And yes…the person in Montana has a vote that weighs more than years but to what effect? Montana has 3 Electoral Votes. Florida has 27. It’s like complaining that people in Montana have a better chance to win a state lottery that nets them $100 to your lower chance of winning $10,000 once every four years.
Rather than toss the EC the only change that might be worthy is to make sure each EC vote is proportional across all the states (of course there will always be some where a voter has a tad more or less power simply due to rounding issues but it could be closer).
Say we had 3 states; state A with a population of 15,000; state B with a population of 20,000; and state C with a population of 30,000; total population 65,000.
We could use an EC with 100 electors and assign state A a proportion of 23 EVs; state B a proportion of 31 EVs; and state C a proportion of 46 EVs. But why? What’s the point if we’re just assigning EVs proportionally based on population? If we’re going to break it down that way, let’s just use 65,000 EVs – one for each vote.
Bob wins state A with 7,501 votes; wins state B with 10,001 votes. Joe wins state C with 30,000 votes.
Bob wins an EV election with 54 EVs, but loses a PV election with only 27% of the vote. How are the interests of the majority of the country protected under this system?
So, a President who ran on a platform that all African Americans should be denied the right to vote or any other benefits of society is fine by you because the President cannot really do anything? 80% of the US is white (cite) so all that candidate needs to do is pander to the white vote and every other minority is SOL. But no biggie because something else will protect them. :rolleyes:
For the sake of argument, what about taking steps to make the EC an actual deliberative body? Have the voters select local electors to represent a district and vote their conscience, instead of the party line.
I think you very much underestimate the problem of a tyranny of the majority which can be a real problem in a democracy. It is worthwhile to make sure the big cities do not overwhelm the interests of the little cities, or one race over another or one religion over another or what-have-you.
How is this any different from what goes on in local elections? Prop 8 in California, for example, will severly limit the rights afforded to gays and lesbians. And while I disagree with it, if 80% of the voters in California agree with it, then it should pass.
Again, assuming that you get a majority behind you for something like that, then I think it’s a fair system. If 80% of people truly believed that African Americans should be denied the right to vote, why does the other 20% get to speak up even louder to denounce it? Because it’s right? By whose standards? That 20%?
A “tyranny of the majority”? I fail to see how a tyranny exists if it caters to the will of the majority. It’s worthwhile, instead, to make sure that the interests of the big cities are kept to a local level and would not conflict with the interest of the little cities. Rather than have so many decisions made at a federal level, they should be removed to localities. Let city A decide what’s right for themselves, smaller city B for themselves, etc. Every special interest group doesn’t need a handicap. If you start giving that 20% a louder voice, why not a group of 10%? 5%? Where do you draw the line?
I think that was the notion the Founding Fathers originally had. Since then it has changed. IIRC around have the states have “Faithless Elector” laws which stipulate an elector MUST cast his/her vote for the person they were elected to do so for. I think Maine allows for a split (proportional) EC vote but not sure.
Generally in this day and age I would think electors overriding the will of the electorate would cause a colossal stink. So electors are chosen to be sure they vote who the voters wanted them to vote for. That of course is their party line but it is supposed to be in this case.
Err…how about Serbian (the majority) oppression in the former Yugoslavia. A few hundred thousand dead, millions of refugees but it is all ok because it was the will of the majority. :rolleyes:
The situation in Serbia is much different than the situation here. Our government and society is much different from that in Serbia. The two situations are inequitable. Then again, I thought we were discussing abolishing the Electoral College in the US; not Serbian oppression.
No, that wouldn’t be fine by me. I would be against such a scumbag. But there’s a difference between disliking an outcome and finding something wrong with the system. I don’t like the Dallas Cowboys, for example, but I don’t want the NFL to change the rules to keep them from winning.
But they do help the underdog in football by granting them better draft picks. The system is skewed to help the bad teams so one team does not become forever dominant.
The implication there is that it’s a bad thing for one team to be forever dominant. If you have to handicap the system, it’s no longer a fair system. If one team expends the time and energy into drafting the right guys, practicing, and working on strategy, why should another team get a handout just because they suck?
You were putting forth the notion that the majority should dominate. If the majority wants X to happen then X happens. Nevermind if it lands especially heavily on one group or another.
The Founding Fathers explicitly repudiated this. They wanted at least a base level of equality to dominate so the majority did not trample the rights of a minority.
While Yugoslavia is certainly different the US ignoring other examples where a majority gains undue power is silly. It is a cleat illustrative example where your notion that the majority should get its way is provably wrong.
The EC is one method that helps ensure candidates must moderate and appeal to a broader audience. They cannot simply be the “White Party” candidate and because there are more white people win. Screw everyone else.
Well…this unfair system is one that the football owners all agree to. Probably because they know it is NOT in their best interests to see one team forever dominant because they have more money because they keep winning. Football itself is advanced as a sport when people know that despite their team having a bad year they could be good next year. Keeps them going to the games which keeps money rolling in. If everyone stopped watching because each season was a foregone conclusion that the Cowboys would win that would be bad for football.
So too with the EC. It keeps things mixed up a bit more than sending the message that (say) White people will win. Period. Don’t bother going to the polls if you are any other race because it will not matter.
Just wanted to point out that the ‘winner takes all’ aspect of the electoral college is not mandated - each state gets to choose the manner in which they award their EC delegates, and not all do it as winner takes the whole state’s EC tally. But by choosing to, states make more attractive targets for politicians since they get a bigger piece of pie for their efforts.
I’m in favor of keeping the EC but awarding it by congressional district takes all rather than state takes all. Unfortunately I think each state would have to decide to do this. I’m not sure if the federal government is allowed to tell the states how to award their EC tallies. I’m also not sure how to solve the problem of catering to urban areas that would ensue.
This is not so. A candidate only needs to be popular in certain geographical areas in order to gain the presidency. This is not idle speculation. Lincoln won in 1860 with no support in the South.
Well, for the most part, yeah. I have every right to disagree with the majority, but I respect the principle. I firmly, 100% believe in No on Prop 8, and would actively work to oppose it. If it passed with a majority vote, though, then the system works, and so be it. I hate it, but I can accept it. And if it infringes on me, I can go elsewhere.
Example? Although I’m a damn liberal, had the 2000 election turned out backwards with Gore winning the EC and Bush winning the PV, I’d find it unfair, as well. Again, provably wrong by whose standards? The minority?
Or knowing that he must secure the majority of the vote, the candidate must moderate and appeal to a broad audience. Do you really think a candidate running on a “White Party” platform would be successful today? And though it’s an extreme example, and as unlikely as I think something so polarizing would happen today, I can’t say I disagree with the foundation of majority rule. Again, I just don’t think that the standards or morals of my fellow 20% should interfere with the changes 80% want to make.
I’m not understanding how this translates into the necessity of an EC. Rather, the opposite. Under the EC, you send the message of – don’t bother going to the polls if you support the Black candidate, because you live in Alabama, and your vote won’t mean a thing.
Whereas in a national popular vote, you send the message that everyone should go to the poll–doesn’t matter if your state prefers the White party, because your vote will count just as much as someone in a state that prefers the Black party.
People keep saying if their guy cannot win then their vote does not count.
Well…without the EC you could easily get the same thing. If you are not part of the majority (however they are comprised) then your vote does not count, you cannot win, your issues will not be heard.
As noted in my Madison quote above his method for controlling the tyranny of the majority is making it hard for a majority to form. I have been using “White People” as an illustration but of course that is hopelessly broad for reality. White people divide along all sorts of lines.
However, someway, somehow, history has shown a majority of some sort would likely form. Once they are in power and start controlling the show they will consolidate power to be sure they keep it (as was shown in Yugoslavia as an example). If you are on the outside of whatever that majority is you are screwed under your preferred system.
Again, a founding principle of the US was to ensure freedom for all its citizens. Not just the citizens in the majority. I personally prefer that design to your majority rules no matter what…to hell with everyone else.