Should it stay or should it go..

[Lyion]

The electroal college is a two edged sword, It is a bit unfair, but it also allows elections to be nationwide, and not just about populous regions...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2183836,00.html

A Republican push to change America's historic voting system is faltering after a fightback by Democrats fearful that it could cost them the 2008 presidential election.

Republican activists in California, the most populous state in the country, have set in motion a proposal to change the law to end the winner-takes-all electoral college system.

The change, if it went through, would effectively hand the next election to the Republicans.

California has gone Democratic in every election since 1992, providing a bloc of 55 electoral votes, about one fifth of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

The Republicans are proposing that instead of all the electoral votes going to the winner, the 55 votes be allocated on a Congressional district basis, which would give the Republicans around 20, almost certainly enough to secure the White House.

The electoral college system, in use for more than 200 years, has become increasingly contentious, particularly since 2000, when George Bush won the presidency in spite of Al Gore securing a majority of the popular vote.

Political scientists and historians are divided over the pros and cons of the system. Sympathisers argue that it provides a degree of stability while opponents claim it can run counter to the wishes of the electorate.

The Republicans have filed to have their proposal put to a ballot in June next year. But first they have to collect 434,000 signatures by November 29 this year.

If Californians then voted in the ballot for the change, the new rules would apply in November's presidential election.

The Republican campaign to force a change appeared to hit the buffers last week when the leading figures behind it unexpectedly resigned.

One of them said that initial canvassing for signatures showed the necessary signatures are not there. But Democrats are cautious, not persuaded that the Republicans have really given up.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, who is the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, are monitoring the situation, aware that such a change could scupper her chances of reaching the White House.

Supporters of the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, have provided almost all the finance for the campaign.

Paul Singer, a New York hedge fund executive, one of Mr Giuliani's fundraisers, provided almost all the money for the Californian ballot campaign, $170,000 (£85,000).

Professor Robert Bennett, of the Illinois-based Northwestern University School of Law and author of Taming the Electoral College, said today he did not think the Republican push was yet over.

"I would not count it out at the present time. It seems to have suffered a setback but they are still trying to collect signatures," he said. He added that he believed if it went to ballot, it would pass.

"It is a terrible idea," he said. It would produce a partisan shift in only one state. To work fairly, it would have to be introduced in at least a few large states and, preferably, nationwide.

Two Democratic senators from California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, in a joint statement, said: "This power grab orchestrated by the Republicans is another cynical move to keep the presidency in Republican control."

The man behind the Republican drive was Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento election lawyer who also works for the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The governor has distanced himself from the plan, saying: "In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game."

The Democrats attempted to introduce a similar reform in North Carolina earlier this year in the hope of picking up seven electoral college votes. But they quickly abandoned this when they realised they would be establishing a precedent.

They did the arithmetic and realised the gain in North Carolina would be swamped by the losses in California.

Background

The electoral college is the system that the US has used for more than 200 years to choose its presidents.

There are 538 electoral college votes at stake and a candidate needs to secure 270 to win the White House.

Whichever candidate wins a majority in a state is awarded all that state's electoral college votes.

California has 55 electoral college votes. If they had been divided according to Congressional districts won in 2004, George Bush would have had 22 of these. Instead, John Kerry had a majority that would have entitled him to 31 districts plus two others. But under the existing system, as winner, he was awarded all 55.

Only two states, Maine and Nebraska, have opted out of this system. Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1992 have a system in which the electoral college votes are divided according to who wins individual Congressional districts.

This is the system that Californian Republicans want to see adopted.

[Tikker]

The electroal college is a two edged sword, It is a bit unfair, but it also allows elections to be nationwide, and not just about populous regions...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2183836,00.html

A Republican push to change America's historic voting system is faltering after a fightback by Democrats fearful that it could cost them the 2008 presidential election.

Republican activists in California, the most populous state in the country, have set in motion a proposal to change the law to end the winner-takes-all electoral college system.

The change, if it went through, would effectively hand the next election to the Republicans.

California has gone Democratic in every election since 1992, providing a bloc of 55 electoral votes, about one fifth of the 270 needed to win the presidency.

The Republicans are proposing that instead of all the electoral votes going to the winner, the 55 votes be allocated on a Congressional district basis, which would give the Republicans around 20, almost certainly enough to secure the White House.

The electoral college system, in use for more than 200 years, has become increasingly contentious, particularly since 2000, when George Bush won the presidency in spite of Al Gore securing a majority of the popular vote.

Political scientists and historians are divided over the pros and cons of the system. Sympathisers argue that it provides a degree of stability while opponents claim it can run counter to the wishes of the electorate.

The Republicans have filed to have their proposal put to a ballot in June next year. But first they have to collect 434,000 signatures by November 29 this year.

If Californians then voted in the ballot for the change, the new rules would apply in November's presidential election.

The Republican campaign to force a change appeared to hit the buffers last week when the leading figures behind it unexpectedly resigned.

One of them said that initial canvassing for signatures showed the necessary signatures are not there. But Democrats are cautious, not persuaded that the Republicans have really given up.

Supporters of Hillary Clinton, who is the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, are monitoring the situation, aware that such a change could scupper her chances of reaching the White House.

Supporters of the Republican frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, have provided almost all the finance for the campaign.

Paul Singer, a New York hedge fund executive, one of Mr Giuliani's fundraisers, provided almost all the money for the Californian ballot campaign, $170,000 (£85,000).

Professor Robert Bennett, of the Illinois-based Northwestern University School of Law and author of Taming the Electoral College, said today he did not think the Republican push was yet over.

"I would not count it out at the present time. It seems to have suffered a setback but they are still trying to collect signatures," he said. He added that he believed if it went to ballot, it would pass.

"It is a terrible idea," he said. It would produce a partisan shift in only one state. To work fairly, it would have to be introduced in at least a few large states and, preferably, nationwide.

Two Democratic senators from California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, in a joint statement, said: "This power grab orchestrated by the Republicans is another cynical move to keep the presidency in Republican control."

The man behind the Republican drive was Thomas Hiltachk, a Sacramento election lawyer who also works for the Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The governor has distanced himself from the plan, saying: "In principle, I don't like to change the rules in the middle of the game."

The Democrats attempted to introduce a similar reform in North Carolina earlier this year in the hope of picking up seven electoral college votes. But they quickly abandoned this when they realised they would be establishing a precedent.

They did the arithmetic and realised the gain in North Carolina would be swamped by the losses in California.

Background

The electoral college is the system that the US has used for more than 200 years to choose its presidents.

There are 538 electoral college votes at stake and a candidate needs to secure 270 to win the White House.

Whichever candidate wins a majority in a state is awarded all that state's electoral college votes.

California has 55 electoral college votes. If they had been divided according to Congressional districts won in 2004, George Bush would have had 22 of these. Instead, John Kerry had a majority that would have entitled him to 31 districts plus two others. But under the existing system, as winner, he was awarded all 55.

Only two states, Maine and Nebraska, have opted out of this system. Maine since 1972 and Nebraska since 1992 have a system in which the electoral college votes are divided according to who wins individual Congressional districts.

This is the system that Californian Republicans want to see adopted.

it seems really odd to me that you have different rules for how the voting works in different parts of the country

[Arlos]

I find it hysterical that the republicans have so given up ever winning California that they feel it necessary to change the rules so that they get SOMETHING. Sorry, no. If there were to be a constitutional amendment that officially abolished the Electoral college, that I would be behind, since it would establish universal and equal rules for the entire country, and elect the President based strictly upon a national popular vote. But changing the rules solely for California solely to benefit the Republicans... (or indeed, changing them only in North Carolina, solely to benefit the Democrats), those changes I would be most assuredly against.

If this idiocy makes it onto the ballot, you can bet I will be voting against it.

-Arlos

[Tikker]

I actually don't understand why you don't just go based on popular vote?

[Harrison]

That would alienate half the country and potentials would only have to campaign a few key areas.

[Tikker]

That would alienate half the country and potentials would only have to campaign a few key areas.

how is that different from now?

[Arlos]

The original reason for the electoral college was that the founding fathers didn't trust the average citizen further than they could spit. In reality it was meant to be something of a caste system, because they figured the common man wouldn't have the knowledge or IQ to be able to rationally choose which candidate to vote for. Anyone could cast a popular vote, but only the learned patrician types would be part of the electoral college, and only their votes for president would matter. Indeed, there originally was no necessity in any way for the electoral vote to line up with the popular vote. Electors could freely vote for whoever they wished.

Later law changes effectively removed that inherent class system, and effectively made it so the electoral college was simply a rubber stamp to whoever won the most votes in a state.

Ultimately, I think it should be abolished completely, but that would take an actual amendment to the constitution, which will never happen. Until it does, however, I am against changing the rules for any state in order to give one side or the other a partisan advantage. I don't care WHICH side would gain, I'm still opposed. If we're going to have this as a system, I think it should be applied universally.

-Arlos

[Diekan]

The original reason for the electoral college was that the founding fathers didn't trust the average citizen further than they could spit. In reality it was meant to be something of a caste system, because they figured the common man wouldn't have the knowledge or IQ to be able to rationally choose which candidate to vote for.

-Arlos

Things haven't changed much over the centuries, have they? I have no problem with people voting their conscious (even if their position is drastically polar to mine), but damn, they should at least put forth the effort to KNOW wtf they are voting FOR.

Question: Why are you going to vote for Hillary?
Answer: Because she's Hillary!!
Question: Umm ok... what has Hillary done that impresses you so much?
Answer: She's Hillary!!
Question: So basically you haven't the first clue of what she has done as an elected official, you haven't the first clue of she plans to do if elected?
Answers: She's Hillary!!

---

Question: What war did we fight to gain our independence?
Answer: Umm World War I?
Question: No. Who did we win our independence from?
Answer: Ahhh I think it was Mexico...

This is not as uncommon as you may think amongst the masses - out there. THIS is why the country is now in an almost unrepairable state of FUBAR.

I don't blame the politicians as much, now, as I blame the American public who put them in power in the first place. Too much Cheeto residue blocking neuroreceptors? Who knows... but the fact remains the average person is NOT smart enough - let me rephrase that - the average person is too LAZY to invest the time it takes to actually... omg.... read up on the officials they are planning to elect. Too much porn to surf though, maybe?

By the way - the Q and A session I posted above I actually heard on the radio..

[Lueyen]

I'd be in favor of this if it was adopted in all states. I would not be in favor of completely removing the electoral college, not because I feel the people can't make good decisions for themselves but because of the imbalance that would cause a complete realistic lack of representation for less densely populated areas of the country when a nationwide election is the subject. I'll tackle your question about popular vote Tikker because I do favor keeping the electoral college to some degree.

Consider that in our two elected parts of the federal government there is currently representation for every state. In Congress every state no matter how small a population base, has a voice in one House representative and two Senators. When it comes to the Executive Branch (Presidential elections), a popular vote would effectively drown out the representation for people in states with a lower population. The electoral college splits a median. Like we do with Congress, it allows for everyone to be represented. It weighs toward the higher population states without completely shutting out those with a lower population, as does the number of House seats in Congress.

This way (at least in theory) you don't end up with a federal government where the decisions and laws made affecting agricultural and rural communities are made by representatives in whole, who's sole purpose is to represent the interests of large urban areas. When many people don't know how products end up on the shelves of the grocery store, it's a bad idea for them to be making decisions that affect agriculture via their representatives.

[Tikker]

Consider that in our two elected parts of the federal government there is currently representation for every state. In Congress every state no matter how small a population base, has a voice in one House representative and two Senators. When it comes to the Executive Branch (Presidential elections), a popular vote would effectively drown out the representation for people in states with a lower population. The electoral college splits a median. Like we do with Congress, it allows for everyone to be represented. It weighs toward the higher population states without completely shutting out those with a lower population, as does the number of House seats in Congress.

This way (at least in theory) you don't end up with a federal government where the decisions and laws made affecting agricultural and rural communities are made by representatives in whole, who's sole purpose is to represent the interests of large urban areas. When many people don't know how products end up on the shelves of the grocery store, it's a bad idea for them to be making decisions that affect agriculture via their representatives.

presidential is just choice A vs choice B tho, popular choice should provide the president

[Lueyen]

presidential is just choice A vs choice B tho, popular choice should provide the president

Hehe that opens up a whole other can of worms. Yes it is that way, god I wish it wasn't. In fact I blame the existence of two party dominance for much of the polarization and lack of careful consideration of issues we tend to see amongst society as a whole. I don't see this changing unless apathy for the two dominant parties grows so much it bursts... 5 years ago I thought we were coming close to that, perhaps I'm just being optimistic but with the two major party candidates in the lead for nominations I can say this. If it was a choice between them or their respective previous party candidates I'd rather have either of them sitting in the oval office. However there will be candidates who will not be nominated and won't likely have a realistic chance of winning, so they won't continue to run, and I wish this were not the case. At the very least even if I wouldn't vote for them, they would raise issues and perspectives that I would like to see brought into the campaigns.

So Tikker I guess I look at the reason you gave for popular vote as a problem in and of it's self, to me it would be justifying a resolution to an issue with another problem. Not to dismiss your point, but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from and why that argument doesn't carry much weight in my mind.

[Tikker]

let's say you have 10 candidates

it's still just for 1 job

explain why popular vote isn't good enough in this instance?

[Ouchyfish]

let's say you have 10 candidates

it's still just for 1 job

explain why popular vote isn't good enough in this instance?

lol..our fisher price voting machines need a backup plan..enter electoral college.

[Lueyen]

let's say you have 10 candidates

it's still just for 1 job

explain why popular vote isn't good enough in this instance?

Well now we are kinda back to what I said before. To keep it simple lets just say we have 4 candidates that realistically have a shot. I chose four so that we can remove the whole liberal/conservative issue. Assume that 2 of these candidates represent your views perfectly for the most part and the only real difference is their orientation to urban or rural life. Say one grew up in the middle of New York City, and the other grew up o n a farm. Granted these are great generalizations, but it is for the sake simplifying the argument that I make them. The outcome will realistically be that the candidate who's orientation is toward urban will win, that however is not the real crux of my issue with the idea of popular vote. Once in office representing all constituents, how likely is a politician to pay due attention and consideration to the needs of agricultural communities when he or she doesn't need a single vote from them to be re-elected? Even as it stands now major agricultural issues aren't even addressed on a national level. Think about the discussions here, we rarely center on agricultural issues yet we constantly rehash issues that are most predominate in urban environments. Sure some of these issues cross over into both urban and rural communities, but often times the major problems that spark our discussions are rooted in things that have a much higher degree of impact in urban areas. If you pick up a local paper in most cities you will find news related to many of the topics we discuss and rehash here. If you pickup a local newspaper in a more rural location though you find news on a whole lot off issues that are never seen off the press of a major city paper, unless that city is the hub of a rural area. The only real concern a politician would really have in this scenario is the ripple effect that policies might have on the countries economy, but only as far as it was related to how it affected urban economies.

[Tikker]

how is that different than what the electoral college would end up providing?
no matter who gets elected, or how they're elected, the issues you stated do not change one iota

the only difference with electoral college, is that the majority of the population can vote against the eventual president, which just seems monstrously wrong

[Lyion]

Lueyen, I agree with all your dense region electoral college points.

However, the problem with a winner take all electoral college system is it prevents any additional candidates from having even a remote chance, locking us into our two party system. Ask Ross Perot about that.

[Ouchyfish]

Don't remind me of that stupid son of a bitch. He gets everyone all excited then drops out then comes back then doesn't know what the fuck he is going to do. Later you find out it was a wonderful vote grabber for the Democrats.

(Which they later screamed bloody murder about when Nader wanted on the ballots.)

Nominee-------------------------Electoral Vote------------Popular Vote------------States Carried
Bill Clinton.............................370....................44,909,806............32+DC
George H. W. Bush...................168....................39,104,550............18
Ross Perot................................0.....................19,743,821.............0

Check out that electoral college there. Talk about popular vote getting BUTTFUCKED HARD! Cool how a guy that didn't get the majority of popular votes became president thanks to the electoral college. Sound familiar?


Fucking spacing on this board sucks cock and/or I need to learn how to do it properly.

[Yamori]

As of right now, if you live in Florida, your vote is magically worth about 10 times that of anyone else living in the US.

The 2000 election was basically decided by a handful of inept old florida grannies that couldn't punch in or read their ballot cards properly. Definitely reason enough for me to get rid of the shitty electoral college.

[Yamori]

Don't remind me of that stupid son of a bitch. He gets everyone all excited then drops out then comes back then doesn't know what the fuck he is going to do. Later you find out it was a wonderful vote grabber for the Democrats.

(Which they later screamed bloody murder about when Nader wanted on the ballots.)

Nominee-------------------------Electoral Vote------------Popular Vote------------States Carried
Bill Clinton.............................370....................44,909,806............32+DC
George H. W. Bush...................168....................39,104,550............18
Ross Perot................................0.....................19,743,821.............0

Check out that electoral college there. Talk about popular vote getting BUTTFUCKED HARD! Cool how a guy that didn't get the majority of popular votes became president thanks to the electoral college. Sound familiar?


Fucking spacing on this board sucks cock and/or I need to learn how to do it properly.

Um. What are you talking about?
Am I misreading the 5 million vote advantage from Clinton?

[10sun]

Nominee-------------------------Electoral Vote------------Popular Vote------------States Carried
Bill Clinton.............................370....................44,909,806............32+DC
George H. W. Bush...................168....................39,104,550............18
Ross Perot................................0.....................19,743,821.............0

Um. What are you talking about?
Am I misreading the 5 million vote advantage from Clinton?

44.9m+39.1m+19.7m = 103.7m
Clinton did not have a majority, Clinton simply had more votes than anybody else about 43% of the popular vote, that 43% got him 68.8% of the Electoral votes.

Whereas Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote and received 0% of the electoral vote.

[Ouchyfish]

44.9m+39.1m+19.7m = 103.7m
Clinton did not have a majority, Clinton simply had more votes than anybody else about 43% of the popular vote, that 43% got him 68.8% of the Electoral votes.

Whereas Ross Perot won 19% of the popular vote and received 0% of the electoral vote.

Thank you. Look, I am mature and adult enough to hate a fucked up system even if the guy I want to win wins. Bottom line, in 1992, just like in 2000, more people voted for someone OTHER than who became president. In 2004, it seemed to be more accurate.

Bush received about 51 percent of the votes cast (62 million votes), making him the first presidential candidate to win a majority of the popular vote since his father George H. W. Bush in the presidential election of 1988. The 62 million votes cast for Bush were the most individual votes cast for anyone in history, though John Kerry's 59 million votes ranked second in that category as well.

The system is HIGHLY flawed. At least give us a friggin run-off election. I don't care how much it costs. How much is having the wrong person going to cost this country, let alone the world?

LOL just saw this: 1868 Democrat Presidential campaign slogan:
"This Is a White Man's Country, Let White Men Rule."

[KILL]

How much is having the wrong person going to cost this country, let alone the world?

The last 7 years should be a pretty good indication.

[Ouchyfish]

How much is having the wrong person going to cost this country, let alone the world?

The last 7 years should be a pretty good indication.

Unfortuneately, your jab missed the mark. See my stat about the 2004 election's electoral representation accuracy. The last 3 years was decided by majority. Whether he was right or wrong the majority voted him in, so we have to deal with it. My point was, they shouldn't be allowed in unless they have 50.1% of all votes received. So, while he was not entitled to winning in 2000 (IMHO), the last 3 was unavoidable by any fair means. (Unless you consider the first term enabling the second which is just silly because if he was THAT bad he wouldn't have received MORE votes the second time around.)

[Tikker]

The last 3 years was decided by majority. Whether he was right or wrong the majority voted him in, so we have to deal with it. My point was, they shouldn't be allowed in unless they have 50.1% of all votes received.

exactly

our system is a little bit different than yours (we don't for individual leader, just party with most seats in the parliament/legislature gains prime minister/premiere) but we still run into cases where popular vote doesn't reflect who ends up governing, which is just wrong to me

[Lueyen]

Lueyen, I agree with all your dense region electoral college points.

However, the problem with a winner take all electoral college system is it prevents any additional candidates from having even a remote chance, locking us into our two party system. Ask Ross Perot about that.

Hence the reason I'd favor a system as it was proposed for California and NC where it wasn't winner take all, and votes could be split up, however it would for the reasons of opposition to it be for all states, not just some where it would be favorable to certain interests.