** sorry , dear posters, it wasn’t intent, it was ineptness that made me post the same message twice. I apoligize. ~ milum.
** sorry , dear posters, it wasn’t intent, it was ineptness that made me post the same message twice. I apoligize. ~ milum.
WTF??? I can’t believe you’d try to make this into a race thing. This boggles the mind.
I seriously question your understanding of the United States when the term “rural” first brings to your mind issues of race, rather than well-established issues like agriculture, the tax base, and access to government services. It makes me wonder what point you’re trying to prove.
well, campaign in the state with 20 electorial votes, because winning the five states would still leave a candidate 3 votes short. 
My point is, in the current electoral system, smaller states matter more. Agreed? They are not weighted so heavily as to compel a candidate to campaign in small states to the exclusion of large ones.
But as we clearly have seen in the 2000 campaign, small states politics matter. Look at West Virginia: Cheney visited a steel mill in October 2000, made promises to “stand up for steel,” and this campaigning is widely viewed as delivering 5 electoral votes, from a heavily Democratic state, to Bush. (See overview, on the right sidebar, West Virginia)
Bush/Cheney have made motions on following through on that promise, even at some political expense. Campaigning isn’t just about kissing babies, there are actual results that come out of it. I’m not sure that those same results would be shared with rural (read: people who live outside big cities) if candidates were more tempted to campaign only in urban areas.
WTF??? I can’t believe you’d try to make this into a race thing. This boggles the mind.
I seriously question your understanding of the United States when the term “rural” first brings to your mind issues of race, rather than well-established issues like agriculture, the tax base, and access to government services. It makes me wonder what point you’re trying to prove.
well, campaign in the state with 20 electorial votes, because winning the five states would still leave a candidate 3 votes short.
My point is, in the current electoral system, smaller states matter more. Agreed? But they are not weighted so heavily as to compel a candidate to campaign in small states to the exclusion of large ones.
But as we clearly have seen in the 2000 campaign, small states politics matter. Look at West Virginia: Cheney visited a steel mill in October 2000, made promises to “stand up for steel,” and this campaigning is widely viewed as delivering 5 electoral votes, from a heavily Democratic state, to Bush. (See overview, on the right sidebar, West Virginia)
Bush/Cheney have made motions on following through on that promise, even at some political expense. Campaigning isn’t just about kissing babies, there are actual results that come out of it. I’m not sure that those same results would be shared with rural (read: people who live outside big cities) if candidates were more tempted to campaign only in urban areas.
The electoral vote for a state does not have to be winner-take-all. That’s set by state law, not the US constitution. Maine and Nebraska *already]/i] provide for their electoral votes to be split - the winner of the state overall gets the 2 vote representing the Senators, and the winner in each congressional district gets the vote for that Representative. Since both states are small, the laws haven’t had an effect yet in reality (the overall winner has won every district too every time), but they certainly would in larger states if they existed there. All it would take would be an act of the state legislature, or perhaps a referendum vote.
That approach, in theory, makes the electoral vote more representative of the popular one while still protecting the representation of the lower-population areas or other electoral minorities. By providing bonus votes for the winner of a plurality, the chance of the Electoral College not producing a majority winner is minimized.
My beef with the electoral college is that it gives too much power to the smaller states. From the US census, the population of the US on 4/1/2000 was 281,421,906. The population of my state of Michigan (typical large state)was 9,938,444. The population of Alaska was 626,932. Michigan now has 15 representatives and therefore 17 electoral votes, Alaska has 1 representative and therefore 3 electoral votes. You can see that each Michigan elector represents 584,614 Michigan residents while each Alaska elector represents only 208,977 residents. Each Alaska voter, therefore, has nearly triple the impact on the presidential election as each Michigan voter.
Anyone surprised to find a discussion of race in this thread has a lot to learn as race is a major factor in a number of electoral arguments. Minorities tend to live in poorer neighborhoods with few resources to manage elections. This gives minorities less of a chance for their votes to be counted or be counted correctly as was shown in the Florida disaster of 2000. Minorities are also more likely to be convicted of felonies so fewer of them are allowed to vote. And, when it comes to the electoral college we find yet another situation prejudiced against minorities. The states with fewer people and a disproportionate amount of electoral power tend to be lilly white. This is not a fact that is interjected into the debate. Race is a factor and I for one am not going to ignore it. If it makes you uncomfortable arguing to keep a system that discriminates against minorities then good! You should be. Would the electoral college still be in use if it were prejudiced in favor of African-Americans and Mexican-Americans? Somehow I doubt it. But that doesn’t stop Milum from claiming that whites from different parts of the country deserve affirmative action.
Anyone surprised that I looked at the people in the small states not as a set of policy issues but as people also hasn’t been paying attention. I have been talking about people all along. The electoral college is unfair to people for several reasons not the least of which is the one MSU 1978 just mentioned. Attempts to change the subject and debate me are futile. Try your rhetoric on someone else. If I am wrong then address my arguments squarely and if you are wrong have the balls to admit it. Any semantic debate about “fair” and “equal” is silly. Equal means equal and anything less isn’t fair.
Anyone that still thinks that the people in the small states receive less benefit for their federal tax dollars than people in large states didn’t pay attention to a recent thread that linked to a chart that showed that it was balance of payments was weighted in favor of the folks in small states.
http://www.ppinys.org/nybalpayments.htm#table
That’s all I have time for right now. I should be back later for responses to Milum, Ravenman, and even ElvisL1ves?!
Just part of my 2sense
It seems to me (from my Canadian perspective) that the easiest modification that gives better representation of individual voters while not sacrificing the advantage the smaller states have (and probably should keep) is to remove the “all or nothing” aspect of a state vote. Why not allow each individual congressional district one electoral vote, with the state’s overall popular vote winner getting two extra votes? The overall number of electoral votes remains the same, but instead of having your vote made meaningless because 50%+1 of your state voted for the other guy, you only get frozen out because 50%+1 of your district (a much smaller pool) went for the other guy.
As an example, for fictional state X, with 6 congressional districts (with 100,000 votes each) and 10 electoral votes:
District 1: 45000 Rep. 55000 Dem. (Dem gets electoral vote)
District 2: 40000 Rep. 60000 Dem. (Dem gets electoral vote)
District 3: 55000 Rep. 45000 Dem. (Rep gets electoral vote)
District 4: 60000 Rep. 40000 Dem. (Rep gets electoral vote)
District 5: 90000 Rep. 10000 Dem. (Rep gets electoral vote)
District 6: 85000 Rep. 15000 Dem. (Rep gets electoral vote)
Overall vote totals: 375000 Rep. 225000 Dem. (Rep gets 2 extra votes)
Final: Rep 6, Dem 2
The Dems get 2 votes for their marginal wins in Districts 1 and 2, and the Dem voters in those districts get represented in the Electoral college, which wouldn’t be the case in the current system. Conceivably, enough marginal wins could have given them more electoral votes from state X than the Reps, even if the Reps win the overall popular vote.
The net effect is that candidates need not write off entire states as more likely to go for the other guy, but can campaign in individual congressional districts. The marginal smaller states still get attention because swinging the popular vote gets a candidate two extra electorals.
Also, a new third-party candidate can campaign in a few districts and possibly get a few electoral votes, which gives them legitimacy to make another run four years later. Under the current system, third parties are at best a minor blip in the popular vote.
I thought about running this idea using the 2000 results, but I couldn’t find a quick list that showed the vote breakdown by congressional district. It might make for a mildly interesting number-crunching project (or at least as interesting as number-crunching projects ever get).
Whoops, state X has 8 electoral votes, not 10.
Please provide proof that smaller states have disproportionately more whites and fewer minorities than larger states. Just pretending won’t cut it, I want to see some census data.
“Attempts to . . . debate me are futile.”
Indeed. But if the mind is closed and the cause is certain, then why waste time by opening this discussion? If you are irrefutably correct, then this idea should have been taken directly to the President, who would also have quickly seen the futility of debate and would have wisely implemented your proposal immediately.
Gairloch
There are some census numbers. As we can see the ten smallest states DO contain a significantly higher proportion of whites than the ten largest states. If we cast out Hawaii, which is a special case, and replace it with any of the next four smallest states of West Virginia, Nebraska, Idaho, or Maine and the contrast would be even more apparent. Since the residents of the small states receive more than an equal share of the electoral power due to the electoral college and because these states are disproportionatly white, our presidential elections are biased against minorities. Now can we stop pretending that it’s fair?
Hunting down and coallating those facts has taken up my posting time so I won’t be able to finish my replies tonight. I will get back around to Milum and Ravenman when I get time but since Bryan Ekers is joining ** ElvisL1ves** in advocating the district system currently used by 2 states I will take the time to point out its flaws. It baffles me why someone would prefer it to a popular vote. First off, since Maine and Nebraska have gone to the district system they have never split their electoral votes. This is the easiest argument to understand. The district system clearly isn’t making things better inside the state because it’s having no effect at all. Outside an individual state the district system doesn’t address any of the inequities of the electoral college. People in one state never have an equal say as those in another and those Americans that don’t reside in any state are left with no vote at all.
There is another problem with the district system. I’ll quote myself from the “Why does the South have to dominate America?” thread:
That’s it for now. More later. In the meantime, how about some feedback on the idea itself? Does the lack of direct criticism indicate a consensus that my plan is possible?
Well, Maine has 4 votes and Nebraska has 5; minor compared to most of the other states, and since this has never caused a split in electoral votes, one can assume that these states are pretty uniform in thier politics. So what?
A districting system in New York or California would reveal pockets of support for one party of the other. I’m surprised that a district that has voted overwhelmingly for a congressman from a particular party is not more upset when all their state’s electoral votes go to the presidential candidate of the other party becuase that guy eked out a small overall plurality.
At the very least, a voting freak like Palm Beach County (where many voters mistakenly punch-voted for Buchanan instead of Gore) would, at most, swing one electoral vote (or possibly three, if the mistaken votes are enough to put the overall popular vote to the wrong candidate) and not the entire state of Florida and its 25 electoral votes. Short of ditching the entire system and going to a winner-take-all popular vote, districting the electoral college means that smaller states still have their advantage but congressional districts (which ideally are more-or-less the same size) are roughly equal in power when electing a president.
Besides, going to a district plan means the electoral system is modified only slightly (as you’ve pointed out, two states have already done so). I don’t see a compelling reason to trash the entire system just for the hell of it.
I do not dispute that race politics enter into elections. This is abundantly clear to anyone who has read an American newspaper since 1865.
It is not clear at all what the hell race has to do with the Electoral College. Are you saying that the Founding Fathers came up with this system to oppress minorities? Or are you saying that the population of minorities among the States, and the corresponding number of representatives assigned to each state, is somehow done in a racist fashion? Do you have cites to support such theories, or is this just something that you’ve casually noticed? In other words, what the hell does the EC have to do with race?
yes, yes, I saw this chart before. Surely you are not arguing that the size of states alone is the only determinant in balance of payments. If that is what you are arguing, can you explain to me why Delaware, a very small state, has a negative balance of payments of about 20%, and Pennsylvania, one of the largest states, comes out so far ahead of several other large states, with a positive balance of payments of $1.8 billion?
Surely factors like poverty play some factor here?
I’m beginning to see that. The part about debating, anyways.
As I understand it, Delaware is an extremely corporation-friendly state, so many companies set up their headquarters there and (I assume) pay much of their taxes there, meaning Delaware has less need for Federal transfer payments.
Though I’d still like to see 2sense jump through some more hoops to justify his “electoral college = racism” premise.
These paragraphs tie the subject up with a neat little ribbon but unfortunately history is rarely that tidy. During the Revolutionary and Critical Periods there were competing concepts of representation. Milum’s post describes the aristocratic ideal of representation where the unknowing masses select those few worthies from their midst capable of leadership and then trust the governing to the wisdom of their betters. The democratic view saw the representative as someone who consulted his constituents and governed not just in their name but according to their wishes. Now as it happens the Constitution enshrines the aristocratic ideal but we shouldn’t forget that form of representation was controvertial or that there were always plenty of people back home that thought their “homeboy representative” was unreliable, stupid, criminal, or even an out and out traitor.
I should also point out that the electoral college doesn’t meet at the capital. A state’s electoral votes are cast in the state and then carried to Washington to be counted by Congress.
Ravenman,
In 2000, 329,708 West Virginians voted for Bush and 291,088 voted for Gore. Now assuming that you are right that it was the steel tariff issue that gave Bush the advantage how many votes did it swing? Maybe fifty thousand or so? Obviously thousands of West Virginians didn’t think that steel tariffs was the deciding issue. Yet because OTHER PEOPLE felt it was important all of their state’s electoral votes went to the person they voted against. How is it fair for OTHER PEOPLE to decide which issue should decide the election?
“Attempts to change the subject and debate me are futile.” This quote of mine is being distorted out of proportion. I am not blaming Gairloch or you for this; it’s my own fault. I stated it badly. What I am saying is that attempts to change the subject and debate me, rather than my ideas, are futile. Fallacies of distraction are a cheap rhetorical trick and won’t disuade me from making my arguments. My ideas are up for debate, not myself. If they are proven wrong I will admit it and move on to new and improved ideas. I wouldn’t try to deflect attention away from a topic just because I am losing.
I have already explained the connection between the electoral college and race. The people in small states have a disproportionate share of the electoral power and are disprortionatly white. I am not maintaining that this was done deliberately, after all this was a nonissue as they didn’t let black folks vote back when the presidential election system was created and then refined by the 12th Amendment. The electoral college is prejudiced in favor of white people. Period. I have explained why and provided evidence that what I said was true. Does that truth make you uncomfortable? Is that why you can’t deal with my argument directly?
As for the balance of payments, my only point was to refute Gairloch’s assertion that federal funds “…flow largely into the urbanized areas…”
Bryan Ekers,
Sorry I didn’t entertain you by jumping through any hoops but that’s not hardly necessary when the people you are debating are desperately holding such a weak position that they can’t answer your arguments and are forced to ignore them. Which brings us to you. How about you try again and this time actually address my arguments against the district system? You know, that it leaves in place the inequities of the electoral college and that it would excaberate the problems we are already having with gerrymandering.
Not hardly, huh? Not even a little?
Truth be told, I don’t understand your objection to districting. On the assumption that minority populations are concentrated in relatively small areas, why not let them vote as a district to decide how to cast their electoral vote for president?
You can argue about gerrymandering all you like, but that a seperate issue. There should be stronger rules against redistricting for purely political reasons but the relevance of this to the idea of trashing the electoral system entirely is tenuous at best.
Districting could easily eliminate (or at least greatly reduce) the chance of vote manipulation and the effects of voter error in a presidential campaign. Picture a state with many electoral votes but an evenly-divided population. A candidate (or his stooges) need only bias one district by introducing a few thousand phony votes there, in order to swing the whole state. Alternately, even a minor error in ballot design (or possibly a programming error in future electronic ballots) can lead to a few thousand mistaken votes, with the same effect of swinging a state (and possibly the entire election).
Even if your proposal was informally put into effect (i.e. no constitutional amendment), how do you plan to evade the justifiable outrage if (for example) the California voters overwhelmingly vote Republican but find out their electors voted Democrat because 50%+1 of the country overall did? I think they’d be kinda pissed. Also, I don’t see how this could possibly address inequities in your suggested (but unproven) racial bias since the black/hispanic population of California alone may be greater than several of the smaller (mostly white) states combined, yet a California citizen’s votes don’t count under your scheme, while the votes of the smaller states do? Are there nuances I’m missing here?
You’re suggesting a change that no-one will go for (who would voluntarily toss their vote? I wouldn’t, though admittedly I’m Canadian and thus have no say in the American electoral system), and you have no convicing argument to sway anybody to do so.
It doesn’t hardly make no sense.
A few simple points. First, you left out the District of Columbia, with 3 electoral votes, 184,000 whites out of a population of 606,000. Second, Hawaii should not be excluded from your analysis. If you were arguing about something about population flow between states, Hawaii and Alaska could reasonably be excluded. But since you are arguing that the votes of white people are overrepresented in the Electoral College. It appears as though you are just throwing out data that doesn’t fit in to your theory. Third, there’s no analysis presented of middle size states and race, nor is their any correlation presented between weighted votes and voting populations.
Bottom line: this is just data, it’s not evidence, because there’s been no objective, thorough analysis of it.
I’m not trying to be difficult, but I’m not following the argument here… I’m unclear on who you mean refer to by the term “other people.” Do you mean “other people” to refer to single-issue voters who care about steel, those who do not care about steel, those who voted for Gore, or some other group?
My parting thought is that I really wonder if the fundamental problem that 2sense is trying to address is the existence of political boundaries within a country. I think we could all agree that there is simply no way to draw borders - whether for congressional districts, states, or whatever - that would assure perfect equality to all subdivisions.
I do not think that there is any significant fruit in eliminating the Electoral College, because although the system tilts slightly towards small states, I do not think that there’s it amounts to a miscarriage of justice. It is a weird rule that political candidates understand and, at least till now, have agreed to abide by. Yes, the EC has “thwarted” perfect democracy in two out of 50-something elections. Our country still survives, the rule of law still exists.
I am not a Bush supporter. I can’t stand the guy. But if we were going to elect presidents on popular vote only, I am sure the 2000 vote counts could have gone on for months. Haven’t the media outlets that have gone back to count the votes in Florida come out with several different results? What if all 50 states had to do recounts? The EC – imperfect though it may be-- provided a way to give authoritative finality to a closely contested election, and though I dislike the result, the system worked in that regard.
But that won’t stop me from liking the bumper sticker that says “Reelect Gore-Lieberman in 2004.”
The problem with districting is that it steals people’s votes. If a Democrat lives in a Republican district then what is the point of voting? There is no chance of the Dem’s vote ever affecting the election because the district’s vote will always go to the GOP. So that person’s vote doesn’t count. People don’t need their state or election district to tell them how to vote. They should be allowed to vote for themselves and know that thier vote will count. No ammount of pushing people around into different districts will change this because there will always be minority opinions within a district. Those voices shouldn’t be silenced.
It was a seperate issue until you and Elvis brought it into the discussion by recommending we assign electoral votes based upon congressional districts. If you wish to argue for moving to a district system then you have to be prepared to deal with the real headaches of doing so. Gerrymandering is a huge problem. By some estimates 95% of the House districts are “safe” for one party or the other. That means that lacking extraordinary circumstances they can be counted upon to deliver for one party or the other. What effect would that have upon the presidential election? And look at the difficulties that states have in redrawing districts right now. With the Tejas and Colorado controversies the Dems are threatening to redraw New Mexico. If people don’t settle down we could get into a situation where the lines are redrawn every time a state government changes hands. Wouldn’t increasing the importance of districts lead to even more desperate measures? Can you see why I find it irresponsible to use this plan on a larger state?
Dividing the vote, by state or by congressional districts, makes it easier to cheat. In a popular vote those few thousand votes can only effect those few thousand votes. But when you divide the vote then those same votes in the right place can multiply into a lot more by turning the balance in a state/district. In the last election for instance if we gave Gore a few thousand more votes he could have added them in Florida or West Virginia or another close state and gain enough electoral votes to win the election. If we gave those same votes to Bush there is no way he could have used them to gain a majority of the popular vote. Dividing the vote makes it easier for cheating or even honest mistakes to pervert an election.
I don’t agree that any outrage would be justifiable. They would have lost fair and square and would have nothing to bitch about. I would recommend people take solace in the fact that for the first time in their lives they didn’t get cheated in the presidential election.
You are missing something but it isn’t nuance, it’s the main show: under a popular vote everyone’s vote counts and counts the same as everyone elses.
Again, it doesn’t make sense because you are ignoring the basic fact of this thread: under a popular vote everyone’s vote counts and counts the same as everyone elses. No one would be tossing their vote away and I am suggesting that it should be the large states that adopt my plan. The citizens of those states have much to gain: an equal say in who is president. Why would someone not want to trade a less than equal vote for an equal one?
The small state bias is a canard.
In any voting scheme where the winner needs a certain percentage of votes to win, having X% of the votes doesn’t mean you have X% of the power. Here’s an elementary example: suppose there were two states, with 60% and 40% of the population respectively. In a proportional-allocation scheme, they’d have 60% and 40% of the electoral votes respectively. Now suppose a president needs >= 50% of the vote to be elected. Guess what? The smaller state has zero power under this scheme, because whoever the big state votes for becomes president,irrespective of what the small state thinks.
The US electoral college tries to allocate votes in such a way that the ability of a state to influence the outcome of an election is proportional to its population. See for example
I. Mann and L. S. Shapley: Values of large games, VI : evaluating the electoral college exactly. Technical Report, The RAND Corporation, RM-3158-PR (1962).