the debates. Absence means disqualification.

To get really radical, I'd rather we not see the candidates' faces until they're elected. I know that's not possible, but bear with me. I'm not as radical as you think. (Ask my stance on any individual issue and you'd be surprised what you'll hear.)

I'm tired of the limitations. I'm tired of seeing the same issues swing one way, then the other, then back. And frankly, I'm tired of seeing the same white male 50-something faces making it to the final rounds of the presidential election. I've got no problem with white male 50-somethings, mind you. I really, truly don't. I'd just prefer to elect the right PEOPLE for the job, not the same demographic over and over again. We pride ourselves on being the most free, forward-thinking nation on the planet yet, if you're a black woman, you ain't never gonna be president. Never. Does that seem right to you, if that person represented the majority's views most closely?

And no, the electoral college makes no sense. I think, given what I outlined as my opinion, you understand why I say that.

I think that this forum nicely encompasses the views of the majority of Americans, which prompts my confusion on why no senator(s) ever proposed an amendment to end the electoral college (to my knowledge). And even while it may be unlikely that the state conventions ever ratify it, assuming it gets through senate, it seems like it would have been a decent PR move for many senators.

Just a brief comment.

Overturning the "Electorial College" would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Can you imagine the smaller, less populated States voting in favor of the Amendment? Not very likely.

BecomingHuman's comments are a perfect example of the true motivations of many who decry the current system. On the one hand, he finds it "dehumanizing" when a state "majority" trumps the votes of those "that do not concur" (and his candidate looses). On the other hand, I doubt he finds it "dehumanizing" when the exact same thing occurs at the national level (or any level) and his candidate is the winner. He even comes right out and admits that he is "all for" "dehumanization" when California's liberal majorities trump the minority votes of Orange County's conservatives. You gotta love this kind of consistently principled philosophy. His concern for the humanity of minority voters clearly depends on who they vote for.

There is really nothing new here. People rarely want to change the rules of the game as long as they are winning, but are all of the sudden outraged by the "obviously unfair" or "dehumanizing" rules of the game when their side becomes the looser. 'Twas ever thus. We can change the rules over and over and over again, and someone will always cry "foul".

As to "runoff" voting, it still doesn't eliminate "lesser of two evil" outcomes. Some people will still never be satisfied unless/until "their guy" wins. If and/or when third parties (and I am a member of one) can persuade a critical mass of people to listen to their ideas and perhaps even support them, then they will have their day.

Edited to add: I wonder if BecomingHuman and those who dislike the "dehumanizing" nature of the "Electoral" system are equally offended by the fact that each state has two Senators in Congress, regardless of population, giving a tiny (perhaps liberal) state the same power in the Senate as a large (perhaps conservative) state?

I actually meant that as a joke. I'm sorry you missed it, maybe because I didn't put a ( ) or a ( ) next to it. Next time I'll be more careful and put the appropriate smiley face next to my jokes.



Say for instance you had Pat Buchanan, Nader, Kerry and Bush are all running in a run-off election. The two that received the highest votes would go to the presidential "finals" that would ultimately determine the winning candidate. There would be no need to vote for the lesser of two evils at this point, because in the first round, the pressure to win is off. No one would have to pick a candidate that is more likely to win, because in this round there is no winning. When two competitors are eliminated, the other two will go to the finals and compete. Everyone votes for their first (or second) choice and a president is decided. Do you think that the Libertarians are going to vote for Bush in a run-off if they can vote for him the second time around and show their support for their first choice? I highly doubt it.

Having a run-off system would allow people to vote for the person who they like the best instead of the person who is more likely to win.

Edited to add:


Which reminds me, I wonder if Argonaut and those who enjoy the "traditional" aspects of the Electoral system equally enjoy the fact that larger (perhaps conservative) states like Texas are given proportionately fewer electoral points than smaller (perhaps somewhat liberal) states. But, then again, who are any of us to make such speculations?

I believe that the electoral college needs to be changed. Gore had more votes than Bush in the previous election, yet Bush is our president. I was happy, because I am a republican, but it just didn't seem right to have the more popular candidate lose to one significantly less popular over a few votes in Florida.

Also, some of you may remember when Clinton was being elected through the electoral college. One democratic woman abstained because of an issue in which she and Clinton disagreed. That was her opinion, not the opinion of the thousands of people she was representing.

These are two scenarios of flaws in the electoral college system. I believe it does need to be changed, and soon.

I guess I'll take these one by one.


Actually BecomingHuman, I knew that you might be trying to make a joke, but I also know that some people often try to have it both ways (maybe I mean it, maybe I was just kidding), and I also know from conversations with close friends, relatives, and aquaintances that such inconsistently applied political principles and philosophies are far from extraordinary.


You might want to re-examine your logic here. The "pressure to win" is most certainly not "off" as you claim since each candidate is trying to "win" a slot on the final ballot. And do you really believe that Nader or Buchanan (or any other third party candidate) could "win" 50% of the first vote? And why do you restrict your hypothetical to just four candidates? Certainly there are hundreds of candidates representing dozens of ideologies. Why not have perpetual weekly "run-offs" that lead up to the "Final Four"? And then "Final Two"? In the end, we are still faced with choosing the "lesser of two evils".


So what and big deal! It might be Howard Stern or Clarence Thomas that I "like the best" but it doesn't change the fact that neither one is likely to garner majority support so I am still faced with choosing between the "lesser of two evils" on the next vote.


While I neither "enjoy" nor don't "enjoy" the Electoral system (I just recognize it as the current rules of the game and play accordingly)), it is quite revealing that instead of answering my simple question regarding whether or not certain people who dislike our Electoral system of electing a President are also offended by the "dehumanizing" nature of each state's "unequal" Senatorial representation in Congress, BecomingHuman chooses to ignore my question and pose another, the answer to which (on my part anyway) is implicit in my previous comments. While this tactic is completely predictable, I fully support his right to "make such speculations"

I am tired of all you radicals wanting to change the rules put in place by the "Founding Fathers". They were Gods. The 'Status Quo' is fine. I don't know who the members of the Electoral Colege are, but they must be better informed that any of us who post on here. Otherwise, they wouldn't have the jobs, and the law wouldn't stand, right?

The purpose of a General Election, where we get to vote, is for us to register our opinion. One of the "FF" (was it Jefferson?) suggested that they should give consideration to the opinion of the landed gentry when making their decison. Over the years this led to public voting, and eventually for the 'poor', 'blacks', and 'women' getting to vote their "opinion". And opinions are fine.

What I cannot understand is the recent trend of the College to generally agree with the populace. Hell, if I was one of them, I would vote for Brittney Spears. BTW, how can I get on the College? I never see the jobs advertised.

One day, the College will go against the populace, and then the law that allowed this will be "discovered" by the media and a Constitutional Amendment will be passed to allow the peoples' vote to count.

These silly old laws written by people centuries ago will only go away when they are proved to be as silly as they are. During the 70's, the Australian government was brought down when somebody invoked a forgotten law written by an earlier ruling British monarch. It was then written out of their constitution immediately afterwards. Do we really have to wait for the disaster first?

Al Gore won only 676 of 2,436 counties nationwide. Bush's counties covered 2.4 million square miles. Gore's : less than 600,000 sq. miles. Yet Gore won the popular vote.

It is pretty clear that if the only consideration was raw popular vote, millions of voters would not get a second glance. Campaigning would be concentrated on a mere handful of big cities, almost guaranteed.

2000 Election: county by county results

But what if the most populated states don't have that many people voting? I was looking through the 2003 almanac and it looks like out of the total population of Texas, which is 21 million as of 2001 (Link: Texas Population), only 6 or 7 million voted in the 2000 elections. Another link on number of voters by state in 2000. Let's also take California. With a population 34 million as of 2001, only 10 or 11 million voted in 2000.

So i really don't think the bigger states would have that much influence

It is time for America to stop choosing its president by an archaic, confusing, and undemocratic method. As the 2000 election has shown, using the Electoral College lets a candidate win the presidency even if a larger number of voters prefer -- and vote for -- someone else. Al Gore, who leads in the popular vote, did not have an absolute majority; but even if he had, he would not have been elected unless he won Florida by at least one vote.

It is claimed that the Electoral College helps small states. This is a pragmatic argument, not a principled one. Small states will never accept direct elections, we are told, so an amendment will not be able to win the required approval of 3/4ths of the states, and we should not waste our time trying. This is just plain wrong. Under the Electoral College system, small states are ignored. With direct elections, a vote in Wyoming and a vote in California have exactly the same value; but under the Electoral College system, a vote in California is worth as much as 15 votes in Wyoming -- so candidates conclude that campaigning in Wyoming would be a waste of time.

So in other words, use the total number of votes casted (popular vote) instead of some screwed up system.

...where most of the PEOPLE are located. What's wrong with this? Who cares about square feet? I really have trouble understanding this. In a representative democracy, shouldn't the elected officials be representing the PEOPLE? Is there really no problem with the majority of the country having no say in how the president gets elected?

America should keep its electoral process. Why? Because we live in a republic made up of states. Some states are small, others are big, some have lots of people, some don't. How do you best represent such a diverse country? The founding fathers decided a federal senate was necessary in addition to a house to best represent the little guys who would have almost no voice in the federal legislative process. So, if we abolish the electoral process which exists for the same reasons as the senate, let's also abolish the senate. And while we're abolishing the senate, let's abolish state governments all together because the small states now have very little voice on federal matters. This way we can have one central monarch like government to handle all the countries problems. And then we can change the name of the country to "The People's Republic Of America." Sounds like a plan to me.

Aye then, fair enough. My comment was, therefore, not a perfect example because it was made in jest. Please do not apply your anecdotal evidence in every case involving a person who is dissatisfied with our electoral process.



Yes, but a failed candidate in a run-off election would not automatically signal an enemy in the white house. The way the system stands now, many liberals will not vote for Nader simply because they cannot afford to lose this election to Bush. In a run-off election, they could vote for Nader, and if he eventually failed, vote for Kerry the second time around. The pressure to win is off in the sense that the winner does not take the white house. Surely, taking the white house is a lot more pressure than getting on the final ballot. I would bet that using this system, third parties would get more votes.

Regarding how such an election would be run, I assume that it could be done in a timely and responsible manner. Considering that our current election has already kicked into high gear 8 months ahead of time, having weekly run-offs might save us some time! Admittedly, coming down to the final two would still leave people who would have to vote for the lesser evil. However, those two would have actually worked there way through all of the other possible candidates. Unlike our current system, in which third parties aren't addressed, they're ignored.



Certainly, people like me don't vote for Kerry because we like him. I would have loved the opportunity to vote for someone like McCain. If Nader were running in a run-off, many liberals would jump ship and vote for him because they have nothing to lose. They can always vote for their second choice another time around. Even if Howard Stern won't get elected, he is sure to get more votes in a run-off than in a presidential election.



Forgive me then, I thought your question was rhetorical.


No, equal representation in congress reflects federalism. On a national ticket, however, it seems that every citizen having an equal say in who represents us on a national level is warranted. If this is all about states rights, then why are people in some states worth less than people in other states?


I certainly wouldn't want to give anyone a wrong impression of you. It isn't my place to do so.

IIRC, there have been 2 elections in US history in which the popular and electoral vote went different ways. In the last one (I'm not sure about the first), it was a razor-thin difference.

So a solid reason for changing it (or keeping it) would have to be based on: a) it matters because of these few cases; or, B ) it's been few so far but it's going to be a lot more; or, it matters for some reason other than who gets elected.

a -- can't think why. Popular opinion isn't _that_ stable. If somebody gets 49% of the vote given to the top 2 candidates, he isn't an outlier drastically out of tune with the wishes of the electorate.

b -- based on past history, of course, this isn't true; I'd want evidence

c -- it would have to be this. This could be legion, but this is what I've heard so far:

* It's disrespectful to Texans and Californians that their votes matter less in numeric terms than those of Idahoans or Alaskans, although candidates try to woo TX and CA and rarely consider the wishes of ID and AK residents.
* The electoral college prevents someone overwhelmingly popular in one (greater) part of the country but detested or ignored in another from winning; overwhelming popularity in some states isn't enough -- you have to be popular in a variety of states. This could prevent civil war. ...but it didn't. What about other countries, that don't have an electoral college. Are they unstable? Japan? UK?
* Urban voters could be courted and rural voters ignored. True: but isn't that already possible? It came close to putting Gore in the White House anyway -- so close that the College would offer poor protection.

What other reasons?

There have been four, get your facts straight.

That's not true. It happened in 1888 (Harrison-Cleveland) I believe. And it happened in 2000. You'd have to cite the other instances.

I generally agree with the well-stated consensus already existing on the debate: keep the electoral college. I just wanted to add my 2-cents in--which is, I believe the electoral college reflects the nature of the United States--and that is we are electing the President of the United STATES not the President of the People. It is a good thing, that I believe protects us from an excess of democracy--or from a mandate being given to a President. Argh...I jsut scared myself by imagining Bush having a mandate of the popular vote.

What the hell, I'll have another go at this one...

The Electoral College is completely screwed up for many reasons.

First off, the Electors in each state are not constitutionally obligated to cast their vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. Their have been numerous occasions where electors have voted against the popular vote of their state. This has occured as recently as 1988.

Second, as a candidate, you only need to win select states to win the election.

As Amlord pointed out before this thread died...



Thats the problem now.

You won't find candidates campaigning in Wyoming because they'll be in California where there's so muany more electoral votes. Not to mention, to win some states all you need do is win a few major cities, which is unfair to those who live outside of them. Look at NY in 2000. Gore won NYC and all you need do is win a few small counties and you've won New York. And you didn't have to go much further beyond Manhattan.

The Electoral College does not appriciate 3rd Party votes either, so good luck voting your conscience.

The Electoral College puts the spotlight on a handful of states while others are left in the dark when it comes to candidates campaigns. If you're worried about deforestation in Wyoming or the Dakotas, tough. You'll have to watch candidates pander to those worried about things in states like New York and Texas.

The Electoral College keeps alive an archaic idea that the common man has no clue about anything that has to do with politics.

And it defeats the basic idea of democracy itself, best summarized in a catchphrase we so often chant when the rights of others around the world are in peril...

"One man, one vote."

....Except in America.

I have entertained the idea of changing the current system. It seems to me that the electoral college was designed to guarantee the smaller states have a say. the problem is that we have out grown the current system to the point that there is now a discernable flyover country. In my opinion we could change the system to break the country down into one vote per county. There are 3100 counties in the US at this time, this will take away the advantage urban areas have leading there respective states. And place the control back where it belongs with the people. This will only be temporary, as new strategies will eventually be developed to reach the right areas, but we will disarm the controlling party because there will be no advantage during redistricting. The 2000 race would have been a land slide for President Bush. But this would not always be the case.



IMG:Map

devobill, you're plan merely changes the granularity of our current first-past-the post system, and does nothing to correct it's problems. For the record, I voted for Bush in 2000. Nebraska & Maine currently allot their votes by congressional district (which does allow for gerrymandering).

Looking at your map, Area & Growth have nothing to do with democracy. I would also say that the population of politically-defined area don't either. One person, one vote, it's a pretty simple concept.

Within our current constitution, I would recommend that states apportion their alloted electoral votes proportionally to the population that voted for each candidate. Colorado has a proposition for this.

Ideally, nationally, I'd like a Concordet / Ranked-Pairs popular election for president, however this would require a constitutional amendment. This would have each voter list the candidates he supports, in his order of preference, and then compares each pair of candidates to find the most supported one. It would not be necessary for voters to list more than one candidate.

More realistically, I'd like more and more popular understanding of electoral methods, such that localites institute proportional representation in local elections, and other localities pick up the idea, eventually causing a state to implement them, etc. etc. etc.

The fact is that the states can select electoral votes in any manner that they want.
The number of electorial votes allocated to each state is equal to the number of Representatives and Senators. Therefore, all we have to do to increase the total number Electorial votes is to increase the number of Representatives in the House to lets's say--about 1,000 (the exact number is not set in the constitution); then convince each state to allocate their Electorial votes proportionately or per-district.

Should America continue with the electoral college?


No, I prefer a system were canidates have to go campaign in smaller states like West Virginia and South Dakota rather than the East and West coast exclusively





Should America adopt a new type of election altogether?

No, unless we go back to the original idea of having the vice president be the runner up in the election. It would make interesting television and political drama if nothing else

The American Population generally neither understands what they are actually voting for nor what their candidates of choice really stand/have stood for.

The reality is that most people that find their way to the voting booth make their decisions soley upon what they've heard on 30 second commercials, in church, from their family, and at the barbershop.

The complete lack of American objectivity in reference to voting is the reason that the electoral college is necessary. Most people that you meet on the street have a polarized opinion, both liberals and conservatives alike. However, if you ask why people are so enthusiastic for their respective candidates, all you generally get is rhetoric and regurgitated excerpts from the 7:00 news.

I find it amazing that people have such strong opinions about politics, when in most cases, they understand little or nothing about the topic. I tend to make the analogy that I generally have no specific opinion on the question of Dell vs. Gateway. This is obviously because I don't know why one PC is superior to the other. People cite economic stats that they don't understand, discuss the war that congress voted on, and spew more unfounded rhetoric than a Micheal Moore film. Would you want someone coming to your house to sell you a PC that didn't know anything about computers??? Well... this is essentially what happens with the popular vote on presidential elections. The neighbor tells you what they think, an ad shows on the tube, and all of a sudden you've formed an opinion. Scary if you ask me...

This doesn't even take into account the fact that many African-Americans (that term bothers me... why can't they just be Americans?) vote solely based upon the idea that the GOP doesn't identify with minority issues. What?

The bottom line is that the electoral college is an institution that protects Americans from themselves.

How so? I don't think there has been a case in recent history where a member of the electoral college has been sent to vote and they have thought about that vote and cast it for the other candidate - the electoral college is a rubber stamp! If the democrats win a state people are sent to vote for the deomcratic candidate and if the republicans win a different set of people are sent to vote for the republican candidate.

In my opinion this does absolutely nothing to insulate the voting public from the actual process of electing the president except it consolidates their votes in a manner that I feel is inappropriate.

Should America continue with the electoral college?
I think that the concept of the electoral college is fine, but the way in which people are sent to vote for the president needs to change. As a recent example, Colorado is considering (and I don't know the status) an amendment to their constitution which would allow the state to split its electoral vote based on the popular vote from various districts.

To me that seems like an extension of Democracy compared to our current system. You constantly hear people that live either in a solid red or blue state say things like "I'm not going to vote, it won't count anyway" and that is completely wrong and needs to be fixed. What should happen is the state should allocate a fraction of its electoral votes depending on how the popular vote comes out. This would give people voices in solid red or blue states and probably more importantly it would allow third parties and independents to stand a chance in a national election.

I can't see anything wrong with giving Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California a voice in who is elected president or for that matter people in all states the ability to send a few electoral votes to someone like Ralph Nader without requiring him to win an entire state.

Furthermore, personally I am tired of the candidates focusing on issues in places like Ohio, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, etc. I don't live there and the problems people in those states have are vastly different than the problems in California. If you live in a solid red or blue state then the opposing candidate completely ignores you because he knows he won't gain any ground and the candidate you support ignores you also because he knows he has your vote in the bag. And no offense to people that live in battleground states, but frankly I don't care what your problems are because often they have zero impact on me and my state.

If candidates had to fight for every electoral vote out there and they couldn't make large assumptions about red states and blue states then I think you'd see a couple of things happen. First, the policies of each candidate would have to be more moderate and defined which in my opinion would be a good thing. Second, the candidates would have to actually focus on the issues and the game of politics would change. Finally, it would allow third parties to have a voice in how things are run because for the first time they might have a chance to win a few votes.

In the end, all of this would benefit the country as a whole and strengthen our democracy.

This is, to me, the real problem--and what might eventually drive some change into the system. For all intents and purposes, our election will be decided by a select few states. As CJ describes, that isn't really democracy.

However, eliminating the electoral college wouldn't address that problem--those states that are solid red or blue still wouldn't get much attention, since the number of undecided voters there still wouldn't be worth pursuing. Further, it would place the emphasis on larger metropolitan areas, since that's where the most voters are, and therefore where candidates could get the most bang for their buck.

I don't really see the problem with this, it has been brought up more than once in this thread... Shouldn't the candidates be campaiging mostly where the largest concentration of voters are? What's the problem with that? That makes democratic sense to me. Granted rural people have different issues than Urban people, but only an idiotic presidential candidate wouldn't try to address those issues as well, but why does the campaigning have to be done in rural areas?

Isn't it the same for all the people who live in rural states who live in Blue or Red states? Is it worth continuing on this faulty system so that people in 1/5 of our total states have more access to the candidates? I take cities any day over the a random assortment of 10 states (None of which are on the West Coast this year).

Just because people want to live in Urban areas where the ideology of handouts is the rule, Why should they dictate the policy when the majority of people live in the rural setting? The areas of representation need to be smaller, back to the 20,000 per congressman as they were discussed during the founding.

How are urban areas associated with the ideology that handouts rule? My, my stereotypes are certainly coming out. I seem to remember that almost every farmer in America gets significant subsidies from the government in order to allow them to live, do business and compete with foreign crops. According to the Washington Times this is into the billions:

The amount spent on other forms of social welfare is close, but you are incorrect in making it sound like urban areas are the only ones getting handouts - the numbers are roughly equivalent dollar wise, but as far as the number of people getting them fewer farmers get more money each year.

Turning this into an urban areas vs. rural areas thing isn't the right answer either. As I said in my post above, the right answer is proportional electoral votes. This would force both candidates to go after portions of all 50 states instead of concentrating on 10 or 12 and banking on votes from everyone else.

One immediate election reform that is needed is that we must get the illegal aliens off of the voter files. There are now 12-15 million illegal aliens in the US and another 3 million are expected in the next year.

There are efforts in AZ and NC to get them off of the voter files, but some powerful political groups are pushing to have illegal aliens registered and participating illegally in elections.

Kind Regards,

William Gheen
President, Americans for Legal Immigration (ALI-PAC)
http://www.ALIpac.us

I guess so, Not everyone in the ruarl's is a farmer.

Handing monies corporations of any type is not good.

We need to have smaller areas of representation. Along with that should come a larger field of electoral votes. If you look at the link to the map I posted a few back, It is certainly Urban vs Rual for the 2000 and i'll bet you its that way every election.

Should America continue with the electoral college?

Its undemocratic. I'd scrap it.


Should America adopt a new type of election altogether?

Yes... but to what? Which democratic system would work best? In Denmark we have the proportional representational system and it works very well for us, but America is considerably larger than Denmark so how would you guarantee equality and democracy?

I personally think that the same choice between the same two parties every fourth year is no choice at all.

There are many other colours than just red or blue!

I think that, practically, a constitutional amendment is out of the question; it's up to the states to choose how to elect their representatives and assign their electoral votes. Proportional allocation of electoral votes for Presidential elections is pretty close to optimum, should individual states elect to do so.

Election of congressional representatives can also easily be more proportional: half elected by (a twice as large) congressional district and half elected proportionally, or even better, all elected proportionally. It's up to the states to do this.

Election of Senators is tougher, with each senator generally elected in his own year, though IRV, Concordet, or Ranked-Pairs would assure more breadth of support. Again, it's up to the states to do this.

Changing the electoral process takes power away from the people who have it, and is therefore inherently difficult. The method to use is grassroots efforts, beginning at local level elections, so that more an more people become familiar with methods other than first-past-the-post winner take all.

No, simply, the candidate who receives the most votes should be president. That's the essence of democracy. I also don't know what the big deal is about candidates campaigning in rural areas. Does having a candidate visit your town or state really mean much? I don't get it.

CP

In this day and age, I don't think its the campaigning itself that is the issue...it's the fact that if you're not campaigning there, neither are you likely to be focused on that area's issues. Giveaways to Montanans don't tend to excite Ohioans very much




Yes, I too find the degree to which the two-party system is ingrained into our system to be somewhere between undemocratic and unconstitutional. I would be interested in knowing exactly how it came to be that way....where is a historian when you need one ?

The problem with the 'the candidate who gets the most votes winning' or first-past-the-post elections, is there are more than 2 viable candidates, (or even if there are only two viable candidates) the winner can be someone who has less than a majority of the votes: Candidate A could get 45% of the votes, candidate B could get 40% of the votes and Candidate C could get 15% of the votes.

In first past the post elections, Candidate A would be elected, but would not represent 55% of the voters wishes.

This leads to poor voter turnout and lessening of democracy. It also tends to create 2 party systems, which then end up representing the vocal minorities (of each end of the political spectrums) rather than the more moderate middle ground. It particularly caters to vocal and wealthy interests who can make campaign donations and advocacy ads in favor of the candidates, reducing democracy even further.

Winner take all first past the post elections are part of our cultural heritage, as Anglo-Saxon, robert's rules of order, colonies of England. They are not necessarily the only way to elect someone, and certainly not the 'best' if the goal of the election is to choose someone who represent's the electorate's will.

Assuming that democracy is a good thing, and I do, other forms of election are more democratic. They are not necessarily more Republican or Democratic. They would allow parties to more faithfully represent their constituents' ideals: such a move would probably eventually cause the two existing parties to splinter off their more extreme view: The Republicans would probably lose members to Fundamentalist Christian parties, and to Libertarian parties; while the Democrats would probably lose members to the Green Party and the Progressive Party. The majority of voters would probably still tend to vote for the R's & D's, but these parties would probably be more centrist than they are now. Coalitions of parties would form over certain issues, and would change from issue to issue.

For those of you really interested in election methods, this is my favorite: Ranked Pair Voting.

Keep it.

#1- We are NOT a democracy. Democracies are terrible systems open to easy demagogy and tyranny of the majority.

#2- It should be winner take all per state in the EC to KEEP it as a two party system.

#3- If we had more than one party we would see presidents elected with less than 20% of the popular vote and if you think that presidents don’t win with the "bulk" of popular support NOW, what do you think will happen when we have 10 different parties with national support!!??

#4- We should ALSO get RID of the 17th Amendment. Directly electing the Senate is a huge mistake that has materially altered the make up of our government and NOT for the better.

cogito ergo sum



Well, if your not a democracy then its no wonder your nation is plagued by voter apathy.
What exactly is America if its not a democracy?




Then you would have coalition governments which are forced to co-operate with each other to maintain a majority like we have in Denmark. Your politicians would no longer be fighting each other tooth and nail as we see now because they would have plenty of opportunities to influence the government as junior partners in the government.

Even in opposotion they'd have more influence since a PR system encourages cross party politics.

I'm actually almost in agreement with CES, on the senate.

When we formed this country, each house member represented 30,000 people. Now its 10 times that. What if we allowed each congressional district to elect 10 congressment (through proportional representation, of course) and then had each state's delegation elect the senate members.

More realistically, I prefer more local and state control over government, and feel that the federal government should be more strictly limited by the 10th amendment.

As for other election methods electing presidents with 20% of the popular vote, we currently have a system where people vote for the lesser of two evils, juse because a president recieved 48% of the popular vote doesn't mean that all those people would have voted for him, had they a viable alternative.

Concordet elections ensure victors with a broad appeal, namely they elect the candidate that the most people preferred over each other candidate.

Should America Change its Electoral Process?

I am new here but I would like to add my thoughts.

If each state would count it's votes and turn them into percentages we would be fine.

Say Missouri. turned in these percentages 1) 45%, 2) 51%, 3) 4%

Illinois turned in these percentages 1) 48%, 2) 47%, 3) 5%

and so on.

Then after all the States were in, you would simply average the totals for all 50 States per candidate. You would not need a Representative and certainly not multiple ones. The Candidate with the highest Average wins.

Simple as that.

So if only 12% of Texans vote Democrat, thier vote will still count when it was averaged into the the rest of the States. Instead of Saying that 88% of Texans voted Republican and having the Electorals vote 100% Republican. Every vote counts.

The advantage to this system is that All states matter equally regardless of population.
Thought?

The advantage to this system is that All states matter equally regardless of population.
Thought?

That means one vote in Wyoming is more than 70 times as valuable as one vote in California. The electoral college currently gives an advantage to smaller states, but not nearly this much (3 WY to 1 CA), and really only comes into play if the state is a 'battleground' state.

Also, it would require a constitutional amendment.

To help make the electoral votes more representative of population, the total number of congressional representatives would have to be increased. I think it should be increased and fixed at 1,000.

Edited to add: in the meantime, I hope we all follow CO's lead (see AM's post below). Good luck Colorado!

Colorado gets to decide on going with straight percentages when divying up EC votes this Election Day. I'm all for it. My vote will finally count.

The argument that we are a union of states and that each state has a distinct voice does not make sense. Sorry, the voice of Colorado is actually a chorus of voices. The present winner-take-all system promotes the illusion of a single voice, but it is only an illusion.

The argument that Colorado won't get any attention from traveling campaign shows is true. So what? A handful of our people attend such dog and ponies, and they tend to be the decided voters.

The argument that we are not a democracy has some truth to it. We elect representatives to make law, and who got to vote was tightly restricted when this country first started. Since the foundation, who gets to vote has been expanded to women and racial minorities, and more toward the average citizen, away from the landholding wealthy class.

Come this November, I am casting my one person one vote to expand my personal vote into the game of electing a President. This empowers me. It helps to make my country what it claims to be. Win or lose on this issue, my vote will count, and that my friends is the way America is supposed to be.

One day I hope to see it arrive. I'll be very happy if Colorado decides to become a democracy with its voters while remaining a republic with its law making.

If I understand this correctly, you're proposing that each state gets 100 electoral votes, expressed as percentages, divided among the candidates. You wouldn't really need an average, as you could use the present system, altering it for proportional electors like the way it is now in Maine, and increasing the nationwide total to 5000 -- with 2501 required to win the electoral vote. This, however, does not take into consideration the relative populations of each state. As SWM28WDC pointed out, a vote in a less populous state would carry more weight than a vote in a more populous state, increasing the relative strength of less populous states, and, in my opinion, worsening the situation.

We have freedom of movement in this country; we can settle in any state we wish and then move again without a passport or other kinds of travel papers. Why should it make a difference in which state I live when it comes to tallying my vote for president? This is the real problem behind the electoral college. Depending on where I live, my vote is counted differently.

How does the electoral college give an advantage to small states exactly? The number of EC votes is based on state population, so clearly a state like California has a much bigger vote than some place like Wyoming.

Were you talking about the EC giving an advantage to battleground states instead?