I read the links, and I’m still waiting to see the math. From what I can glean from the article posted at that link, Alan Natapoff is claiming that the advantage of his system is that it makes it more difficult for the majority candidate to be elected. Whether this is a good thing can be debated, but the article does not show how it corresponds to an increase in voter’s power.
By the way, everyone, some of the posts here are getting mighty close to being ad hominen attacks. Those do not belong here. Consider this a warning.
No, I’m saying that the election is decided (by the EC) before the popular vote is tallied. At least it appears that way on election night.
As has been pointed out, the candidate who is elected usually wins the popular vote too. I can’t help but wonder, though, how direct popular vote would affect voter turnout and how we vote.
My objection to the EC is a small one, actually. I simply like the idea of being allowed to speak for myself. That’s all.
Beruang had this right in one of his earlier shorter posts. Because of the Electoral College, Bush and Gore have to run campaigns that are a going to appeal to a broad number of people throughout the US. Either one could just jump on one issue and get 51% of the people to vote for him (or more likely this year about 48-49% will do since Nader and Buchanan are likely to earn over 1% each).
However, you can’t do that under the EC because such a plan would likely tick off the voters in some other part of the country. You don’t get extra electoral votes if you win California by a wide margin. The system is designed to reward the candidate who is slightly favored in more states.
You could make the argument that the EC has forced both parties’ candidates to the center to the point where their stands on the issues are indistinguishable, but that’s fodder for GD as this question probably should be.
Thanks Beruang! That was the article I was looking for. I thought it was fairly well written. Since Science News is the only magazine that I subscribe to I suppose that I over-attribute to it.
I think the problem here is with the term “advantage”. I probably chose poorly when using that word here.
What I get from the Discover article is that the probability of the outcome of the election being changed by any one person’s vote is higher in a districted election.
The districts also seem to “spread out” the effect that larger population areas have so that the candidates can’t (always) ignore the outback voters.
Obviously several factors enter in to this, and it isn’t always true. It only raises the ** probability ** that single vote will have an effect. So sometimes it would, sometimes it wouldn’t. But in the long haul, the districted type election increases this probability.
This may be offset (depending on your point of view) by the fact that in area where the vote isn’t close, voting for the minority candidate seems pretty useless. For instance, I live in Utah. If anyone thinks that Al Gore has a snowball’s chance of carrying this state, well I’ve got some swampland you me be interested in. It seems that around here, the democrats might as well not bother to show up for the presidential election.
However, it also seems (going by the article) to be true that on average, taking into account the presidential elections that have occurred, it is more likely that a single vote will have an effect (i.e. carry the election one way or the other) using the current EC system. Not necessarily ** your ** single vote, mind you, but ** a ** single vote.
My point is that there is often a kind of knee jerk reaction to the EC where many people automatically say (and get quite excited about saying, witness some of the posts in this thread) that it is an entirely outmoded and entirely bad system. I think we should carefully weigh all of the considerations of the system, and realize that it isn’t necessarily all bad, before we toss it.
I believe Bob T’s last post states the whole merits of the EC, math being of no consideration. A candidate can appeal to all of the populace of one or two states and would win the popular vote, but this is a nation of 50 states, and he must appeal to the majority of the majority of the states. That’s why the EC is better.
As I’ve argued on the many, many threads on this topic, the EC makes the whole process cleaner (well, at least neater). Six times since World War II (1948, 1960, 1968, 1976, 1992, 1996) the winning candidate either had an extremely slim majority, or because of the strength of third parties that year, actually had less than 50% of the popular vote. If it weren’t for an electoral college, we’d probably still be in the recount from the Kennedy-Nixon race, where the winning margin was something like 100,000 votes, and fewer than 10,000 votes in two states would have swung the election to Nixon.
So if you’re in favor of direct popular vote, what’s your procedure if no one gets a majority? Run-off election, send it to the House of Representatives, coalition government, recounts for months on end? If you think politics is dirty now, wait until a third-party candidate holds the power to swing the election one way or another.
OK at the risk of stirring up more ire, wouldn’t a strong third party cantidate have MORE of a desruptive effect on a close election WITH the EC than without, since every vote in effect “counts” for more? And what’s wrong with awarding the victory to the candidate with the highest vote tally, as is the present practice?
In the end , in a system where there exists the possibility that the less popular candidate can and has won (Benjamin Harrison, Rutheford B.Hayes), do we need a partitioning of the voting blocks? Even after reading the well written Discover Magazine article, I think not.
The current issue of Discover explains the math behind why the most popular candidate isn’t always the one who’s elected…if so, John McCain would be our next president.
The way the original Electoral College was set up, and as is dictated by the constitution, there are electors from each state who are divided by the percentage of vote in that state.
“Winner-Take-All” was implemented in the 1840-50s in individual states. Under this modification, 51% of a states vote would net a candidate 100% of the electors. This led to the election of Lincoln, for example, who in some southern states didn’t get a single vote.
The EC is a perfectly good idea. Winner-take-all, as one of the causes of the civil war, probably should be repealed IMHO.
The math works in two ways: the EC gives more power to the single voter, as well as to the voting block.
In a direct election of 100 million voters, the power of a single voter to turn the election are vanishingly small. In 50 districted elections, the power of a single voter is 50 times greater, and occurs in 50 different districts. (Granted, the districts aren’t all equal, but that just means in smaller districts, the individual is even MORE powerful.)
Voting blocks are better protected under a districted system. I don’t have the census statistics in front of me, but let’s say that America is about 20% minority at present. If a modern-day David Duke were to run for president, he wouldn’t get any votes from minorities or “right-thinking” whites (for want of a better term), but if the rest of his platform were palatable he might still squeak out a slim victory; say 52% - 48%. BUT, in a districted election, no candidate can afford to alienate such a large percentage of the voting public. California is close to being a white-plurality (as opposed to white-majority) state; other heavily-populated and thus important states like Florida, Texas, New York, and the industrial east and midwest would go against him; and the divisive candidate would not win – which I personally see as a good thing.
The math works in two ways: the EC gives more power to the single voter, as well as to the voting block.
In a direct election of 100 million voters, the power of a single voter to turn the election are vanishingly small. In 50 districted elections, the power of a single voter is 50 times greater, and occurs in 50 different districts. (Granted, the districts aren’t all equal, but that just means in smaller districts, the individual is even MORE powerful.)
Voting blocks are better protected under a districted system. I don’t have the census statistics in front of me, but let’s say that America is about 20% minority at present. If a modern-day David Duke were to run for president, he wouldn’t get any votes from minorities or “right-thinking” whites (for want of a better term), but if the rest of his platform were palatable he might still squeak out a slim victory; say 52% - 48%. BUT, in a districted election, no candidate can afford to alienate such a large percentage of the voting public. California is close to being a white-plurality (as opposed to white-majority) state; other heavily-populated and thus important states like Florida, Texas, New York, and the industrial east and midwest would go against him; and the divisive candidate would not win – which I personally see as a good thing.
These might be more appropriate for separate threads–
Last I heard (like 1995), winner-take-all doesn’t apply in at least two states-- Maine and Nebraska. There, the votes are apportioned to the winners of the individual congressional districts, with the overall state winner getting the two senate votes.
Also, until recently, electors where only “pledged” to vote for the candidate. If I remember correctly, in 1972 one voted for McBride instead of Nixon (McBride’s VP was the first woman to receive a electoral vote, but I can’t remember her name), in 1976 one for Reagan instead of Ford, and 1988, one for Bentsen instead of Dukakis. The electors of 1960 for Byrd were actually “unpledged”, and could have voted for Kennedy (and probably would have) if necessary.
Any clarifications, corrections or citations would be appreciated.
States. States are the key to the wisdom of the EC.
The United States of America is comprised of (as its name suggests) separate states. However you regard the wisdom of that choice, that’s the way our country is, and there’s an inherent assumption that those states (groups of people within a geographic area) are important. Thus, they–and NOT just the individual voters living in them–should be represented in the presidential election.
The electoral college, specifically with the “winner takes all” rule, makes it necessary for each candidate to win each state…almost. Our system is still weighted slightly more towards the popular vote, since states have differing numbers of electoral votes. Thus, it strikes a balance between the two poles: a straight-out popular vote, and a state-by-state contest where whoever wins the most states wins the nation.
Switching to a nationwide popular vote contest would negate the significance of states altogether.
> McBride’s VP was the first woman to receive a electoral vote, but I can’t remember her name
Tonie Nathan
> Anyway, the EC doesn’t wait for the popular vote before electing the prez. So how can they possibly reflect the desires of the voters? Precognition?
What do you mean? The EC vote takes place weeks after the election.
The electors in the 50 states and DC meet in December to cast their votes. This delay exists presumably to allow each state to certify the results of its election. Then the votes get sent to Washington, DC, where they are counted in front of a joint session of Congress. As President of the Senate, Al Gore will have to announce his victory or defeat to the whole world.
Or at least to those who are watching the process on C-SPAN.
I watched back in 1992. Dan Quayle seemed to be rather annoyed that he had to be there.
Well look on the bright side. The people involved in the electoral college could be out annoying us at fast food stops and walmart checkouts. At least they have secure govt. jobs and don’t annoy anyone except every four years. What I am really waiting for is the time when the electoral college elect someone with the lessor popular vote. The stinky stuff will really hit the fan and everyone will run for cover.
I’m not sure that I agree with Napatoff’s basic thesis. It’s not obvious to me at all that the best system is one that maximizes the power of a single vote to turn the election. He takes this as a given, and goes from there.
I’m not saying that it ain’t so, but it’s not totally clear that it is, either.
