Electoral College v. Straight Vote (house of representatives, Brown, Denver, politicians)
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.
First off, states can decide right now how they want to allocate their electoral votes. Most do winner-take-all but a couple do proportional, which they can do based on the popular vote or by Congressional district.
Second, small states would become even less important than they are now. No matter how small, all states have at least 3 electoral votes, which includes South Dakota (810k), Alaska (710k), North Dakota (670k), Vermont (645k), and Wyoming (560k). These states have between 1.5 and 2% of Cali's population (37250k). In the EC, all these states get 5.5% of Cali's 55 electoral vote.
Third, any amendment that did away with the EC would have to provide for a solution for choosing a POTUS in the case of no candidate getting a majority.
Fourth, popular election is going to change how candidates campaign but not necessarily the way that people think. Small states will become even more irrelevant as candidates will concentrate where they have a chance of winning lots of votes not in areas where they have no chance or already have as many as they're going to get or where there's not enough to bother with.
To put your numbers another way, the five states you identified have a combined population = to 9.11% of California's, and an Electoral College representation = to 28% of CA's. A lot more people in CA get disadvantaged, as compared to those who get advantaged. I think some redress is appropriate.
After all, the FF's had no concept of modern demographics. The population of the country is now 64 times what it was in 1800. They had no idea whether it would be 20 times or 150 times, and less idea about the consequences, intended or otherwise.
If every applicant for permanent residence in just the last fifty years had been granted a green card, the population today would be somewhere around 900 million. 8 million apply annually, 1 million are granted. So, by definition, the US has pursued a low population policy, while the FF"s were contemplating a growing population with no referenced restraints.
Electoral College reform does not automatically require an amendment to the Constitution. Take a look at the link for the National Popular Vote I posted up thread.
First off, states can decide right now how they want to allocate their electoral votes. Most do winner-take-all but a couple do proportional, which they can do based on the popular vote or by Congressional district.
Second, small states would become even less important than they are now. No matter how small, all states have at least 3 electoral votes, which includes South Dakota (810k), Alaska (710k), North Dakota (670k), Vermont (645k), and Wyoming (560k). These states have between 1.5 and 2% of Cali's population (37250k). In the EC, all these states get 5.5% of Cali's 55 electoral vote.
Third, any amendment that did away with the EC would have to provide for a solution for choosing a POTUS in the case of no candidate getting a majority.
Fourth, popular election is going to change how candidates campaign but not necessarily the way that people think. Small states will become even more irrelevant as candidates will concentrate where they have a chance of winning lots of votes not in areas where they have no chance or already have as many as they're going to get or where there's not enough to bother with.
What gives a voter in a small state more say than a voter in a large state? The electoral college is fundamentally unfair.
And what about the focus on "swing states"? Those states decide elections so almost all campaigning is done in those states. That's even more unfair than disproportionate representation.
Do you believe an Ohioan is more important than a Texan?
The issue that I have with the Republican plan to allocate a state's electors by congressional district is that is introduces gerrymandering into the election of the President of the United States.
Under such a plan, Mitt Romney would have eked out a 273 vote Electoral College win in 2012 despite having lost the popular vote, 47% to Barack Obama's 51%; which I guess is OK if your goal is to make the election less democratic.
And this is also why I am opposed to making any changes. Then the EC becomes nothing more than a political tool.
A closer to home analogy are states like Oregon. We have an ultra uber liberal metropolitan area in Portland and the rest of the state is more conservative. How Portland votes so goes the state as the city (metropolitan area) gas 2/3's the state population. As a result we have 2 liberal US Senators that continuously sell the rest of the state down the river. Their constituency is the liberal city and the rural area concerns are ignored and even oppressed. They are the Senators from Portland and not Oregon. In a similar way, Presidents would have the luxury of ignoring the totally ignoring many areas of the population but not for the fact the EC helps (just 'helps', mind you) them consider all the peoples and not just their own party and only in those states they need the EC votes from.
The function of the original Electoral College was to prevent partisan politics from entering the executive branch (which was the case in parliamentarian systems). The local folks would select an ELECTOR (whose judgment they trusted) who would convene with other ELECTORS (in the college) to vote. The most popular would be president, and his next most popular (and rival) would be vice-president.
If it hadn't been amended into uselessness, the E.C. would eliminate many abuses:
[] national campaigning and the need for legalized bribery (campaign contributions) would be unnecessary
[] Anyone with a bus ticket to DC could appear before the E.C. and give his credentials for office (no need for personal wealth)
[] The E.C. could investigate and interview unknown candidates
[] The result of rivals holding high office was to insure that there would be someone watching in the wings, with an axe to grind if the CiC was doing something improper. That was why the VP was not given specific duties, in the USCON... His original job was to be “Fly on the Wall†- not a part of a “teamâ€.
Democracy only works up until the point in time that the people figure out that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
This is one of many reasons why the founding fathers laid out a representative republic, rather than a democracy, in the Constitution. They were very aware of tyranny of the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BLAZER PROPHET
And this is also why I am opposed to making any changes. Then the EC becomes nothing more than a political tool.
A closer to home analogy are states like Oregon. We have an ultra uber liberal metropolitan area in Portland and the rest of the state is more conservative. How Portland votes so goes the state as the city (metropolitan area) gas 2/3's the state population. As a result we have 2 liberal US Senators that continuously sell the rest of the state down the river. Their constituency is the liberal city and the rural area concerns are ignored and even oppressed. They are the Senators from Portland and not Oregon. In a similar way, Presidents would have the luxury of ignoring the totally ignoring many areas of the population but not for the fact the EC helps (just 'helps', mind you) them consider all the peoples and not just their own party and only in those states they need the EC votes from.
Oregon's situation illustrates the founding fathers' brilliance in laying out the EC. The EC provides less-populous states with a counter-balance against more-populous ones. Perhaps Oregon's rural areas would not feel so ignored and oppressed if the state used an EC on a statewide scale, assigning EC votes by region or even by county.
This is one of many reasons why the founding fathers laid out a representative republic, rather than a democracy, in the Constitution. They were very aware of tyranny of the majority.
Oregon's situation illustrates the founding fathers' brilliance in laying out the EC. The EC provides less-populous states with a counter-balance against more-populous ones. Perhaps Oregon's rural areas would not feel so ignored and oppressed if the state used an EC on a statewide scale, assigning EC votes by region or even by county.
Well the nation decided otherwise when the 17th Amendment was ratified.
Now that voting season is soon upon us for a new President the controversy of the Electoral College (hereafter called EC) will arise as it always does.
While there are many reasons for the EC, one is so that a "popular son" candidate can't pile up votes. For example, if one of the teams running consisted of candidates from California and New York and the other two from N. Dakota and Wyoming, there could be several million additional votes for the former as they come from heavily populated states. Another reason was so that smaller states wouldn't be so insignificant and issues of such states would have to be addressed by the candidates.....
That said, many people prefer a straight up popular vote. The general thought is that Presidents should be elected by a majority of the voters. However, this is derailed when the President elect wins only a plurality of the vote.
Another issue that can effect either side, but is more directly towards the EC is that if a candidate fails to win enough electoral votes the race goes to the US House and then partisan politics can rear its ugly head.
Now, for me, I prefer the EC (so everyone knows where I stand).
But what are your thoughts?
So do I.
The problem with a straight-up vote is that only the battleground, not the nature of the race would change. Suburbs of major cities such as New York, Los Angeles or Chicgo would become the new "Florida" or "Ohio." These are vote-rich areas with plenty of both Democrats and Republicans.
Also, just about every country that uses voting (I qualify it in this manner to include countries like Pakistan that don't quite qualify as democracies) have run-offs or other methods of ensuring that someone with a small percentage of the vote in a large field doesn't win. Think what would happen if we had a straight-up vote today. Trump might well win, with about 29% of the vote. So we would likely wind up with two elections, not one. Also cumbersome.
Just about every voting country employs a roundabout way of selecting its governing leader, whether it be President or Prime Minister to ensure that there is at least some broad support for the victor.
I am in favor of the popular vote. All votes would be equal that way. The dem in Oklahoma and the rep in New York would still matter to the candidate. Now they don't. No state could be completely ignored by the candidates as they do now.
I would also like to see all primaries on the same day. Iowa and New Hampshire have way too much weight in who the nominee is.
Well the nation decided otherwise when the 17th Amendment was ratified.
I thought this thread was about the EC, not the election of senators.
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.
