Should we throw out the Electoral College?

[Cascadian]

Poll question: Should we throw out the Electoral College?

Do we really need it? In my view, ABSOLUTELY NOT! The 2000 election proved how much of a joke it really is. If we are going to function as a democracy, which I am beginning to doubt more and more that we really are, we need to give more power to the people. That is through one man/woman for one vote. What is the point of having a bunch of people sit around and decide who should be our president? They sure as heck didn't listen to the people the last time. Let's get rid of it!

John

[Cascadian]

1. Love the response so far!

eom


John

[pnorman]

2. Of course.

When a vestigial remnant becomes a ruptured appendix? ... WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR?

[morgan2]

3. the electoral college may need to be reformed but

in such a large country, but imagine the chaos of a close national race. It segments the possible places for corruption to the swing states. There is no way we could possibly deal with a close national election with recounts nationally.

[Cascadian]

4. Let the election last a week.

Why should have just one night? Let's give people enough time to count the votes. I also get ruffled whenever they announce the winner before 8 PM (Pacific Time). I feel cheated when those in the East Coast Media do that being a Pacific sider!


John

[morgan2]

7. possibly

but too that would seem to be really expensive. The electoral college has its merits, its not a perfect system but I see no compelling reason to rid ourselves of it. What many have proposed is forcing states to not give their electoral votes away in blocks. A few dont as it is now. I think 2 split it up proportionally based upon vote total, and I think another gives each congressional district a vote then the winner of the state overall gets the 2 extra votes.

[dansolo]

43. I prefer percentage of popular vote, not according to districts

The problem with giving the votes to congressional districts is that it then mirrors the House of Representatives too much, and is then suceptable to the effects of gerrymandering (e.g. like in Texas) I'd prefer that it just be a straight percentage of popular vote from the entire state.

[AntiCoup2K4]

10. Exactly

The election is first tuesday in November. Innauguration day is January 20th. There's plenty of time to count the votes. And no excuse to keep this 18th century relic which was sickeningly abused by the Republican party in 2000.

[DuctapeFatwa]

5. That would be a start, there are many things that should be "thrown out"

If what is desired is cleanliness, that is ;)

[NavajoRug]

6. This is a dopey question, in my opinion . . .

. . . because the answer that people give will depend entirely on whether or not they felt screwed in 2000.

I felt screwed in 2000, but not by the Electoral College system. Remember: a lot of us (including me) really thought the election would be the other way around -- with Bush winning the popular vote and Gore winning more electoral votes.

I really thought Nader would have a bigger overall impact on Gore's total numbers than he did.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Yes, but there is an easier way!

One needs to change the U.S. Constitution (remember it?) in order to abolish the Electoral College and making our elections truly democratic.

The federal character of our Republic, before PATRIOT Act and the Imperial Presidency, will not be affected by the abolition of the Electoral College. There is one provision in the Constitution, the only constitutional provision that cannot be changed by constitutional amendment, that guarantees our federal form of government: the U.S. Senate, in which each state is equally represented with all other states.

An easier way is to change state laws, and change the winner-take-all provisions of awarding electoral votes to a proportional vote. This means that in a Republican state like Indiana, one would have at least 2 of its 9 electoral votes going to the Democratic candidate.

Changing the Electoral College from a winner-take-all to a proportional system would force candidates to campaign all across the country in order to get their share of electoral votes from every state.

[0007]

18. Absolutely! Sounds good to me.

[Nazgul35]

41. Do that and you would have to amend other parts of the constitution...

because, by your proportional system...every single election in since 1988 would have ended up in the House and the Senate....

Why you ask....and i'm so glad you asked....

Because you need 271 electoral votes to win....

Your way would make it harder to get the much needed 271 votes and would encourage more third party competition, making it less likely one could achieve that goal....

The best plan I've seen is to retain the electoral college but add 50 electoral votes to the person that wins the total vote....

But since this has happened only twice in US history....and that the small states will never ratify a change in the electoral college rules...we''l have to keep woring in the system we've got...

sorry....

[LiberalFighter]

9. It should be revised.

The electoral college was not always the way it is now. In fact there are two states that do not give all of their electoral votes based on the state results. I believe they give the winner the votes that are considered Senator and the Congressional votes are by district. That is the way I believe it should be done.

An example:
Indiana - 11 electoral votes
Has 9 Congressional Districts
Indiana generally goes Repug so it would get 2 electoral votes
If the Democratic candidate wins in 4 Congressional Districts the votes would go to that candidate
If the Republican candidate wins the remaining 5 Congressional Districts the votes would go to the monkey.

Result: 7 electoral votes for the monkey
4 electoral votes for the Democrat

Old way: All 11 electoral votes to the monkey

Now that may backfire on us but it might also make more states and districts more competitive.


I see you got ahead of me IndianaGreen

[NavajoRug]

12. It might backfire in surprising places . . .

In New York, for example, a big chunk of the state's electoral votes would come from the heavily-Republican upstate area.

Back when Pataki beat Cuomo for governor of New York in 1994, the margin of victory was razor-thin, but Pataki actually won something like 62 of the 67 counties.

The more I think about it, the less I think this kind of change would ever happen -- because no major political party is going to have interest in spending time and money campaigning in every single closely-contested Congressional district.

[IndianaGreen]

15. Together with proportional representation

this is one of the issues that many Hoosiers want to see reformed, even before the 2000 fiasco.

A toast to you, LiberalFighter!

:toast:

Indiana Coalition for Fair Elections Law

http://www.icfel.org/ballot/home.html

[NavajoRug]

19. Proportional representation has its own pitfalls . . .

. . . like a state legislature that rigs the electoral vote system so that all the Democrats are in a district that is 95% Democratic to 5% Republican, and the rest of the state is districts that are 55% Republican and 45% Democratic. In that case, we'd still be screwed.

[Ediacara]

11. YES

The only "small state" it benefits is Wyoming, all 49 other suffer because Wyoming gets more of a say than all others. The votes of two Montanans (pop 900,000) equal the vote of just one Wyomingite (pop 450,000) because they both have three electoral votes; and it just gets worse as you approach California.

Presidential candidates DON'T VISIT SMALL STATES ANYWAY, so none of that BS about candidates focusing on big media markets BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY DO ALREADY!

It's a vestage of pre-Civil War Americana and should be done away with post-haste. Actually.... it should have been the 15th ammendment, but I digress...

[nn2004]

13. Toss it out

The small rural AMericans will get in line once we get control. After a generation or so they will learn to understand that the urban voters are more in tune with what is needed to insure everyone gets equal treatment and support in America.

[gate of the sun]

14. I want a democracy

not a freakin republic

[nn2004]

17. Yes. "The Republic for which it stands" is outdated

The thugs have owned America for too long. When we take over in 2004 we will change the constitution and the Pledge to reflect the Democratic values most Americans agree with. It's time to join the EU in democracy.

[piece sine]

16. to change it would be a garganuan undertaking.

a decade of legal wrangling, at least; endless lobbying and then the 2/3 of states' ratification votes required to change the constitution. There are so many other fish to fry in 2004! It would be impractical to campaign for the abolition of the "electorial college."

Don't go there, girl.........

[IronLionZion]

20. Good heavens no!

We are all sore over Florida and Gore but if we did away with the electoral college, millions of people will be left out of this process. Candidates can ignore huge sections of the country.

A better way to do it is to divide up the electoral votes as evenly as possible instead of the "winner takes all" approach.

[arewethereyet]

23. I like it as it is. not perfect but its worked pretty well over time.

Its simple, its hard to politicise.

Considering what it takes to change it, not worth the effort.

[IronLionZion]

24. yes it has, I forgot to mention voter fraud

will play a painfully huge part in every election without the electoral college.

Now instead of cheating in just one place, they have to cheat across several states.

[arewethereyet]

32. amazing isn't it

the simple plans are always the best ones.

I am always suspicious when someone wants to comlicate something, I feel the need to count my fingers after I shake hands with them.

[pasadenaboy]

29. I live in California,

the biggest state in the union, and we are ignored every election because we are safe (lately for democrats).

[last_texas_dem]

37. But consider...

...it could be argued that millions of people are already being left out of the process under the Electoral College system. During the 2000 election Gore and Shrub primarily focused on less than a dozen "swing" states to determine the outcome of the election since the other states were already seen as pretty much certain for one of them or the other. Also, I believe that in a perfect scenario a Presidential candidate could win the election under an Electoral college system by carrying only seven or eight states.

[Martin Eden]

21. Modify it

I voted yes, but one option is to modify it. The electoral college gives disproportional representation to small states, but this was intended by the founders in order to keep small states from being overwhelmed by more populous states.

What needs to be changed is the "winner take all" method in which all of a state's electoral votes go to one candidate even if the margin of victory was razor thin. It wasn't always this way, and doesn't have to be.

Many are loathe to tamper with the constitution, but didviding each state's electoral votes according to the percentage of votes garnered by each candidate would improve our democarcy without making a major change to the Constitution (which would be unlikely to pass).

[Silverhair]

22. How? Wake up and look at the reality.

It would require a constitutional amendment and any 13 states can block it. Since such an amendment would reduce the power of the smaller states and the rural ones, there would easily be 13 states to say, "No."

[IndianaGreen]

25. Electoral College votes can be apportioned w/o changing the Constitution

As I stated on this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=926190#926255

[Virgil]

26. It does not need an amendment

The electorial college is not of Constitutional design.

[Silverhair]

27. Real world: Large states change, smaller states don't.

Doubtful you could get that change across in the south. Just about all of their legislatures are Republican, and they would want to keep the voting blocks of all those electoral votes. Same story in the Rocky Mountain states.

The Red states would not change, and if any of the blue states did, then the Reps would have a dead lock on the Presidency.

The only way that works is if it is done all at the same time by federal law. Is that consitutionally possible? It would help avoid problems like what happened in 2000.

I once saw a proposal for the electoral votes to go the way the each congressional district went, with the two senators going the way the state went.

[NavajoRug]

28. I have one major problem with that proposal . . .

"I once saw a proposal for the electoral votes to go the way the each congressional district went, with the two senators going the way the state went."

If this were to happen, then we would effectively have an indirect parliamentary system in which the legislative branch, for all intents and purposes, elects the President.

[Silverhair]

36. No necessarily. Many people split tickets.

I know one hard core Republican whose congressman is a Democrat. Quess what? He votes for the Democrat for congress at the same time as for the Dem congressman. The district votes Rep for POTUS every time, but keeps a Dem represtative. I think he may be retiring this cycle, but I'm not sure.

I used to live in the Mississippi Gulf Coast and we ended up with a Democratic congressman. (Newly elected Rep congressman dies in a private plane crash. Special election. Democrat has name recgonition and wins.) The district continues reelect him, although the district votes Rep for POTUS every time.

[NavajoRug]

38. I stand corrected -- that's a good point . . .

I neglected to take the impact of incumbency into account when it comes to Congressional elections. You're right.

[TruthIsAll]

30. I am truly surprised that this issue is even raised...

I thought DUers would be better informed by now as to the danger of the EC. Of course, the EC should be shelved and the popular vote prevail. Gore is the winner. Not Bush.

We are the only nation which claims to be a democracy and which does not have direct popular vote. Whoever gets the most votes should win. Period.

The only way to fix an election is the way Bush did it: to steal just enough votes in close states like Florida and New Hampshire, and then gain a majority of the Electoral votes.

I will be a real curmudgeon here. The fact that there is even contemplation of keeping the EC, or apportioning the EC, based on the popular vote, shows a lack of understanding as to the history behind the EC.

Our forefathers installed the EC to give power to the small states. Unfortunately, this opened up a can of worms, as elections could now be easily corrupted.

If they had a vote on this, all Democrats would vote for getting rid of the EC. All Repukes would vote for the status quo. That is the answer to your question. Plain and simple.

And Bush will fix the votes to steal the EC again.

[NavajoRug]

31. You have got to be kidding me . . .

"We are the only nation which claims to be a democracy and which does not have direct popular vote. Whoever gets the most votes should win. Period."

For one thing, "we" don't claim to be a democracy at all -- we are a representative republic, with leaders elected democratically.

If you really want to see a nightmare, check out almost any multi-party parliamentary system of government. In those governments, you don't even elect the Prime Minister directly at all -- it is the equivalent of voting for members of Congress, and having THEM vote for the President.

Canada is a perfect case in point. The voting districts are not apportioned by population (many of them are etched into the constitution based on some deal that was made when a province was admitted to the Canadian Confederation), and with more than two political parties you often end up in a situation like you had in their last national election a few years ago -- when Jean Chretien was re-elected as Prime Minister of Canada even though his party received only about 36% of the popular vote.

[IndianaGreen]

33. May I remind you that the State Legislatures used to elect the Senators

The reality is that the Framers of the Constitution (white males, property owners, some of whose property consisted of slaves), did not trust the popular will.

[NavajoRug]

34. Technically, I think states were permitted to select Senators . . .

. . . in any number of ways. I think the vast majority of them had the legislature select them, but I believe some states had popular elections for the Senate even before it was required by the Constitution.

I understand the concerns that the founders of this country had for the will of the populace, but it's important to remember that this could work both ways and can protect an intelligent minority against a very impressionable majority.

Like every time I hear that most Americans think Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11, for example.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

40. Pretty much what I posted below.

Sans the excellent Hussein-9/11 reminder.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

39. Disagree. To an extent.

The EV was a concession so that small states wouldn't be trampled by the larger states. Tyranny of the majority and all that. Seven states (NY, CA, IL, PA, FL, TX and OH) control nearly a third of the House of Representatives, yet they're all equal in the Senate.

Although it seems anti-Democratic, I understand Delaware's concern.

As for fixing an election, the answer is to stop the fixing, not the Electoral vote.


Note: I wouldn't be pissed if we did away with it, but I understand the reason why the founding fathers did it. They envisioned a country where the states were powerful enough to forge their own policies, only to be trumped by the Feds if their ways became too egregious. They didn't envision our current state of affairs where more and more power is vested in the Executive, and by proxy, the Judicial branches.

[VT70]

35. Yes

The current system is unfair to rural states with smaller populations.

[dansolo]

42. No, but it can be improved

This is what I think would work:

Each state gets the same number of electoral votes as they do now, i.e. equal to the number of representatives and senators. Two electoral college votes go to the overall winner of the state, and the remaining votes get split according to the percentage of popular votes that each candidate gets. I think this will give a more accurate representation, while still keeping the general idea of the electoral college intact.

[Clark Can WIN]

44. You didn't leave an option for HELL YEAH

It's............... Neandertal.

[jsw_81]

45. Yes

And not just because I'm bitter about what happened 2000. Any electoral system that allows the candidate who came in second to be "elected" is flawed and should be thrown out. But unfortunately it would take a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college, and there is no way in hell that the smaller states will approve one.

[Padraig18]

46. Yes, but it'll never happen.

The smaller states like VT, WY, ND, etc. will never vote in favor of an Amendment to outlaw it, because it gives them disproportionate power.