I just thought I’d take some of the heat off poor Ralph.
– Caliban
Am I the only one who likes the electoral college. For an interesting read on the topic, see the following link (hope it works). It’s from discover.com.
No Friday, you aren’t the only one.
There can be problems with the electorial college. However, I haven’t heard of a system that is more fair. IMHO popular vote is not better or more fair.
The EC is, has been and always will be a corrupt institution. I just can’t fathom how anyone ever thought this was a better way to take care of business than straight up popular vote.
Corrupt? What is corrupt about the electorial college?
Umm, hello? Perhaps the fact that it can elect someone who would not have won by the popular vote? You don’t find that to be a corrupt system?
No, I don’t find that to be corrupt. The system is set up that way on purpose. And for very good reasons.
Take a look at this map. http://www.msnbc.com/d/d2k/g/overview.htm?0ql=cbp
George Bush won the majority of the vote in most of the southern states and most of the mid north west. In fact, in 29 out of 48 states we have definate results from George Bush got more votes then Al Gore. Why should Al Gore become president just because 176,252 more New Yorkers and Californians voted for him? I can’t see how that would be more fair.
I think that it is the best system that anyone could come up with to keep the state interests balanced.
Democritus- I don’t find it any more corrupt that saying that the team with the most hits in a baseball game doesn’t necessarily win the game.
Besides, a straight popular-vote election offers more possibilities for corruption than the electoral college. Think about it- if in our current system, in Louisiana the Democratic machine stuffs an additional 10,000 Democratic votes into the ballot box, it only affects matters if the final Electoral vote is decided by Louisiana’s ten electoral votes.
If we had a straight national popular vote contest, then Louisiana’s corrupt would affect the entire outcome. Local corruption automatically affects the national results; as opposed to the current system where local corruption only affects local results.
Second note- the hassle and aggravation currently going on in Florida over that close return? Were this simply a straight national popularity vote election, we’d be going through that in every state because the national vote is so close. How much extra time, effort, and aggravation is that?
Should W. win- and this is still only a speculation- it will be the third time in 54 elections that the Electoral College did not give the win to the person who had the most popular votes. 94% accuracy.
Finally, the EC gives national candidates incentive to campaign in smaller states. Were it straight popular votes, the national candidates would focus mostly on the huge population areas of California, Chicago, and the Boston-D.C. metropolitan corridor. Because the votes from less populous states are weighted more, the candidates have an interest in campaigning in West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, etc.
John Corrado, you are still my hero!
Poll: what do you think of the electoral college?
http://polls.vantagenet.com/1/0/921219410/polls/1118122715/index.htm
Zumba, why should he win if more people voted for him? Well, because more people voted for him!!! What’s so hard to understand about that? I’m sorry if your state has less people, that’s tough. Democracy should move as the majority of the people, while still treating the others fairly.
John, you’re my hero too. 
BUT, much of your post addresses problems with the voting process. The lesser of two evils, so to speak. That doesn’t mean that the EC is the preferred method. What needs some work is the voting process itself and to do away with the EC.
As for your last statement, my response to Zumba applies to that as well. Presidential candidates shouldn’t focus as much on states with smaller populations. They should concentrate on people, not states.
Damn! I got all excited when I went to Opal’s link to see that 64% of the people agreed with me! Yahoo! Then I saw that only 14 people had voted so far. Now don’t you bastards go skewing my results! Lemme drop a few more in the hat…
You can retain the Electoral College, simply change it from winnre-takes-all to a proportional system, where each state’s electoral votes are distributed proportionally among the candidates. Then the EC would more closely reflect the popular election results.
Thats just silly. “States” represent regional issues that other parts of the country may not care about. Right now, the pols have to address farm issues to at least “some” degree (granted, not as much as say, social security).
In a popular vote setup, they could give two shits about issues outside the megalopolis’
People who live in what coastal snobs refer to as “flyover country” would have little to no input into the presidential policy debates.
To clarify my last post, I can understand bigger states having more influence than smaller states on a national debate. In a popular vote situation, I don’t think that the smaller population areas would just have “less” input…I think that they would have “next to nothing” …
I didn’t say that I didn’t understand it Democritus. I said that I don’t believe it is more fair. Just because something is easy to understand doesn’t make it right.
I think that we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I think that the states do matter. What the people in the rural areas need is very different then what the people in large cities need. Our current goverment and election process recognizes that and balances the needs as well as possible.
For the record, John Corrado has been my hero for months. You can’t have him Democritus.
The individual states decide whether to be wta or proportional. Currently , Maine and Nebraska are proportional (sort of)…
Actually, I had a philosophical epiphany during my last smoke break (which is part of the reason it’s so goddamned hard to quit smoking- I get far too much existential thinking done during my smoke breaks).
The Electoral College best represents, in election form, the process of actually governing a country.
Think of it this way. President Jones wishes to enact campaign finance reform, which is supported by an abundant majority of the populace. President Jones won’t have to do much horse-trading or vote negotiation or strategizing in order to get his law through. In parallel, Candidate Jones, who is supported by an abundant majority of the populace, will not need to worry too much about the Electoral College- broad popular support will likely carry him through.
Conversely, if President Jones wishes to enact campaign finance reform which is supported by a bare plurality of the populace, then he’s going to have to get involved in major strategy sessions to decide which Senators and Reps he can get to vote for him, how best to present this issue to the country, how best to defuse the critics of his program, etc. In parallel, Candidate Jones, who is supported by a bare plurality of the populace, will need to worry about the Electoral College and show that he has the capability to decide which states (politicians/issues) are the most important to campaign in, which states aren’t worth worrying about, etc.
So not only does the EC demand a broad base of popularity by the winner, but it demands that he (or his staff) has the ability to strategize, make tough decisions, and weigh the important options. So it’s a better test of a possible president than a straight popular vote, which merely tests how well a candidate’s beliefs fit with (or can be sold to) the general populace. But just because someone has popular opinions doesn’t mean he can be at all effective as a President.
Of course, I’ll also admit that as a wargamer, I’m kind of biased towards ‘systems’ like the EC as opposed to the straight popular vote (which would involve very little strategy or planning on the candidates’ part; just throw all the money you can at the big markets), though I have not yet devolved to the point where I wish that future wars would involve giant, mile-wide pieces of cardboard being pushed across the ground while generals sit in a conference room and roll dice to see who wins.
Friday, Zumba, John Corrado: I, too, think the EC is all right. Had Bush won the popular vote and Gore won the EC – this appeared to be a distinct possibility early in the night – many people like Democritus would be now keeping their mouths shut.
I was actually discussing this with my GF last night while we watched the returns coming in, and I came to the conclusion that, like it or not, we’re probably stuck with the Electoral College.
Consider:
Popular vote for A, electoral college for B.
Who takes office? As things currently are, B wins. B is going to be the one in power, the EC worked for him, what incentive does HE have to change the status quo?
Not to mention, in the current election if Bush wins Florida he will have won 30 states. The necessary constitutional amendment would require ratification by the individual states. That doesn’t seem likely in the current situation.