One potential problem I can foresee with allocating electoral votes on a proportional basis is the greater possibility of a third party candidate throwing the election into the House of Reps. In 1996 Clinton, under most proportionality schemes, probably would have squeaked thru with 49% of the popular vote, but in 1992 when he got only 40% it most likely would have had to go to the House.
nebuli - true. And it would’ve happened in 1968, and we would’ve sweated it in 1980.
It’s a tradeoff, of course, but I’d personally be willing to run the risk of tossing the race into the House in order to give third parties a little more clout, i.e. showing up in the electoral vote totals. We’ve had Democrats and Republicans as the only viable choices far too long. A little more fluidity in our political system would go a long way.
John - actually, I was going to get around to specifically arguing against Congressional districts, due to the Congress’ great job of making as many districts as possible into ‘safe’ districts for one party or the other, aiding individual congressional careers at the cost of the health of our political system. Such districts, in all likelihood, would vote exactly the way they were drawn to vote. Hence straight proportional representation, regardless of where in the state the votes come from.
I think you lack imagination.
My point here is firstly that there are not as many contentious issues as people think there are, and second that the pluralities are not as large as people think they are. Yet you end up with different laws. You can hardly say that because one state has a law that another doesn’t that everyone, or even most people in that state agree with the law. This does not mean that diversity does not exist, of course it does.
The reason I think you lack imagination is because there is a different way of managing diversity. Take for example a large corporation. They have many divisions, making different products, selling in different markets all over the world. Different problems, different customers, different incentives. Nonetheless, they manage the entire affair with a beauracracy that reports to a relatively small number of executives that report to a board of directors. You can apply this model to the united states, where the board is congress, the executives are the governors, mayors etc. and you do away with all the extra committees and legislatures. Each regional (state, county, city) executive is still responsible for a budget, they still have operational goals to meet, and they get to determine to a varying degree how they will meet them.
However, everyone benefits from a shared infrastructure that is a big part of the reason that so many companies merge: the same communication system (intranet, email, private phone network etc), the same support system, the same processes etc. The tiny little DMV in Nowhereville, Nebraska could have a sophisticated 3-tier client server system that helps them run far more efficiently than any system they could afford on their own. This same branch may also benefit from a process that was developed with million dollar consultants - by spreading the process and its costs over the entire gorvernment everyone benefits, and the cost is practically nothing.
What corporate branch gets together and votes on the price they will charge? They may well charge a different price than their other branches, but it will not be determined in committee! It will be determined with a standard process/formula that takes into account the demographic data of the region. Government can work the same way.
Several quick points:
One, we are too quick to assume the House of Representatives will choose in an undecided election. An amendment modifying or abolishing the Electoral College could also set another way of settling an indecisive election.
Two, why do we assume that a national recount would be necessary in a close popular election? One might provide that the vote stands unless fraud is alleged.
Three, “running the government like a business” is a longtime metaphor that better men than I have pointed out the foibles in. Konrad, it’s a nice thought but does not stand up well to scrutiny. Just as a quick example, any well-run business tries to take in as much money as possible without losing its clients. If an unregulated monopoly, the sky is the limit. Insert that idea into your parallel.
Thanks, Rick – I think! :o
“Get your erroneous factoids here! Urban Legends “R” Us has a great stock of new information on UFOs, cryptobiology, genethliacal astrological forecasts, and anything you might wish were true. Just call 1-800-POLYCARP – Visa, MasterCard, and American Express gladly accepted!” :eek:
Uhm, the government doesn’t try to make money, so I’m not really sure how to apply that. I’m not arguing in favor of a market-driven government, which is what you seem to be talking about. I’m talking about management strategy.
Polycarp said:
Well, there’s the fact that recounts seem de rigeur in close local elections. That, and if I lost the Presidency by 100,000 votes out of 100,000,000, I’d be shouting fraud and demanding a recount no matter how unlikely I thought true fraud was.
JMCJ
Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.
And again someone who doesn’t really know about the differences from state to state shows their ignorance.
California and Louisiana are worlds apart, driven by different economies, suffering from differing social ills, and hardly in any way interested in being each other. I am willing to bet that most Louisianans would shudder at some of what California is suffering through; I can guarantee having lived in California that almost no one there would want to deal with Louisiana’s issues and problems.
I have lived in four very diverse sections of the country at one time or another. Having fled California, where the people seem unwilling to fund the social solutions they demand, I now live in Ohio, where people understand still that things like education are important, and need to be properly funded. Do I give up something for this? Yes; I give up some personal freedom, and I give up a certain je ne sais quoi that comes with knowing in California that people are less likely to judge you as being bad because you are different.
Many states in the Union maintain quite a bit of diversity from their brethren. Nevada still is the only state that relies entirely on the gambling industry to support its economy. New Mexico recognizes its Hispanic heritage by constitutionally allowing spanish-speaking jurors (imagine the furor elsewhere!). Some states cater to fiercely independant lifestyles; others understand the need to address their teeming millions. In all these states there are vast differences in approach and result politically, socially, and economically.
We remain, and hopefully shall always remain, “these United States”.
It had been my understanding that the Electorl College was concocted by Alexander Hamilton–whose personal conviction was that only the rich and well-born should rule. In fact, to give Hamilton his due, at this time the general electorate was mostly uninformed about who would be the best candidate for President.
Now, of course, the problem is, that to achieve the electoral majority of 270 votes, a candidate would only need to win the larger states, such as California, New York, Illinois, and Texas, and with the winner-take-all rule (not in the Constitution anywhere), this could be achieved with about 35 million votes–when the country’s total population is about 250 million.
When I have brought this point up, those who object seem to base their position on the notion that “we the people” means “we the states,” and the states have first priority in any consideration of who is entitled to vote for president.
I gave the example of these two states precisely because they are as different as any two states in the union are. However, the daily lives of the average citizen of these states are not significantly different. Product demographics are not significantly different either. If you seriously moved away from california because “people seem unwilling to fund the social solutions they demand” (I’m surprised to learn that it is only in California where people want something for nothing)then you are a great deal more reactionary than the typical American - and I’m not talking about you.
dougie_monty:
In order to win the election with the barest minimum in states, you would need to take:
California (54)
New York (33) 87
Texas (32) 119
Florida (25) 144
Pennsylvania (23) 167
Illinois (22) 189
Ohio (21) 210
Michigan (18) 228
New Jersey (15) 243
North Carolina (14) 257
Virginia (13) 270
The total population of these 11 states is:
approximately 142,800,000 (www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004986.html).
50% of that is 71,400,000 (twice the ‘35 million’ you stated). Out of approximately 250,000,000 means 28.5%; but that supposes that our ‘winner’ wins but a slim majority in each major state, and doesn’t receive a single vote in any other state. If you assume that our winning candidate actually carries 20% across the board in the other states (which is giving very little- while the District of Columbia generally votes 80-90% Democrat, the only other electoral entity I know of that has given such overwhelming numbers to a major candidate was Mississippi giving 80% to Richard Nixon in 1972), then our ‘bare-minimum’ winner received another 37.5 million votes for a total of 106.9, or 42% of the vote. 42% for our extreme case of a bare minimum victory in the major states, and only 20% of the vote in all of the rest of the states.
As for Hamilton and the general populace- your statement makes it sound like Hamilton was a solitary elitist who single-handedly removed democracy from the American system. I’d point out to you that restricting voting to land-owning white males was standard practice at the time of the Constitutional Convention; and that, in addition to the states electing the president, the election of Senators was left entirely up to the state legislators. If Hamilton led the fight for the electoral college, there were plenty of people who thought that he was right. (And would continue to do so for a long time- property requirements for voting took decades to fall out of favor; and it would be another century before women were allowed to vote or before direct election of Senators was allowed.)
And Cooper? You are over-simplifying this country in a major way.
JMCJ
Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.
After reflection-
dougie_monty, I realized that my figures come from U.S. population; yours are likely from actual voting percentages. Given 50% voter participation (which strikes me as a likely number), I can see where the ‘35 million needed’ comes from. On the other hand, comparing that ‘likely voter’ number to ‘total population’ leads to discrepancies- otherwise, I could logically state that the majority of this country never wanted Ronald Reagan as President in 1984. Sure, he won 58% of the vote, but with only 60% participation, he actually only had the support of 35% of the populace. (And for you liberals with your smarty-pants comments, I can make the same claim for Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Nyah.)
JMCJ
Winner of the Mr. & Mrs. Polycarp Award for Literalizing Cliches for knowing an actual atheist in a foxhole.
Yeah, John, I know that cuts both ways. 
I had originally made the comparison for the 1972 election, because the electoral majority in the few states a candidate would need would have totaled about 23 million then, and the 1970 U. S. Census figure I had was 203,235,298–later corrected slightly. So I tried to adjust this to allow for the increase in population since the 1970 census–apparently my estimate was too small.
I also find it interesting that the comparison in books and magazines says that 'only 60% of the eligible voters voted. You never hear what percentage of the registered voters voted. Is that information confidential?
I think government should be simpler than it is.
What specifically do you find problematic with replacing all the extra committees with executives - legislatures with fact-finders, and lobbyists with quality-assurance questionnaires? Of course I’d leave congress and the court system in tact - but I think details are best served by individuals who are accountable (in this case, not accountable to a profit margin but to their own budget and their favorability as measured in polls of their ‘constituents’).
Here’s a couple more SD pages on this very topic.
Hope I do this right. 
http://www.straightdope.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/000426.html
Peace,
Mangeorge
I only know two things;
I know what I need to know
And
I know what I want to know
Mangeorge, 2000
Regarding the possibility of a presidential election being thrown to the House of Reps, I see the potential for serious problems (although I should confess I voted for Perot twice- but it was only with a strong confidence that he would not be able to send the election to the House). As many of you realize, under the constitution, the vote in the House would not be one Congressman=one vote. Rather, each state’s congressional delegation would have one vote apiece. So, for example, Wyoming, North Dakota and South Dakota would outvote California and New York. Thus a president could be selected by a coalition of smaller states even though he or she trailed badly in the popular vote and the majority of Representatives voted against him or her. In such a case that administration would have close to zero public acceptance and moral authority. If there is going to be any modification to the electoral process, I heartily endorse Polycarp’s suggestion that the procedure involving the House of Representatives be changed.
I agree with RTFirefly’s desire for third party activity to shake up the two major parties- I did vote that way after all- but I think carrying it to the point of really piling up electoral votes is unnecessary and potentially harmful. Perot showed in '92 that if you can get a sizable minority of voters to rally around your issues, the two main parties will start competing to woo the disaffected by coopting your ideas.
My own preference would be direct election of Presidents, with a runoff if nobody received 50%. Failing that, we should stay with the current system, except for having any House vote be on a strictly one Rep, One Vote basis.
On the other issue which has come up on this thread, I’d just like to add that even if all parts of the nation were completely homogenous [which is not the case]the existence of separate and divergent state governments would still be beneficial. The Division of Powers between Federal and State Governments is as important a check against unlimited governmental abuse as the Separation of Powers between the three branches of the Federal Government. True, it is not the most efficient setup- but it was designed specifically not to be. The Founders feared, correctly IMHO, the dangers which could lead from too efficient a government.
Please, some founders feared! Some were federalists essentially from the beginning (though I’m sure none would have argued that state’s shouldn’t have their own government). However, I don’t know that I’ve read anything that said they feared efficiency. What they feared was any one person or group that could have to much power. My system preserves the checks and balances written into the constitution, you still have three branches of government. Furthermore, the beauracies themself while answering (in a direct sense) to the president would only be able to excercise powers given to it by congress (I would prefer not to limit the power of the cabinet to a true advisory role - not a virtual army of servants).
I’m puzzled by this use of the word “federalist.” A federalist is one who favours a system of a central government and regional governments, each with constitutionally guaranteed powers. You appear to be using it to mean a supporter of a unitary, single national government?
and the stars o’erhead were dancing heel to toe
The federalist party favored a more federal-centric approach to national government. As I said, none were in favor of abolition of state government. It simply was not feasible at the time, communication technology was essentially non-existant. I think it is feasible now.