Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, things have evolved. But the electoral college still serves its purpose to a degree. And the concern that people have with the winner-take-all awarding of electors is not part of federal law in any way, it is a state matter. So abolishing the electoral college does not make sense. Changing the state laws makes sense.
But why should those large marginal states change their laws when doing so would eliminate their status as kingmakers? There are huge benefits to being a state which can decide the presidency.
But why should those large marginal states change their laws when doing so would eliminate their status as kingmakers? There are huge benefits to being a state which can decide the presidency.
Because the majority of their citizens think that electors to the electoral college should be more proportionate?
After every Presidential election, there is an outpouring of anti-electoral college sentiment. And overwhelming outpouring. Because people think that the winner-take-all system doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people. But the winner-take-all system isn't integrated into the electoral college. A fact which most people don't understand. The winner-take-all system is a choice made at the state levels. And it's a choice that was made to further the dominance of the two major parties.
So given the increasing disenchantment with the two major parties, and the fact that even government on the state level is government of, by and for the people, then it's up to the people to change the laws on the state level, isn't it?
Because the majority of their citizens think that electors to the electoral college should be more proportionate?
After every Presidential election, there is an outpouring of anti-electoral college sentiment. And overwhelming outpouring. Because people think that the winner-take-all system doesn't accurately reflect the will of the people. But the winner-take-all system isn't integrated into the electoral college. A fact which most people don't understand. The winner-take-all system is a choice made at the state levels. And it's a choice that was made to further the dominance of the two major parties.
So given the increasing disenchantment with the two major parties, and the fact that even government on the state level is government of, by and for the people, then it's up to the people to change the laws on the state level, isn't it?
State legislatures rarely act on causes. The reason we have the winner take all system is that it maximizes the political importance of a state. Colorado considered doing a proportional system after the 2004 election, but that was voted down due to the fact it would annihilate the state's political importance since almost always the vote breakdown would be 5-4. State legislators also benefit more then anyone else from the winner take all system. They can campaign and fund raise with the POTUS candidates every 4 years that is a huge benefit. On top of that the spending a campaign does in their state gives the local economy a big boost and the better the economy the greater their chances at re-election. There is no benefit in it for state legislators to change the laws.
State legislatures rarely act on causes. The reason we have the winner take all system is that it maximizes the political importance of a state. Colorado considered doing a proportional system after the 2004 election, but that was voted down due to the fact it would annihilate the state's political importance since almost always the vote breakdown would be 5-4. State legislators also benefit more then anyone else from the winner take all system. They can campaign and fund raise with the POTUS candidates every 4 years that is a huge benefit. On top of that the spending a campaign does in their state gives the local economy a big boost and the better the economy the greater their chances at re-election. There is no benefit in it for state legislators to change the laws.
Never heard of referendums, huh?
The benefit of the winner-take-all system isn't the state, it's the two-party system. Your example of Colorado is a case in point. The state's political importance that is vested in the winner-take-all system is essentially a pay-back by the party system. The pay-back is bigger when it's a swing state. And pay-backs get larger as the population gets denser. The fact of the matter is it's a corruption of democracy, just as having certain key states always hold the earliest primaries is a corruption of democracy.
The benefit of the winner-take-all system isn't the state, it's the two-party system. Your example of Colorado is a case in point. The state's political importance that is vested in the winner-take-all system is essentially a pay-back by the party system. The pay-back is bigger when it's a swing state. And pay-backs get larger as the population gets denser. The fact of the matter is it's a corruption of democracy, just as having certain key states always hold the earliest primaries is a corruption of democracy.
Ugh...referendums. I have heard of them, but I do not like them, because they almost universally lead to bad government. I believe in letting the legislatures do the legislating.
As to the political payback system yes that is how it works and that is part of why the electoral college cannot be dealt with effectively on a state level.
Ugh...referendums. I have heard of them, but I do not like them, because they almost universally lead to bad government. I believe in letting the legislatures do the legislating.
As to the political payback system yes that is how it works and that is part of why the electoral college cannot be dealt with effectively on a state level.
I appreciate your point of view, but I vigorously disagree. It is on the state level that the problems of the electoral college are made, and it is on the state level that they should be dealt with. And can be dealt with, because the more local government gets, the more personal it gets. And personal interests trump partisan interests every time a voter goes into the voting booth.
I'd like to see the electoral votes divided up by the percentage of the vote each candidate receives. If one candidate gets 51% of the popular vote, should he get 100% of the electoral votes? That would also effectively put an end to the red/blue state distinction. Even very liberal or conservative states would have at least some, maybe 25 or 35% of the electoral votes go to the losing candidate.
Completely agree. That would make the presidential campaign much more interesting. A GOP candidate never goes to MA; the same for a Democrat candidate going to Arkansas. If electoral votes were given acording to the actual % of popular vote, things would change
People say the electoral college vote should be divided up to more closely reflect the popular vote of the people.
Simple, get rid of the electoral college and the popular vote will reflect the will of the people.
Also, with the electoral college abolished, we no longer will keep hearing of that " magical number" of electoral votes needed.
With the election determined by popular vote, the winner is the one who gets more votes than any other candidate.
Why do politicians oppose doing away with the electoral college?
It will force them to re-think their campaign strategy.
And what will their campaign strategy become? Let's see, I'm a candidate for President, and I need votes. There are sixteen states plus the District of Columbia that can't even muster a million votes (NV, NM, WV, NE, ME, NH, ID, RI, MT, HI, SD, DE, ND, VT, AL, DC, WY), and there are six states that combined have close to 60 million votes. Let me think, let me think, where would my advertising dollars, my campaign resources, my presence be best utilized----gosh, in CA with over fourteen million registered voters, or Texas with almost 10 million, NY just shy of 9 million, FL with over 8 million, PA, IL and OH all over six million. Campaign strategy isn't all that hard, you go where the votes are.
1. What a state's political view is currently does not matter. Previously, things worked exactly the same only with different states for example in the earlier 20th century Illinois was often the large Marginal State which decided elections. I stand by my point here.
??? How is this at all relevant? What point to how a political system should be constructed? And by the way, your point #1 is empirical false. Like most youth you suffer from "generational hubris" and see the facts only with a neighborhood of your own existence. Yes, currently, NY and CA are heaviliy Democrat, but for CA this was not also the case.Heck, look at the mayorship for NYC: a democratic lock for many years, until they so screwed it up, it went Republican.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
2. What I say about the low population states is that they have too few electoral votes to decide elections with a single state. The only time low population states have really matter in determining an election was 1876 when 3 of them pooled their electoral votes giving them the electoral power of large state and with the way the electoral college is set up today the chances of that happening are non-existent.
Nonsense. Re-read your statement. What decides elections is the sum total of electoral votes. Bush 43 won two elections by winning the solid majority of states (winning 30 in 2000 and 31 in 2004).
Seven states have 3 electoral votes and DC has two. These are the smallest of small "states" If each of these had a tiny razor thin margin in 2000, the entire focus would be one these states.
Of course they matter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
3. I hate to break it to you, but that is the case. If you live in a state like New York or Idaho your vote in the near future for president is all but decided. Honestly did you ever think your state would vote for a Democrat? No matter what you do Idaho will pretty much always back a Republican until there is a landslide or major party platform switch. It is simple math something you of all people should know. If it scares you so much you should probably do something about it rather then attacking the messenger.
??? Look. Only 52% of eligible voters voted in the 2000 election (83% of registered voters). Each % point of eligible voters represented approximately 2 million votes! If you are looking for votes, there they are.
Your logic makes no sense whatsoever and explains why people do not vote. They think it is decided. Then by note voting, they turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy or worse. the 1948 election went to Truman sue in large part to the suggestion in major newswires that his election was a forgone conclusion. What you have to realize is that the problem is one of coordination. If all votes were submitted at the same time and exit polling was not conducted, then every voter would be empowered as if they were the only one electing the President.
Instead, you have exit polling, which either moves one to stay home or get off the couch and you have election "returns" coming in from some states before other states, once again changing incentives to vote. Then, there is the massive polling prior to the elections which are even more pathetic.
Finally, there is everything above applied to the primary process in which voter turn out is only half of the Presidential election. Only 25% or so of eligible voters vote in state primaries which decide the major party candidates. Pathetic.
The more the Democrats push a centralized agenda, small states will be biased to vote against the Democrats. The longer the election process remains so overwhelmingly biased toward the East Coast, the East Coast will have undue influence on the voting process. 42% of electoral votes are cast west of the Mississippi and 23% by states West and including the Rocky Mountains.
As for Idaho, it is by no means a static state. With any hope, it will continue to vote in its best interest without selling its soul. California, Washington and Oregon, once states with libertarian bents have all succumbed to the lure of getting larger pieces of the federal pie and in doing so are now trapped into supporting policies that undermine their independence. And now look. California is a mess, both economically and socially. Most likely irreversible. Oregon is a shell of what it once was, arguably the most fiercely independent of states. Washington is awash with guilt money, but its technological prowess and innovation earns it some slack.
The point is that fortunes change and the processes underlying those fortunes change. As a self-induced welfare State, California wants Federal support rather than change its dysfunctional ways. In the past things were very different. In 1960, when the charismatic JFK ran, and 1968, when the college campuses exploded in protests over Vietnam and Civil Rights, California went...Republican...something that revisionist utopianism cannot undue. In fact, from 1952 through 1988, California went Republican in eight of nine elections. Under Reagan, Mr. Evil in lefty circles, the margin of victory was "Obamaesque",more than 17% in both the 1980 and 1984 elections. California was such a shoe in that Reagan barely paid it much attention during the campaign!
But huge demographic shifts featuring the in-migration of East Coast types and the transformation of California into a welfare state of the illiterate and innumerate has plunged California into probably its worst crisis since the Great Depression have combined with the politics of guilt and have driven California into the arms of the Democrats. Gosh, Had Hewlett and Packard not planted the seed that was to become Silicon Valley, California would really be in deep sh*t.
Idaho will go where it makes sense to go. But given the cast of characters on the left and right, I see no reason for any move to the left. However, were the Democrats revert to their early 19th century roots, then who knows? Personally, I would like to see more independence and a near complete detachment from Washington.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent
4. As to it being an illusion it's not. Predictable states are easily factored in to political calculations and it is known almost nothing can be done to change how those electoral votes will go. In the grand scheme of things while these states themselves do matter individual voters in these states really do not matter all that much, quite simply whether a few thousand more or less turn out in such a state will not impact the election overall. This is why turnout in marginal states is almost always slightly higher then it is in non marginal states. There is a well known political acronym for why this is called GOTV. Essentially what this means is that since those extra few marginal voters in those few large marginal states are what decides an election presidential campaigns focus all their resources there in increasing turnout is said marginal state just so much so they can win an election and as a result they are the voters who decide an election.
In a given election, you are right. If the margin is 20%, little campaigning is done. But this is true for big as well as small states. Ford Campaigned had in California because he had to, winning by <2%. Bush 41 only won by <4% in 1988. But Dole, Bush 43 and McCain got crushed and hence California was not a central feature in campaigning (although high on the list in terms of fund raising). But note, a charismatic, non-Dixiecrat libertarian leading Republican can come in and win California. Idaho can also be moved, although I find people there to be more sober than the celebrity-hungry of California.
As far as election strategies, it is very simple. If there are large states on the margin, then these are the prime hunting grounds. If all the large states are secured one way or the other, then the marginal small states would be hot. Normally there is a mix, which then requires the strategists to do a cost benefit analysis. Not brain surgery...
But while all of this is fun to discuss, none of this is relevant to the position of removing the electoral college. Without it, the only appeal would be to large concentrations of votes, ie. urban & big state.
Go look at a county map of elections. This is where Bush 43 beat both Gore and Kerry, two worthy adversaries. Scratch that, he destroyed them and where the Dem strategy failed miserably. Without an electoral college, the Dems would have even less incentive to care about dispersed populations.
No thanks for Idaho and no thanks for America.
S.
P.S. But you know, perhaps this would be good. I would trade the end of the electoral college for the right to leave the Union. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming would be a natural fit. Were counties allowed to break away, I would add eastern Washington and Oregon as well as Western North & South Dakota. Rural and mountainous. Low population. Less educated and with lower incomes. No one would miss us, right?
Last edited by Sandpointian; 12-30-2009 at 10:57 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
