Yes, but the Senate provides a disproportionate weight to less-populous states, the House’s make-up notwithstanding.
No, but I see it differently than you. The Senate is to offset the House, to provide a power to less-populous states that might otherwise not exist.
Don’t get emotional! Going to back to the ratification of the Constitution, the fact is that the only practical way to get all the states to play in the sandbox, was to account for how the smaller states’ interests would be discounted otherwise. A simple plurality is not a voting method without flaw either. There is no one, right, perfect way. I think the EC is a reasonable compromise.
Where can I find ‘all evidence’? Does it include the absentee ballots from military personnel overseas that weren’t counted but would’ve been largely in favor of Bush?
I’m no fan of the EC. I understand why the Framers created it, but it’s now outdated and obsolete. Its time has passed. We should go to a direct popular vote. IMHO, it’s fundamentally wrong in this great republic that someone can get the most votes and still lose the Presidency. I would believe this regardless of who won any particular election, even if it’s Obama, whom I fervently hope will win. But I think we’re stuck with EC. If it wasn’t swept away by constitutional amendment in a tsunami of public outrage in 2000, I doubt it will be abolished anytime soon.
You can start at the Wiki page (fully cited). Please notice that a state-wide recount, under any circumstances, would have led to a Gore victory. It’s important to note that even the newspaper doing the count would not view these numbers as definitive, but when you include illegal scrub lists, and suspicious computer errors in the calculus, it becomes clear that the evidence suggests that Gore would have won.
Oh, and most people were upset not because the EC/popular vote discrepancy, but because they feel Bush cheated to win. I’m sure it enhanced the sting for many people, as it did for me, but the underlying reason was the strong suspicion of fraud.
Without the EC, if a nationwide popular vote is so close so as to demand a recount (quite a likely possibility these days), you are going to have recount *every single ballot *in every single state.
Imagine the nightmare *that *would be (the possibilities for political shenanigans are endless). Even without dirty tricks, the recounting would take months and there could be legal challenges in hundreds if not thousands of jurisdictions.
If you think recounting the votes in Florida in 2000 was a mess, try multiplying that by 50!
No, merely to avoid the nightmare that a nearly 50-50 split of a nationwide popular vote, I’m in favor of the EC, although I think a proportional split by each state would be an improvement.
But we really do need something as another layer above the popular vote, to avoid a recount situation.
A “popular vote” winner election process would be perfectly awful for the US. Try the old article linked below for a good analysis on why the EC makes sense.
Whoever wins, people will eventually react based on how the winning party governs. At least I hope that’s the case. If McCain wins (and stays alive during his term/terms), I can live with that as long as he’s not a horse’s ass. Ditto with Obama. Palin worries me, but if she’s only ever just a VP and not the President it’s not a huge deal.
The larger concern relates to Supreme Court nominees, but hopefully there will be a Democrat controlled Congress to keep the most egregious nominations out.
If you really want people to have a cow imagine that Obama (or McCain) wins neither the popular vote nor the electoral vote and still becomes president. It is possible, but not probable, the electoral vote could end in a tie. This will throw the election to the House where Obama would likely win.
The electoral college is an anachronism that exists only to give more power to lower populated states. States that already are over-represented in the Senate and even in the house. All states get at least one representative though proportionally even one is too many for states like Wyoming.
The electoral college drives down voter participation as well. The candidates concentrate on the battleground states. States like California and Texas will be largely ignored. If every vote counted the same the candidates would have to compete all over the place.
The electoral college has a conservative bias. The smallest states are Wyoming, Vermont, North Dakota, Alaska and South Dakota. Four of these vote republican in every presidential election. You could argue the DC should be in there, but as the District is denied statehood they get no representative and no senators so they are underrepresented. Oh, and in the event of a tie, each state gets one vote in the house. Wyoming is equal to California. DC gets no vote.
Minorities within states are ignored. Talk about the tyranny of the majority. What about urban populations in Houston? What about white Christian fundamentalists in rural Illinois? They may as well not exist in our current system.
What if a lose canon elector throws an election? That WILL be the end of the system.
It will not take a constitutional amendment to change the system, just an agreement amongst the big states to cast their electoral votes in a block. This will happen someday. It’s just a matter of public outrage hitting a certain level.
Most people hold a popular vote election as “better” just because it somehow seems more fair. A careful look at what is going on shows your assumptions to be wrong. Read my “Math Against Tyranny” link a few posts up.
Or consider that our founding fathers were pretty smart when setting up the country consider their opinion as worthy of note.
I think if you argue that lower density states should be overrepresented because of they make up a large part of the American landmass, then you fundamentally disagree with the idea of “one person, one vote.” You really don’t think that everyone’s vote should be weighted the same.
It doesn’t seem more fair. It is more fair. How can it be fair to give North Dakotans four times more importance than Californian’s at the polls?
The link basically makes the argument that the current system is the best because there is a greater chance that one vote will decide things. I can’t see how this is a desirable thing, however. And the baseball analogy fails as well. We all know the rules of the game and how it is played and the candidates are playing to win the electoral vote. If the rules were set differently they would be playing to win by those rules instead. There are sports (college hockey and international soccer to name two) where playoff series are decided by the cumulative score of multiple games and the teams adjust accordingly.
The founders knew what they were doing in creating the union, but as I said, it is now an anachronism.
Your alternative is disenfranchising huge numbers of voters. Between two not ideal choices I prefer the one that gives North Dakotans a voice rather than making it so they can be utterly ignored.
It’s the whole tyranny of the majority thing. Technically a democracy should allow it. As long as 50% +1 wants X screw the rest. That is repugnant. In your system a candidate does not need to answer to the unique issues North Dakotans face. All he need do is get a few special interest groups to add to that 50+1. So pander to white voters or pander to evangelists or what have you. Nevermind ranching issues in North Dakota or water issues in Arizona or building levees in Louisiana or toxic waste dumps in Nevada.
If there was a chance any candidate could get 100 percent of the vote in those large states, this would be a serious problem. That’s never going to happen. It would make more sense if we broke this down by large cities, but even in that case, a party that focuses only on the largest cities is going to be hurting itself by overlooking other areas. And that’s something like the way it really plays out in recent elections: the Democrats do far better in the largest cities, and win smaller cities by a smaller amount, but they don’t get the rural vote and it evens out.
How is letting them vote disenfranchisement? Would North Dakota be ignored if we went to a straight popular vote? Perhaps. But North Dakota and California are both being ignored right now as they are not considered competitive. In fact, every single one of the rural plains states (except Iowa) is being blown off in this election. They will all go red so there is no need to campaign in any of them.
North Dakotans would of course vote. But you are shifting who the candidates pander to from working to win a whole state to winning blocks of voters of a given stripe. This would, I think, result in a worse stratification of US politics than it already is and really makes it more an “us vs. them” competition. By having to win electors the candidates must win a state and the people in that state come in all flavors. Of course they generally tend to lean one way or another but still the candidates need to talk about local issues important to them which can transcend things like color and religion and so on.
Yes some states are solidly in one camp or the other and are ignored. Being in Illinois I never get to see any political ads. Illinois is solidly blue and neither side sees the need to spend money here. But many states are in play and enough that the candidates tend to have to cover a broad spectrum of “local” issues such as plant closings or farming or ranching or housing and so on. Enough so the people in the other states that tend to be ignored still get a hearing on those issues which may also be a concern of theirs.
I still see most of the debate here ignoring the two biggest problems with the electoral college: all-or-nothing states (which disenfranchise almost half of their voters every election), and the fact that the electors can vote for whomever they please, completely ignoring the will of the people.
No, they’re not all being blown off. THIS is why the whole “red state/blue state” meme is wrong.
Obama’s been in Montana five times so far in this election cycle. You look at the red coloration of the state on the map and figure it’s a given the McCain will win it. In reality, Montana has elected Democrats for governor and both senators, and the state senate is controlled by the Democrats. It’s really not as black-and-white (or red-and-blue) as you think.
