The electoral college

Fiddytree said:

Why would they do that? You just need to focus on getting the most votes possible, which means spending even more time in the most populated areas.

Click to expand...

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

But the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
* Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
* New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
* Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
* North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
* California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
* Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
* New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

mvymvy said:

With National Popular Vote, when every vote is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.

The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

The main media at the moment, TV, costs much more per impression in big cities than in smaller towns and rural areas. Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas.

None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote in rural states: VT–75%, ME–77%, WV–81%, MS–77%, SD–75%, AR–80%, MT–72%, KY–80%, NH–69%, IA–75%,SC–71%, NC–74%, TN–83%, WY–69%, OK–81%, AK–70%, ID–77%, WI–71%, MO–70%, and NE–74%.

Vermont has enacted the National Popular Vote bill. The Maine Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill.

NationalPopularVote

Click to expand...

None of the most rural states is currently a battleground state. But under your system they would still be ignored. The issues they care about would still be ignored. The cost to advertise and campaign in those states exceeds the likely benefit from the votes they would get. A better system would be an electoral college where each state divides their electoral vote proportionally.

Xsnake1 said:

Maybe getting rid of the electoral college would have affected the popular vote results

Click to expand...

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

If presidential campaigns now did not ignore more than 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.

Fiddytree said:

Of course, the NPV crowd would seek to distort the issue by saying "this isn't Athens."



Interesting how they do not suggest how small states would be better served by more mass democracy, isn't it?

Click to expand...

Also interesting - The presidency is a national office, not a state one.

States already have representatives and senators to represent them.

Smeagol said:

In a field of 3 or more candidates, I think we need a good runoff system too so that someone with 70% of the public voting against him doesn't win. I personally like the Instant Runoff idea as it addresses lower turnout in runoff elections and saves money. Instant Runoff Voting - YouTube

Click to expand...

With the current system of electing the President, no state requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's electoral votes.

Not a single legislative bill has been introduced in any state legislature in recent decades (among the more than 100,000 bills that are introduced in every two-year period by the nation's 7,300 state legislators) proposing to change the existing universal practice of the states to award electoral votes to the candidate who receives a plurality (as opposed to absolute majority) of the votes (statewide or district-wide). There is no evidence of any public sentiment in favor of imposing such a requirement.

If an Electoral College type of arrangement were essential for avoiding a proliferation of candidates and people being elected with low percentages of the vote, we should see evidence of these conjectured outcomes in elections that do not employ such an arrangement. In elections in which the winner is the candidate receiving the most votes throughout the entire jurisdiction served by that office, historical evidence shows that there is no massive proliferation of third-party candidates and candidates do not win with small percentages. For example, in 905 elections for governor in the last 60 years, the winning candidate received more than 50% of the vote in over 91% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 45% of the vote in 98% of the elections. The winning candidate received more than 40% of the vote in 99% of the elections. No winning candidate received less than 35% of the popular vote.

Since 1824 there have been 16 presidential elections in which a candidate was elected or reelected without gaining a majority of the popular vote.-- including Lincoln (1860), Wilson (1912 and 1916), Truman (1948), Kennedy (1960), Nixon (1968), and Clinton (1992 and 1996).

Americans do not view the absence of run-offs in the current system as a major problem. If, at some time in the future, the public demands run-offs, that change can be implemented at that time.

And, FYI, with the current system, it could only take winning a plurality of the popular vote in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes.

OscarB63 said:

"popular vote" isn't democracy....it's "mob rule"

Click to expand...

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.

Anagram said:

None of the most rural states is currently a battleground state. But under your system they would still be ignored. The issues they care about would still be ignored. The cost to advertise and campaign in those states exceeds the likely benefit from the votes they would get. A better system would be an electoral college where each state divides their electoral vote proportionally.

Click to expand...

With National Popular Vote, candidates will devote their resources to receiving the most votes nationwide. Candidates will allocate their resources to change the minds of voters in more places, because now the votes of each voter in each state could change the outcome in the national election.

Candidates get more bang for the buck in smaller towns and rural areas with TV, the main media at the moment.

The president serves the whole country, and they should be elected by the whole country, if a candidate is voted for by the majority of Americans they should win, bottom line.
The less populated states have more voting power in the senate too, a senator from Wyoming has the same amount of power than one from California, even though they serve a disproportionate amount of people, not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that voters is small states do have a say already.

Also, a vote in Florida is more decisive than one in say Arkansas...

JayGatsby said:

The president serves the whole country, and they should be elected by the whole country, if a candidate is voted for by the majority of Americans they should win, bottom line.
The less populated states have more voting power in the senate too, a senator from Wyoming has the same amount of power than one from California, even though they serve a disproportionate amount of people, not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that voters is small states do have a say already.

Click to expand...

The Electoral College is not the issue; the winner take all selection of electors is...

rocket88 said:

I think the electoral system is fine, but it needs to be tweaked a bit. I'd rather see it done by say, Congressional district. Give each district equal weight so that you can't win simply by getting a few population centers in big states - and get rid of the idea of safe states altogether so that they have to compete in each of them.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting idea. My only concern would be that the vote could end up mirroring the House of Representatives, instead.

radcen said:

This is an interesting idea. My only concern would be that the vote could end up mirroring the House of Representatives, instead.

Click to expand...

Not if the popular vote determines at large electors like the Senate is included...

I agree with those who say that forcing electors to vote proportionally to the way the voters in their state voted would reduce the influence of smaller states and rural areas. That's why I support forcing the electors to vote proportionally.

Small states and rural areas were granted such disproportionate influence in order to sway them into joining the union. Now that they are safely esconced in the union, and have enjoyed centuries of benefits from this unfair advantage, there is nothing wrong with withdrawing their advantage,

radcen said:

This is an interesting idea. My only concern would be that the vote could end up mirroring the House of Representatives, instead.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. Temper that with 2 "at large" votes per state that are winner take all? It would be great if we could get rid of gerrymandered districts, but try getting the Democrats and the Republicans to go along with it!

Anagram said:

A better system would be an electoral college where each state divides their electoral vote proportionally.

Click to expand...

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

mvymvy said:

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.

Click to expand...

Obviously. Its not really a feasible system to expect all 50 states to agree to that simultaneously, but if enacted I believe it would be the best system.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.

Click to expand...

Yes one state at a time enacting it would be unfeasible.

If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.

Click to expand...

Again yes. It would have to be done in a similar method to the way the popular vote compact is being done.

The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

Click to expand...

True. Not necessarily a bad thing.

If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.

Click to expand...

So. 500,000 votes is a statistical tie. I'd say that in an election that close who wins by a sliver of a popular vote, is less important than who accurately represents the different parts of America, which the electoral college does better.

A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.

Click to expand...

Good. If I wanted it to accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote, I would be arguing for what you are.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).

Click to expand...

That isn't even true. Montana has 1 million people. Wyoming has 575,000.

Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It could be done in the same way the national vote compact is done.

A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.

Click to expand...

\

I don't think that's the best way to elect the president.

My problem with the EC is that the Electoral Voter need not vote the way that the Electorate wants... Literally, our votes potentially do not count.

sangha said:

Also interesting - The presidency is a national office, not a state one.

States already have representatives and senators to represent them.

Click to expand...

You can't be seriously making that argument. The president's administration puts out a budget in which programs affecting individual states and the nation as a whole would be promoted. The office itself is a strength to promote policy changes, in addition to any agency changes that can be mare which would in turn affect the states. The President also has veto power. Now, are you saying that states merely have an interest in putting forward congressional members which represent their state, but feel no need to carefully consider the impact of a president upon their state?

Furthermore, your next post completely sidesteps what the main argument was between small and large states. The former wanted to ensure that their interests are strongly considered against the constant derision of the majority. So yes, they were given disproportionate voting power.

Xsnake1 said:

The idea of the electoral college is the perfect example of "democracy" gone wrong. Presidents should be elected based on the popular vote, not the electoral vote. I want the president that more people voted for, not the one that was supported by bigger states. I live in a blue state and I'm Republican which means when I vote, my vote just gets thrown away and I'm forced to support the democrat because that's who more people in the state vote for. Even if one person wins the popular vote which would mean the majority wants that person, the person that less people want can still win the electoral vote and then we're stuck with him/her. The electoral college is just pure stupidity and it should be abolished.

Click to expand...

I voted "Popular" for the same reasons stated in the OP. I am tired of having my vote ignored because I lived in a state where the majority outnumbered my political position.

Fiddytree said:

You can't be seriously making that argument. The president's administration puts out a budget in which programs affecting individual states and the nation as a whole would be promoted. The office itself is a strength to promote policy changes, in addition to any agency changes that can be mare which would in turn affect the states. The President also has veto power. Now, are you saying that states merely have an interest in putting forward congressional members which represent their state, but feel no need to carefully consider the impact of a president upon their state?

Furthermore, your next post completely sidesteps what the main argument was between small and large states. The former wanted to ensure that their interests are strongly considered against the constant derision of the majority. So yes, they were given disproportionate voting power.

Click to expand...

I am seriously making that argument.

Your claim that the president can affect the states is true, and I've said nothing to the contrary. However, the president makes decisions on the basis of how it affects the nation, and should not be considering it's effect on one individual state, or giving those effects an undue influence on his policies because the state has disproportionate political power.

And I never said that a state should not consider the impact a president can have upon their state. They can consider it all they want. I'm just saying that the president should not be coerced into giving that state undue influence due to its' having electoral power disproportionate to its' size and population

And yes, I know what the small states wanted. However, the reason why their wants were addressed was in order to persuade them to join the union. Now that they've ratified the constitution, and have enjoyed the benefits of their advantage for two centuries, I see no reason why we should not consider the matter settled, and revoke that advantage.

Anagram said:

Obviously. Its not really a feasible system to expect all 50 states to agree to that simultaneously, but if enacted I believe it would be the best system.

Yes one state at a time enacting it would be unfeasible.

Again yes. It would have to be done in a similar method to the way the popular vote compact is being done.

True. Not necessarily a bad thing.

So. 500,000 votes is a statistical tie. I'd say that in an election that close who wins by a sliver of a popular vote, is less important than who accurately represents the different parts of America, which the electoral college does better.

. . .

I don't think that's the best way to elect the president.

Click to expand...

For states seeking to exercise their responsibility under the U.S. Constitution to choose a method of allocating electoral votes that best serves their state’s interest and that of the national interest, the proportional method falls far short of the National Popular Vote plan. The proportional method fails to promote majority rule, greater competitiveness, or voter equality.

The whole number proportional system sharply increases the odds of no candidate getting the majority of electoral votes needed, leading to the selection of the president by the U.S. House of Representatives.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

With National Popular Vote, the Electoral College still would vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

National Popular Vote guarantees the presidency to the candidate with the most popular votes in the country.

Voters want that guarantee, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was directly and equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it's a bad thing for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA 75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE 74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%.

Even if all 50 states and DC used a proportional method, the presidency would not be guaranteed to the candidate with the most votes. Voters do not want any possibility of an electoral vote tie leaving Congress (with less than 10% approval rating now) to decide a presidential election, with each state having one vote, (with equally divided states being unable to cast a vote).

A constitutional amendment to change all states to a proportional method could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

A compact, such as you're suggesting, to have ANY chance of succeeding, would need a trigger of all 50 states and DC enacting it before it would go into effect.

National Popular Vote is what Americans want. It only requires states with 270 electoral votes to enact it, before going into effect, and it guarantees what most Americans want -- the candidate with the most votes will win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

JayGatsby said:

The president serves the whole country, and they should be elected by the whole country, if a candidate is voted for by the majority of Americans they should win, bottom line.
The less populated states have more voting power in the senate too, a senator from Wyoming has the same amount of power than one from California, even though they serve a disproportionate amount of people, not saying this is a bad thing, just pointing out that voters is small states do have a say already.

Click to expand...

US Senators are not supposed to represent the people directly but rather the state governments, which are in theory equals regardless of differing populations.

Bodhisattva said:

My problem with the EC is that the Electoral Voter need not vote the way that the Electorate wants... Literally, our votes potentially do not count.

Click to expand...

The potus in practical terms represents the people and they campaign to the people. However the people are not treated equally in presidential elections. Some voters votes weigh more and millions of Americans are not even allowed to vote based on where they live.

Smeagol said:

The potus in practical terms represents the people and they campaign to the people. However the people are not treated equally in presidential elections. Some voters votes weigh more and millions of Americans are not even allowed to vote based on where they live.

Click to expand...

Agreed...

I think we need to stop worrying about how votes are sectioned and rounded, and instead start worrying about what "voting" is in democracy. Our current system of voting is the most basic "winner takes all" system, or first to the post voting. This almost always leads to a 2 party system and lots of compromising and/or tactical voting.

Instead, we could use a ranking system. Everybody gets one vote, but they don't vote for one candidate to win, they vote for as many as they want and rank them based on preference. There are several systems that use that kind of ballot; single transferable voting, instant runoff voting, Kemeny-Young method (probably the "fairest", but hard to implement), etc. They all have problems, but they tend to create outcomes that best match the real choices of the voters.

Most of these methods just do multiple rounds of regular voting, essentially to allow you to vote for everyone you like, but still have the least liked candidates fail. It reduces tactical voting by allowing you to vote on the candidate you like, even if you think they'll lose; your vote won't be wasted (although there are some mathematical flaws, where it could still be a "wasted" vote). Kemeny-Young is the best I've seen; it really seems to provide for the best outcomes. Explaining it is really hard, but it essentially pits each candidate against each candidate in virtual "traditional" votes, and uses lots of weird statistical mathe-magic. It's still hard for them to implement that method, so it's not going to be an option anytime soon. But, IRV or STV are already in use in several countries, including those that do it all by hand.

Whichever we decide to use, it all comes down to using a method that implements the will of the people, which is almost never 100% democrat or 100% republican. We'd probably see alot more sects of traditional parties and more weight in independent parties. Essentially, right now, more than 50% of the population is always unhappy with the vote, and a ranked system would make it less than 50%. That's better democracy, if you ask me.