Unanimously? So you took a vote with yourself?
Gosh, I hope you haven’t implemented an electoral college within your psyche. I wonder how many votes Id represents?
I did respond to you up above, sailor. I said I’d get back to you regarding one of your points. The thing is that others have already addressed it, regarding states vs. people.
Here’s my take on it anyway. We elect people to the government to represent our state. House and Senate we’ve got anywhere from 3 to 55 people representing our interests as a state on a daily basis. That’s where our states rights come in.
But, (while I hate to bring up the founding fathers as a defense to my point) if the FF wanted states to pick the president, why didn’t they have them alone voting? Why ask the population as a whole to do what we elected our officials to do? We trust them to vote on everything else, why can’t we trust them to elect a president on their own too?
Because we didn’t, that’s why. We vote on a President because that’s how it was decided to be done. But given that I can vote for my president, why must my vote be filtered through a middle man?
Seems to me that we can keep it this way (as changing it would indeed be difficult); all that’s really needed is to eliminate two things: the two extra (Senatorial) votes given to each state, and the winner-take-all deal. For each state, apportion the electoral votes according to the breakdown of votes in that state.
Second point:
In the late 18th century, we were 13 separate states. Somewhere along the line, some time ago, that stopped being the case in any meaningful way. Now, we are not 50 separate states in the same sence that the orgininal 13 were. Now, no state has any rights that the feds need respect. Consider the 55 mph speed limit, the age 21 drinking laws. Consider the medical use of marijuana.
Third point:
When an individual is deciding who to vote for for President, what does which state (s)he lives in have to do with anything? There are things that matter, but which state (s)he lives in isn’t one of them. Urban vs suburban vs rural matters. All three groups are found in each state. Liberal vs conservative vs green vs libertarian matters. All types are found in each state. Hot button issues matter. All opinions on each issue exist in each state. What do states have to do with anything?
I just do not understand this viewpoint. Do you really think that if Bush won a state, everyone in that state wanted Bush? All the people in that state who voted for other people, and all those who chose not to cast a vote – all of them are somehow magically turned into Bush supporters because he won the state they happen to live in?
In the presidential election of 2000, more people voted for Gore then voted for Bush. To me, there’s something wrong with a system that awards victory to the candidate who came in second.
Some states do do this, but it is left up to the state to decide how it hands over their EC votes. I don’t agree with winner-take-all either.
Consider gun laws. Consider taxation within the state. Consider licensing drivers, or license plates. States have all kinds of powers that the federal government respects.
Lots. I’m not going to presume that I understand the needs of the citizens of NY. As a specific geographical locality, I cannot speak for them.
Ha, are you telling me that Cleveland has the same concerns as Boston? Or that Missouri has the same concerns as Mississippi?
>> There is no voting method based on rankings that satisfies the properties of Universal Domain, Pareto Optimality, Nondictatorship, and Independence from Irrelevant Alternative.
oh my goodness! I knew I should have not opened this thread at 5 am! I’ll read that again tomorrow and see if I can determine what language it may be.
>> But, (while I hate to bring up the founding fathers as a defense to my point) if the FF wanted states to pick the president, why didn’t they have them alone voting? Why ask the population as a whole to do what we elected our officials to do? We trust them to vote on everything else, why can’t we trust them to elect a president on their own too?
Enderw24,did you read the Constitution? As far as I can see the states have no obligation to consult you
Again: each state shall appoint… they ask your opinion just because they are so nice and polite and all but the founding fathers never said they should. So, no need to bring the FF into this.
To the objection of the winner take all system I would say I understand the objection but, again, it comes as seeing yourselves as citizens of the US before citizens of the state.
In the UN each country has one vote which goes one way. Do all the citizens of that country agree with that vote? Of course not. But it is countries voting… When this country was set up the situation was quite similar. It may be that tody many people feel the system should be changed but I think the votes are just not there yet.
As noted by EnderW24, I’ve been well off topic, but to answer the specific question …
Not should, do. All voting systems used and proposed have a bias.
The first past the post, winner takes all presents a very difficult task for minor parties. There are plenty of other models that are less restrictive.
The Australian House of Representative uses preferential voting which makes it difficult for minor parties. There are usually a couple of independents in the House of Reps. Currently 1/148. Conversely “One Nation” received 8.5% of the national vote in 1998 and above 20% in some electorates but due to preferences did not win a single seat.
Conversely the Federal Senate uses a variant of proportional voting that virtually guarantees the minor parties some representation. Currently they hold 13 of 76 seats.
As to whether having minor parties/governments is desirable, that’s a different question.
Sailor-I was merely paraphrasing John Locke’s philosophy on government-Locke, who had a big influence on the Founding Fathers, I believe. (Or did he come after?).
And Locke said-it is not the government itself which has rights, -it is the PEOPLE. The GOVERNMENT has a responsibility to the PEOPLE.
And what exactly do you mean by states? Do you mean the people of the states? The governments? The land itself?
erislover, the OP and my posts to it are about what the system should be. Responding with explanations about what the system is does not help - we know what the system is.
Let’s try again: Should the President be elected by We the People, or by an unequally-weighted, indirect vote of “the states”? Seems to me that the question of whether the US is fundamentally one country or a confederation of 50 was settled by the Civil War. Isn’t it way past time to clear up some anachronisms that get in the way of continuing to advance our ideals, rather than continue to piously invoke the original intent of the idealisms of 2 and 3 centuries ago?
Would moving away from an electoral college to direct popular election be opposed by states? Do states get any special treatment, or additional powers, by virtue of their place in an electoral college?
I’m curious, purely because in the UK the Labour party went through a smaller-scale version of this exercise in 1993. Previously, the leader of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) was chosen by an electoral college, with the majority of the power held by trades unions and their ‘block votes’ (where the union leadership decided how to vote). From 1993, unions and constituency parties were required to switch to one-member, one-vote (OMOV), with resulting votes allocated proportionally.
Of course, the unions weren’t happy at this reduction in their influence on leadership selection and policy formulation. Would US states react similarly?
crusoe, the Electoral College gives each state 1 vote for each congressional district, and these mostly have about the same population. A number of states have only 1 district, while California has about 50. But the EC adds 2 more votes to each state, giving the small-population states disproportional representation. The historical reasons lie in the set of compromises needed to keep the 13 original states together in the same confederation, and its value today is debatable.
A change to direct popular election would reduce the power of the small-population states and increase that of the larger ones, so one might expect it to be opposed and supported respectively. Since the Senate is even more disproportionately controlled by the smaller states (2 per state regardless of population), and that is one of the bodies that would have to approve an amendment that would make any change to the system, popular sentiment would have to be pretty overwhelming to induce all those Senators to vote to reduce their own states’ power. The big-state Senators would probably be enthusiastic proponents.
Smaller states get an influence out of proportion to their population. For example (warning, rough numbers and approximations ahead) Alaska has a population of 500,000. It constitutes approx. .18% of the U.S. population. It gets 3 electoral votes, which constitute approx. .56% of the total electoral votes;
The electoral college converts the Presidential race from a national election into a series of state by state elections. This hurts some states - ones that have historically gone to one party or the other will get ignored during the campaign (why waste resources on a state where the election is essentially already decided?), but it forces candidates to focus closely on states (and promise lots of goodies) to states that are up for grabs - and forces them to focus on the whole state, not just their strongholds of support.
Oh yes, the reason all that matters: The low-population, disproportionately-powerful states are mostly in the Plains and mountain states, traditional conservative/Republican strongholds. That gives Republicans a built-in advantage in both the Senate and the EC.
It’s also true that the sheer number of geographically-small states in the traditionally moderate-liberal/Democratic Northeast offsets that. That region has disproportionately more Senators and EC votes per capita as well, giving Democrats a built-in advantage that may essentially offset Paragraph 1.
sailor, why do you keep bringing up the UN? The US is not the UN. We do things differently in our elections. Besides, the day to day voting the UN does is the same as the day to day voting Congress does. I elected my officials to represent me. That means they can go to Washington and vote how they best feel would serve me when bills come to the floor. I’m not asking that I have the power to vote on every piece of legislature, that’s exactly why I elected them in the first place.
But if and when they do consult me, as in a presidential election, why do they then ignore my opinion? Just because I happen to be in the minority in the particular place I’m living in doesn’t mean I’m in the minority overall. I want my vote to count or don’t bother asking me.
That’s right, or don’t bother asking me. If they want to set up a system where there is no citizen voting, just voting by Congress, I actually think it would be better than the system we have now. Not good. I’d still like popular voting. But better.
Erislover, should the citizens of NYC determine who the best president is for upstate NY? Should the students of Madison, WI determine what’s best Green Bay? Sometimes it comes down to that. I don’t even think my next door neighbor has the same interests I do, so why should one vote represent the state?
everybody, why do you all think that turning it to a popular voting system will give preferential treatment and greater influence to the larger states? It won’t! Here’s why: when you vote across the U.S. without the EC, you no longer have states. It’s 180 million individuals all deciding for themselves how they’re going to vote. Florida in the last election had a less than 1000 vote margin for victory. Under the popular vote, they contributed millions of votes to the candidates and it changed the results by 1000. Under the EC system, it gave 5% of the vote to one candidate and decided the election.
Someone want to tell me which system let a large state have a bigger influence on the election?
I have to disagree with that. Even when candidates decide to campaign in a state of whatever size, they still spend almost all their attention in that state on the cities and suburbs, not the rural areas. That’s where the votes are that decide that state. I don’t see that an outright popular-only vote would be a real change.
The rural areas might not get taken for granted if the 48 states with bloc voting eliminated it in favor of district-by-district votes, with or without the Senate-seat bonus. A lot of districts that are almost all rural would be in play then, and many single-party-dominated districts that are buried in states that reliably go the other way as a whole would get attention as well.
As for focusing on strongholds, that also doesn’t give a full picture of the current situation. Candidates will also campaign in their opponents’ strongholds to try to neutralize some of their votes, or at least try to psych them into spending resources where they don’t have to.
I was waiting for a conspiracy. If the Dems know that then why don’t they target all these areas and get stuff done? They convert all those areas to democrats and then the republicans also have to go lobby there to try and win those “strong votes” back?
That is… what’s the problem here, that the small states get ignored or that they’re too powerful (false dichotomy, I know)? If they are so powerful, why are they ignored?
Ender, your concern about decision somewhat bothers me. At some level we always have one group of people deciding the president for some other group of people. This is currently done at a state level. I think it was elvis that mentioned each congressional district would get its own vote, and I can’t see it getting any smaller than that.
Which reminds me, if we have each district get an EC vote, then why not skip voting for president altogether and just have the House vote for president?
Why even have it by states at all? Especially when standards widely vary from state to state, and some people think, why bother? I had a friend in Texas who desparately wanted Gore to win-yet she didn’t even bother, because Bush had it sealed.
Here’s the deal-have everyone vote, and each state counts the votes for EACH CANDIDATE. Then, you take these totals, add them all together from each state-and whoever has the most votes wins.
But then, that probably makes too much sense for people to consider.
Enderw24 , the reason I mention the UN is that I think it is good comparable example. I know the US is not the UN, but the reasons why the voting systems were set up the way they were is very similar.
I’ll give you another example: Why should you have a system of congressional districts where the winner takes all? From one point of view it makes absolutely no sense. Suppose in every district the candidates for party A get 51% and the candidates for party B get 49% of the vote. Now you have 100% or those elected are from party A. It makes no sense. Wouldn’t it be more fair to have the elections be at large for the entire state and have those elected more accurately represent the makeup of the state? You could argue that point. OTOH, the system is set up the way it is on the assumption that a congressman represent his district. Today it makes much less sense than 225 years ago… but at that time there was a good reason to do it that way…
Is there good reason to change many things which were set up 200 years ago when conditions were very different? Probably yes. Can you find an easy way to change it and please everyone? Probably not… so the solution seems to be to leave things as they are.
I have mentioned several times the people of DC have no vote in Congress. Should this be so? We probably all agree it should not. But it was set up that way for a reason and now it is just too difficult to change.
Many of the apparent shortcomings of the political system are due to its history, just like many of the limitations of Win95-98 are due to its evolution from DOS. To criticise things for not being perfect when the imperfections are due to the history that made them possible is, IMHO, not fair.
::Now I’ll wait for someone to point out win98 has nothing to do with the electoral college::
I stated it poorly. What I meant is that, say, a Democratic candidate can’t come into a state and try to cherry-pick the urban population only, if the urban pop. is less than 50% of the electorate, in order to pick up some more votes to add to his national total. He/she has to try to win the whole state, which means appealing to the suburban/rural voters.
What is the best electoral circumscription? This is a problem which has no “correct” or even “best” answer. Smaller circumscriptions (like congressional districts) tend to take away representation from groups which are minorities widely scattered among circumscriptions. The obvious solution is to have larger circumscriptions but then you have local issues get lost in the larger picture. So it depends on your focus and there is no one single best solution. As an American you may feel one voice should speak for all Americans at the UN but others may feel differently. For example, an anti-globalization American may feel he has more in common with a similar thinking Canadian than with an opposite thinking fellow American. Electoral circumscriptions are all about grouping people and no one system can work from every point of view. What works best for you as a resident of West Undershirt County, may not work best for you as a habitual client of massage parlors or as feminist republican. In the end you have to pick whatever system seems to work best (or least bad rather).