Once again, the Electoral College needs to go.

[diablopilot 2]

The time has long been past, where a popular vote, one in which EVERY individuals voice in the choosing of our president is heard.

Now I have no dog in this hunt, my choice was never one of the two main contenders, and that may in part be due to the preservation of a two party system by the archaic "Electoral College." I simply think that like everything else on the ballots, the Presidency too should be determined but the popular vote of the people.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[TFFTM 1]

+1
It is crazy for the states to adhere to a popular vote and not the country. The number of electoral votes allocated leaves too many questions but an overall popular vote would alleviate this.
However it would make ties or close calls kinda hard to resolve.
Surely there has to be a better compromise than the current system.

BSBD
Home of the Alabama Gang

[lawrocket 3]

I disagree. I think the Electoral College is a great idea that has, in my not-so-humble opinion, has proven its worth.

The electoral college is like a multi-game sport series. A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

The electoral maps demonstrate the wisdom of the system - the winner needs the support of the country, not just 3 or 4 major metropolitan areas.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[labrys 0]

Quote

A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

Huh?

Owned by Remi #?

[lawrocket 3]

The election is set up as a series of weighted games.

This country is seen as a federation of States. There are differences of opinion, of course. But, the individual states (you know, they all have their own flags) work together as a country.

The system is set up not to see who scores the most runs in a series but who wins the most games. That's why I used the baseball analogy.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[packing_jarrett 0]

Quote

A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

Uuuuhm. Yeah I don't really get it? 13 to 1 maybe?

Na' Cho' Cheese

[karenmeal 0]

I absolutely agree.

It's not an issue of what party you belong to. The electoral college simply reduces the power of individual citizens to choose their president.

"Life is a temporary victory over the causes which induce death." - Sylvester Graham

[jakee 1,556]

Quote

Quote

A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

Uuuuhm. Yeah I don't really get it? 13 to 1 maybe?

Not that either

Lawrocket: What about the potential of a popular vote system helping open the race up to a strong third party candidate?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[normiss 842]

booyah

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

The electoral maps demonstrate the wisdom of the system - the winner needs the support of the country, not just 3 or 4 major metropolitan areas.

I'd argue otherwise. The Electoral system allows candidates to overlook vast regions in order to secure more populated areas. Look at the breakdown by counties in individual states for the example.

What harm is there served by the popular vote?

The Electoral College preserves the two party system, and that is an impediment to progress.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[normiss 842]

Booyah #2

[kallend 2,098]

Quote

The election is set up as a series of weighted games.

This country is seen as a federation of States. There are differences of opinion, of course. But, the individual states (you know, they all have their own flags) work together as a country.

The system is set up not to see who scores the most runs in a series but who wins the most games. That's why I used the baseball analogy.

Nice analogy, but it doesn't explain why it's a better system for electing a president than one person one vote.

...

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

[normiss 842]

PLEASE add comment to that so I don't agree with you!!!



I agree you may actually be right in this case oh learned one.

[sdctlc 0]

Quote

The electoral maps demonstrate the wisdom of the system - the winner needs the support of the country, not just 3 or 4 major metropolitan areas.

But it cuts both ways and looking at the map shows about 1/2 red and 1/2 blue as of this post time..... Those major areas are just what decided the electorial college and its winner take all set up. You pick the places to put emphasis with your campaign to get the most EC votes ...

Last time I saw on the TV, the popular vote is 51% / 49% so the "Obvious" ~340 to ~150 electoral vote landslide victory is deceiving.. Victory in certain places negates the close popular vote.. We are not the non-educated, non-information access rural farmer population that was in place when the electoral college was put in place.

Last election I got completely sick of hearing the news spew about the Popular vote and Bush should not win.. The electoral college said it was the case that he ended up winning. I guess it does cut both ways..

Scott C.

"He who Hesitates Shall Inherit the Earth!"

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

Uuuuhm. Yeah I don't really get it? 13 to 1 maybe?

Not that either

Third party? Like Perot or Nader?

Seems to me that the electoral college made them MORE significant.

Lawrocket: What about the potential of a popular vote system helping open the race up to a strong third party candidate?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Cari 0]

Quote

Quote

A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

Huh?

Math is hard.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

A team game lose game one 10-0 and win game two 1-0 and 2-1 and win the series, even though they scored 11 runs to the other team's 3.

Huh?

Math is hard.

Yeah. I can't add or spell. I'm an idiot. A moron. Likely a Red Stater, too. Ignorant and uneducated.

I'm ugly, too.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[diablopilot 2]

Even a mother loves it's puppies.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'd argue otherwise. The Electoral system allows candidates to overlook vast regions in order to secure more populated areas. Look at the breakdown by counties in individual states for the example.

That doesn't change with a popular vote.

Quote

What harm is there served by the popular vote?

What is gained? And more importantly, at what cost.

Nothing about this election adds to the discussions we've already had. I think the EC results more clearly indicate the significance of Obama's victory - winning states like Ohio, Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado. This shows his broad support much better than 51-47 does.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

The time has long been past, where a popular vote, one in which EVERY individuals voice in the choosing of our president is heard.

Now I have no dog in this hunt, my choice was never one of the two main contenders, and that may in part be due to the preservation of a two party system by the archaic "Electoral College." I simply think that like everything else on the ballots, the Presidency too should be determined but the popular vote of the people.

The United States was created as a loose confederation of the Several States who had banded together for the purposes of trade (like the EU) and common defense (like NATO). The Federal government was intended to do little, being required to meet only once a year starting on December First. It was important to represent those states interests, regardless of whether their economies were based on farming or manufacturing and trade and how many people settled there.

The Electoral College made that work.

Now things not dividing on clean geographic boundaries is a reason to re-evaluate the system not discard it. The original system allowed for minority representation in government. That was a good idea. Now that things are more complex, it needs to grow instead of being abandoned.

As a geeky Grizzly Adams sort of guy, regardless of where I live at the time I share more with my nerdy brethren along the metaphorical Bay Area to Boston axis and Rocky Mountain dudes than the locals. My vote doesn't count for much whether cast in California where the "liberals" wet their pants about guns or Colorado where they cling to their guns and religion (it's a cliche about one minor aspect of politics, although this is one short post on a recreational web site and not a dissertataion)

I'd like to see actual proportional representation. When up to 15% of the population self-identify as libertarian, it would be nice seeing 1 of a 7 member executive branch, 15 senators, and 65 representatives in that camp.

The electoral college is an anachronism which helps us in the few places where differences between more and less populous states correspond to party preferences in a system where the two are essentially the same. Getting rid of it will just move us farther down the path of two indistinguishable political parties. Fixing the underlying problem where political minorities are insufficiently represented will actually make a difference.

People claim that there are differences between Republicans and Democrats but I disagree.

The Republicans used to have the reputation of being for smaller government, yet they were responsible for the largest discretionary non-defense spending increases in history. The Democrats used to have the reputation of being for wealth-transfer and tax-and-spend, yet were responsible for welfare reform and a budget balanced under accepted accounting rules. The Republicans have a reputation for favoring the wealthy yet are responsible for tax collections becoming more progressive. Republicans call Democrats Socialists yet socialize banking. The Republicans claim to be against abortion and for guns, yet they don't pass any real anti-abortion or pro-gun legislation (both the 1986 and 1989 bans were passed under Republican leadership).

Based on the laws passed the two are the same.

The popular vote for president has differed by less than 2% in the prior couple elections (the current one being an exception, due to unusually bad economic times and an especially bad president). There's little difference because the two are the same.

Fixing things to satisfy the intent of the Electoral College and legislative apportionment will go a long ways to fixing our current problems.

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

This shows his broad support much better than 51-47 does.

How can he have "broad support" if the split is much closer to 50/50.

Personally I don't find anything wrong with an election won by a single vote. That's the way it should work. Otherwise it just serves to disenfranchise the individual voter.

Look at the "swing states". Their votes are held to be more favored by the two parties than "non swing states".

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

This shows his broad support much better than 51-47 does.

How can he have "broad support" if the split is much closer to 50/50.

I think it says more to win California, NV, NM, CO by a few points each than it does to win big in CA, but lose the others, even if the net number of votes is the same.

[riddler 0]

Quote

The electoral maps demonstrate the wisdom of the system

It was not wisdom that established the electoral voting process - it was compromise.

Quote

At the Constitutional Convention, the Virginia Plan used as the basis for discussions called for the Executive to be elected by the Legislature.[7] Delegates from a majority of states agreed to this mode of election.[8] However, a committee formed to work out various details, including the mode of election of the President, recommended instead that the election be by a group of people apportioned among the states in the same numbers as their representatives in Congress (the formula for which had been resolved in lengthy debates resulting in the Connecticut Compromise and Three-fifths compromise), but chosen by each state "in such manner as its Legislature may direct." Committee member Gouverneur Morris explained the reasons for the change; among others, there were fears of "intrigue" if the President was chosen by a small group of men who met together regularly, as well as concerns for the independence of the Office of the President.[9] Though some delegates preferred popular election, the committee's proposal was approved, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[10]

The founding fathers weren't all that wise about democracy - they were starting with the same outdated paradigms of feudalism that existed in England before the American Revolution. The concept of each person voting probably seemed incredibly ludicrous to them.

Today, citizens are well-educated enough to be able to make the decisions for themselves, and well-connected enough to be able to get to a voting booth and vote. Back in the day, the average person was not so smart, didn't know what was going on in the government, and many of them probably couldn't even read a ballot. It made sense then, it doesn't make any sense now.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Back in the day, the average person was not so smart, didn't know what was going on in the government, and many of them probably couldn't even read a ballot.

Eh, don't worry, the nation (and a lot of the rest of the world) is probably headed back down this road.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

Today, citizens are well-educated enough to be able to make the decisions for themselves

No. We've entered an age where the purpose of education is scoring well on standardized tests (which can't score on original thought, because that's too hard) and we have a post-literate population which gets their news from a small number of news sources with government granted monopolies they got by providing information that was most pleasant for the peoples' consumption.

Quote

and well-connected enough to be able to get to a voting booth and vote. Back in the day, the average person was not so smart, didn't know what was going on in the government, and many of them probably couldn't even read a ballot. It made sense then, it doesn't make any sense now.

I've hung out with people who live in shacks with tin roofs, no windows, and no running water. I've had beers with NYPD officers, African runners, Amsterdam drug addicts, soldiers in the South African Special Forces who served during the fall of Apartheid, lawyers, energy healers, Jewish gun nuts, vegans, Mexican conscripts, industry people (DuPonts), holywood people, ren fair people, conservative christians, exotic dancers, etc. I can't keep track of where all the immigrants I've known came from. I've decided that people are pretty much the same (as smart, good, bad, etc) every where; we just get different opportunities and challenges. The poor countries now aren't much different than our country was historically. I've read my history books and watched film/video beyond the first televised presidential debates and see that we're getting less real information now (you should be able to find Nixon vs. Kennedy - it's an eye-opener) than then. We're no better than we were then or other countries are now.

Even if we were, a lot of places the issues being decided don't fit on the ballots. They say we can vote to spend more on law enforcement, when the whole bill means prosecuting 14 year olds as adults (I didn't have good judgement until after becoming 18 in spite of having two good parents living in the same house), throwing people convicted of drug crimes out of public housing, denying bail to illegal immigrants (I can't come up with a good reason why my great grandparents (some penny-less after the potato famine) were OK and the newcomers aren't apart from my family being white and the new guys brown which doesn't sound American), allowing hearsay as evidence, and requiring a 75% super majority for future changes in the law (California Proposition 6).

Reading the ballot isn't enough. Watching and listening to the media isn't enough. Reading the current law and proposed changes is but few people have time and motivation for that.

Things get worse once you add indirection to the process. Most people won't throw out their legislators because they voted for or against a bill which bloated to 19,000 lines before passing.

The only hope for salvation is getting away from this madness and agreeing on principles or letting the people who care vote electronically on issues of interest. Principles would mean things like "Should we be able to convict people on evidence that may have been planted?" "Can we torture suspected criminals to extract information?" "Should we seize suspected criminals' property without a trial?" with specifics like "Lots of evil people infect computers with viruses which download illegal pornography. We have no evidence that Joe tried to acquire that pornography but we found it on his computer and he must be guilty".

Obviously that sort of power shift isn't going to happen until after something really bad does.