First, I don’t want to abolish the electoral college. I think it serves as an important check on the people, and it’s almost never been wrong. (Disagreed with the popular vote.) What I do want to do, however, is two things:
Make an amendment that lets electors be sent to the College based upon the majority in each district, like Maine and Nebraska does. Whoever gets the majority in the state gets two electors automatically, and whoever gets the majority in each district gets one elector from there.
Make an amendment that forbids states from censuring electors who defect. Electors are chosen for their party loyalty anyway, so if they do defect, they are going to have a damn good reason for it. In fact, restricting the ability to defect sort of eliminates the whole point of the electoral college.
Now, I thought about the practice of voting as well. We’ve seen situations where Presidents have not been elected by majority, only a plurality, due to the presence of third party candidates. This essentially leads to minority rule. If 30% vote for A, 30% for B, and 40% for C, then Mr. C wins, but sixty percent of the people said they wanted somebody else. I thought of two solutions:
Run-off election. The two highest vote-getters face off in a second run-off election (assuming no one had a clear majority in the first.) in which only those two are running, thus one MUST get the majority. However, this has drawbacks. First, you have to convince people to come out and vote twice, which is a general pain in the arse. Second, if your candidate doesn’t make the run-off, you either have to not vote at all, or vote for someone who you don’t totally agree with.
I read about a system that’s actually been around since the Roman Senate, called a Borda count. In this system, you express your preferences for each candidate. For example, you go into vote and say;
Harry Browne
George W. Bush
Al Gore
Ralph Nader
Now, this way, the first preference would get four points, W would get three, Al two, etc. Hitle…errr…I mean Buchannan and Hagelin would get zero points. We would set the maximum number of people you can choose; in my example it’s four (so some people must get zero points.)
Now, this way, it seems to me, we get the person who truly represents the will of the people, and it gives a much better shot for third parties, since you can vote for them too. The disadvantage is that people would have to get edumicated about each candidate so they know who they like best AND who they like worst.
It was my understanding that the system that is setup in Maine and Nebraska as well as the law that says electors have to vote party lines are state laws. A constitutional amendment would only come into play if we wanted to abolish the EC.
I’m all in favor of states changing their laws in this regard so if you think it’s a good idea petition your local official. (In my case it wouldn’t do much good as my state has only one congressional district.)
The Borda count is an extremely fair system but a logistical nightmare. People are confused about how to pick one candidate in Palm Beach Florida. How are we supposed to explain how to vote for three? Perhaps we should experiment with the Borda count in primaries first.
I seem to recall a discussion of something similar to the Borda system in a class about choosing a course of action for a business or committee.
It, too, involved people ranking the ideas. Part of the problem is that if there is a choice or two that polarizes people – in other words, a couple of choices that people are likely to rank either first or else not at all – then an interesting situation arises.
(Now I’m no math major or statistician, so I could be completely wrong – I’m just thinking aloud here.)
What it seems to me might happen is that perhaps someone that EVERYONE ranked as second or third choice gets elected – even though NO ONE believes that person would be the best choice to fill the office.
I’m not sure I’m making sense … but it seems to me that one possible outcome of this system is that you would really get the will of NONE of the people – in that someone who was the second or third choice of every voter could end up with more points than a couple of people who were the first choice of a significant group of voters.
Do you get where I’m coming from? In the arena of ideas, this means that the chosen idea is one that no one feels passionately enough about to make their first choice, and in the arena of electing officials, this means that we end up with a leader that no one really believes is the best choice for the job.
I enjoyed your post, though – well thought-out and structured.
Right. I’m aware that they are state laws, but an amendment to the effect of “No state shall make any law to compel the electors” would make thos laws unconstitutional. Since they are state laws, Congress would certainly count defectors votes, but when they went home they’d be liable to the state.
Actually, this is precisely the point of the Borda system. For example, lets make a hypothetical situation where the only people running are Gore, Bush, and Nader. Now, suppose 51% of the people vote Gore, Nader, Bush, and 49% vote Bush, Nader Gore. If it was just a straight majority, Gore would win. However, 49% of the people voted against him. But 100% of the people picked Nader as their second choice, which actually makes him a more qualified candidate. Far from perfect, I know, but I think it’s pretty cool.
the college has a huge amount of power regarding the election.
the electorial college according to the founding fathers was to be an independent body. a “faithless elector” can follow the wishes for electoral independence rather than heed the wishes of the sponsoring party and the citizens who voted. some states have tried to make it illegal for a faithless vote,(wi has a fine of $1,000.00 and nm a 4th degree felony) there was a problem with constitutionality.
lest we forget the election for president is NOT final until the college meets in december. the electorial college has huge powers because the founding fathers wanted it to be free of corruption and independent.
the electorial voters in florida could decide to cast “faithless votes.” florida (as far as i know) has no penalties against “faithless votes.” as it stands now, should gore get the 7 votes from oregon and bush get the 25 from florida only 4 electorial votes would sep. them. would 4 or 5 out of the 25 decide there was enough cause in florida to cast against the sponsoring party? or would some electors feel that winning the popular vote is cause to cast for gore? something to ponder.
another interesting fact about college is: if a president-elect meets with misfortune before the college meets and can not fullfill the duties of president the college can vote for whomever they want. a very interesting book was written about this called " the people’s choice" by jeff greenfield.
I’m not sure I’m making sense … but it seems to me that one possible outcome of this system is that you would really get the will of NONE of the people – in that someone who was the second or third choice of every voter could end up with more points than a couple of people who were the first choice of a significant group of voters.