Question about the Electoral College System

[ianmdrennan 2]

In the US, why isn't the Electoral vote count apportioned to the percentage of people voting 1 way or another? Take a place like California, if a party win's it they get all the Electoral votes for that region, right (lets say a total of 100 votes)? I'm curious what the reasoning is that (if) the vote was split 60/40 that each party wouldn't get their pecentage of the votes for that region.

Any insight would be appreciated, since I assume there'a good reason for this?

Thanks,
Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[billvon 3,072]

Because the US was originally considered a union of independent states - thus the president of all the states should be chosen by those independent states, not by the people of the US.

Back then, the president was less like a king and more like an administrator (hence the name of that branch of government.) The state governments were where most of the governing was done.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Maine and Nebraska can split their votes but it has never been done.

Then there is this
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legismgt/elect/EC_bills_2007-2008.htm

Quote

National Popular Vote bills have been introduced in 24 states so far in the 2008 legislative session. In 2007, 42 states considered NPV bills.
To date, two states have passed NPV bills into law. On April 10, 2007, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed the National Popular Vote bill, and New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill on January 13, 2008. The Hawaii Legislature also passed an NPV bill, but the governor vetoed it on April 23, 2007. An NPV bill is pending gubernatorial action in Illinois. If the Illinois bill is signed into law, that will bring the total number of electoral votes pledged in the NPV movement to 46, with an additional 224 necessary to activate the compact

Other changes mentioned on that source include 2 states moving to a proportional system, several states moving to a district system (??) and Indiana moving to make electoral college votes binding (removing one of the loopholes in the college)

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[Andy9o8 2]

Maine and Nebraska award two electoral votes to the statewide winner and remaining electoral votes to the winner in each congressional district. The rest have a straight winner-take-all system.

I hate the electoral college system. It's 200 years out of date, and should be scrapped in favor of a direct popular vote system. Some people disagree with this, but...they're wrong.

In the absence of amending the Constitution to do this, each state does have the ability to decide how it apportions its electoral votes. I suppose I'd grudgingly support states' moving to apportion their electoral votes according to the proportion of the vote received in that state by each candidate, because that at least comes close to the principle of directly enfranchising each voter.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

....that at least comes close to the principle of directly enfranchising each voter.

Yeah, it's just puzzling to me why this system is still in place. No matter what side of the spectrum you stand on you have to feel disenfranchised in certain states (Cali if you're Repub for example).

Out of curiousity - if this system was abolished to a true 1 person, 1 vote system - would that open the door for new parties? Seems to me like people would be more likely to vote a certain way if they didn't feel like their vote would be totally discounted since the state would never go in 'their' direction (green/independent/etc).

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Because the US was originally considered a union of independent states - thus the president of all the states should be chosen by those independent states, not by the people of the US.

Back then, the president was less like a king and more like an administrator (hence the name of that branch of government.) The state governments were where most of the governing was done.

Thanks Bill. So is there any reason, other than history, that this is still in use?

Performance Designs Factory Team

[downwardspiral 0]

Quote

Quote

....that at least comes close to the principle of directly enfranchising each voter.

Yeah, it's just puzzling to me why this system is still in place. No matter what side of the spectrum you stand on you have to feel disenfranchised in certain states (Cali if you're Repub for example).

Out of curiousity - if this system was abolished to a true 1 person, 1 vote system - would that open the door for new parties? Seems to me like people would be more likely to vote a certain way if they didn't feel like their vote would be totally discounted since the state would never go in 'their' direction (green/independent/etc).

Ian

It's not just republicans. It's everybody here in CA. Why bother going to the polls when Obama is going to win this state anyway? So I can say I'm part of the system? It's crap I say.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

It's not just republicans. It's everybody here in CA. Why bother going to the polls when Obama is going to win this state anyway? So I can say I'm part of the system? It's crap I say.

That's exactly my point - I fail to see how this system benefits any voter, regardless of political affiliation. I CAN see how it benefits the 2 'ruling' parties though.

That said, my point wasn't to make this a Dem/Repub issue - it was to highlight that any group can feel disenfranchised in different states - Cali was chosen since it has so many Electoral Votes.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[lummy 4]

Quote

Why bother going to the polls when Obama is going to win this state anyway? So I can say I'm part of the system?

To vote on proposition 8 perhaps?

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

hanks Bill. So is there any reason, other than history, that this is still in use?

Yeah. It helps give a fair shake to each state in the union. Life styles can be wildly different between each state. For instance, someone from Montana or Oklahoma won't necessarily agree with the choices of someone from California or New York. So going to a popular vote system, those states with the lower population, but are equally important to the welfare of the US would loose a percentage of their now held ability to effect national electoral outcomes.

This is even more important as Congress and the Senate have lost (given up) much of their power to the POTUS, which is an unfortunate reality now. That erosion really started with Lincoln and has expanded to a scary situation in the modern era.

After having studied the history involved, its obvious to me that the system should stay in place. It prevents any one over populated state from controlling the other 49.

I wish we had more constitutionalists in politics. Well, that's not correct, they are in politics, but they aren't widely elected to national posts.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Out of curiousity - if this system was abolished to a true 1 person, 1 vote system - would that open the door for new parties?

No. Two relatively centrist parties are the inevitable side effect of a first-past-the-post voting system. Contrasting our Democrats and Republicans against the parties in countries with real proportional representation will show that the Democrats aren't that Liberal and Republicans aren't that conservative.

When you want viable political parties that are sufficiently different you need proportional representation. Assuming that happened and Libertarians voted for "their" party we'd end up with 65 Libertarian representatives and 15 senators in the mix.

To apply that to the executive branch we'd need co-presidents.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

hanks Bill. So is there any reason, other than history, that this is still in use?

Yeah. It helps give a fair shake to each state in the union. Life styles can be wildly different between each state. For instance, someone from Montana or Oklahoma won't necessarily agree with the choices of someone from California or New York. So going to a popular vote system, those states with the lower population, but are equally important to the welfare of the US would loose a percentage of their now held ability to effect national electoral outcomes.

This is even more important as Congress and the Senate have lost (given up) much of their power to the POTUS, which is an unfortunate reality now. That erosion really started with Lincoln and has expanded to a scary situation in the modern era.

After having studied the history involved, its obvious to me that the system should stay in place. It prevents any one over populated state from controlling the other 49.

I wish we had more constitutionalists in politics. Well, that's not correct, they are in politics, but they aren't widely elected to national posts.

The reason is clearly explained in the Federalist Papers (#68) and has nothing whatsoever to do with giving "a fair shake" to anyone. It has to do with the elite of the time distrusting the masses to make a correct decision. The EC guaranteed that the elite would have the say in selecting the president.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

The reason is clearly explained in the Federalist Papers (#68) and has nothing whatsoever to do with giving "a fair shake" to anyone. It has to do with the elite of the time distrusting the masses to make a correct decision. The EC guaranteed that the elite would have the say in selecting the president.

Admit it - you walked down the hall and asked a poly sci prof.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Why bother going to the polls when Obama is going to win this state anyway? So I can say I'm part of the system? It's crap I say.

Because there are many other important things happening in the California election. There's not just one item on the ballot this November. Even if your vote won't make a difference in how California's electoral college votes are allocated, your vote will count towards deciding very important issues here in California.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

....that at least comes close to the principle of directly enfranchising each voter.

Yeah, it's just puzzling to me why this system is still in place. No matter what side of the spectrum you stand on you have to feel disenfranchised in certain states (Cali if you're Repub for example).

Not really, because even without the electoral system, the Republicans are outnumbered in California anyway (nearly 2:1 I think).

It you look at some of the maps that were compiled in the Economist in the "battleground" states, you can see that there is some real genius to it.

Quote

Out of curiousity - if this system was abolished to a true 1 person, 1 vote system - would that open the door for new parties? Seems to me like people would be more likely to vote a certain way if they didn't feel like their vote would be totally discounted since the state would never go in 'their' direction (green/independent/etc).

It's possible, it would also force more political coalitions, which would probably mean less getting done, which I like, but it's also a double edged sword.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[billvon 3,072]

>Why bother going to the polls when Obama is going to win this state anyway?

This is why the presidency has gained so much power in recent years.

When a voter thinks that the only important thing he has to vote for is the president, then we have relinquished control of our state government to the federal government. I think it's something inherent in most people that they _want_ a king, a single leader who they can either rally behind or blame all their ills on.

California is unusual in that a large number of measures are voted on directly by voters; this is much closer to pure democracy than laws passed by a state legislature. Here's the Nov 2008 list:

Prop. 1A
Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act.

Prop. 2
Standards for Confining Farm Animals. Initiative Statute.

Prop. 3
Children’s Hospital Bond Act. Grant Program. Initiative Statute.

Prop. 4
Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Prop. 5
Nonviolent Drug Offenses. Sentencing, Parole and Rehabilitation. Initiative Statute.

Prop. 6
Police and Law Enforcement Funding. Criminal Penalties and Laws. Initiative Statute.

Prop. 7
Renewable Energy Generation. Initiative Statute.

Prop. 8
Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

Prop. 9
Criminal Justice System. Victims’ Rights. Parole. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Prop. 10
Alternative Fuel Vehicles and Renewable Energy. Bonds. Initiative Statute.

Prop. 11
Redistricting. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.

Prop. 12
Veterans’ Bond Act of 2008.

All of these will affect you far more than who the next president is. If you care about them, then get out and vote. If not, that's fine too. Just don't complain when the state moves in a direction you do not like.

[downwardspiral 0]

The subject is the electoral college. Not other measure to be voted on. Perhaps it was just my wording. There is good reason to go to the polls but no good reason to vote for a Presidential candidate since my vote won't count. Unless of course I vote Libertarian which I'll most likely do.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[lummy 4]

Off topic but relating to CA propositions,

Has anyone read the election pamphlet that are being mailed out, and specifically prop 4?
For those outside of Ca, prop 4 is a requirement that dr's give the parent or an adult relative 48 notice before performing an abortion.

I'm inclined to vote for it based on it's merits but I'm a bit turned off by the scare tactics the proponents are using, such as "don't let child abusers get away with this, vote yes to prop 4" blah blah..
Anyone know why they're resorting to that? Other than politics as usual? Even prop 8, defining marriageas between a man and woman only, isn't resorting to such tactics.

I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. I promise not to TP Davis under canopy.. eat sushi, get smoochieTTK#1

[billvon 3,072]

>Anyone know why they're resorting to that?

That's typical of the for/against statements in voting pamphlets. Much use is made of bolding and italics, with statements like:

Don't let BIG BUSINESS force their profiteering schemes down the throats of innocent children AGAIN!

I tend to ignore them and get on the web to look stuff up. The League of Women Voters is a pretty good, relatively non-biased site. Start here:

http://www.smartvoter.org/#ballotform

and it will give you the basic ballot, with links to some relatively non-biased sites for further info.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I hate the electoral college system. It's 200 years out of date, and should be scrapped in favor of a direct popular vote system. Some people disagree with this, but...they're wrong.

No, you're wrong.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

The reason is clearly explained in the Federalist Papers (#68) and has nothing whatsoever to do with giving "a fair shake" to anyone. It has to do with the elite of the time distrusting the masses to make a correct decision. The EC guaranteed that the elite would have the say in selecting the president.

Admit it - you walked down the hall and asked a poly sci prof.

Only profs in our building are engineering and math.

However:
www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=738721#738721

It is also a popular MISconception that the EC favors voters in small states. The proof is long and complex, Google "Banzhaf power index" if interested.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,106]

Quote

Quote

I hate the electoral college system. It's 200 years out of date, and should be scrapped in favor of a direct popular vote system. Some people disagree with this, but...they're wrong.

No, you're wrong.

What are the attributes of the EC system that make him wrong?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AggieDave 6]

If only we had the best teacher/instructor the world has ever seen to tell us exactly how we're wrong...

Wait, what? Oh this isn't the instructors forum?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[lawrocket 3]

Take a look at the electoral map. The electoral vote is factored where each state has a minimum of votes, and more votes as population increases.

Here's an example:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/election/map.htm

If the popular vote was all that mattered, then nobody would campaign or even care about Montana, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Iowa, Kansas, West Virginia, Alaska or Hawaii. The population isn't enough to turn the vote. Who cares about places where there aren't enought votes?

So, the electoral college means that the interests of all places will be considered.

In 2000, had ONE additional state - JUST ONE - gone to Gore, he would have won the election. Instead, Gore took all of the northeast (except New Hampshire), Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois and Iowa, New Mexico, California, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii. I think he took 20 states and Bush took 30.

I guess you can think of it like a best two out of three soccer match. Only in the US the states are like games - weighted games. So you can win one game 30-3, and lose two more games 3-2 and 2-1, and lose - even though you outscored your opponent 33-6.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

One more thing, the founders were definitely smarter than just about everyone in DC now. If they had wanted to create a pure democracy, they would've done so. Today, those that think we should be that way, take us away from our roots of being a constitutional republic.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!