Electorial College?

[Canon]

They add up though. Its the saming with voting.. "My one little vote doesn't really count" ... It does though, because there's thousands of people thinking the same thing.

It doesn't count because, technically, a candidate can lose the popular vote and still win the election. Our system is fkd.

[ferret]

yes, we need a system where instead of a canidate campaigning in all the states he'd just go to NYC, LA, Chicago, and Texas.

-Gary-

That's pretty much what happens now... Without the electorial college, the big states would actually be less important.

[Doc Wattson]

yes, we need a system where instead of a canidate campaigning in all the states he'd just go to NYC, LA, Chicago, and Texas.

-Gary-

That's pretty much what happens now... Without the electorial college, the big states would actually be less important.

wha-Wha-WHAT!??!?!?!?!!>!>FSDFS

I implore you to start a new thread and explain that.

-Gary-

[ferret]

It was in an article I read a while back, I'd have to dig it up.

[Doc Wattson]

::::::SPOILER ALERT::::::

That article was wrong.

::::::SPOILER ALERT OVER::::::
-Gary-

[ferret]

Read:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105055
http://slate.msn.com/id/2105267

The arguments are supported by people on both sides, left and right.

The small-state advantage derives from the fact that the number of electors each state gets equals its total number of House seats (which reflects population size) plus two (for its two Senate seats). If the number of congressional seats is low enough, those two extra electors can make a big difference. Delaware, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Montana, Vermont, and Alaska each have only a single House member, so their electors exaggerate their proportional representation by a factor of three. But this advantage is outweighed by the advantage conferred on large states by the winner-take-all allocation of electors in every state save Nebraska and Maine.

Remember, also, that under a popular-vote system, all votes are equal. Under the Electoral College's winner-take-all allocation (in all states but Maine and Nebraska), votes in big states count more than votes in smaller states because they can leverage a lot more electors. A recount in the right state might therefore tempt partisans simply because it could turn a small difference in votes into a large difference in the Electoral College.

the states enjoying higher-than-average voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in declining order):

California
Texas
New York
Florida
Pennsylvania
Illinois

The states with the least voting power under the Electoral College were the following (in ascending order):

Montana
Kansas
West Virginia
Maine
Arkansas
Utah
Nevada

The key would be to persuade small states that losing their disproportionate clout relative to medium-sized states would be balanced out by the loss of disproportionate power enjoyed by big states.

[Doc Wattson]

First I'd like to request that is becomes a new thread. Can't let the hijacked thread become hijacked!

At no point do those articles explain how getting ride of the electoral system helps small states. It also doesn't counter point any of the main reasons for an electoral college. Basically it says, "Electoral college be stupid, lets convice people this be true. Gore is the man."

So please, explain why getting ride of the electoal college makes sence. Please also give some counter points against the electoral college's strong points.

I have to leave for the bank now or I'd go into more detail. Hopefully Dissman will break it down soon.

-Gary-

[Canon]

yes, we need a system where instead of a canidate campaigning in all the states he'd just go to NYC, LA, Chicago, and Texas.

-Gary-

</over-simplification>

[Doc Wattson]

canon]yes, we need a system where instead of a canidate campaigning in all the states he'd just go to NYC, LA, Chicago, and Texas.

-Gary-

</over-simplification>

Not by a lot. If you don't have an electoral college Canidates are only going to campaign were they can be most efficent, AKA where the most people are. Only the issue of the big cities will be heard, small towns and states will be thrown to the side. The midwest and northwest would get no represention with national polotics.

-Gary-

[ferret]

At no point do those articles explain how getting ride of the electoral system helps small states. It also doesn't counter point any of the main reasons for an electoral college. Basically it says, "Electoral college be stupid, lets convice people this be true. Gore is the man."

It never claimed to help smaller states. It quite clearly states smaller states would lose some voting power, but in exchange, the big states would lose a lot as well.

So please, explain why getting ride of the electoal college makes sence. Please also give some counter points against the electoral college's strong points.

How about you provide some strong points first? You've basicly asking me to make your argument for you. I've shown the arguments from the article, now you explain why their "bad" .. Its a simple fact that the big states have the most power, and in a very large part due to the electorial college.

Currently, you can win 51% of the popular vote in a state, and get 100% of its electorial college vote. How is THAT representing the state accurately? Only two states award their electorial votes based on the percentage of the vote.

[Soxmls35]

The Electoral College really ticks me off. It makes it so a persons vote in one state is worth more than another person in another state. That is just wrong. No one persons vote should be worth more than another’s. I understand the point of giving rural areas some more power because they control the farming industry etc. But it is still wrong to make one persons vote worth more than another’s. If this makes the candidates go to all the high populated areas that’s how it should be cause that’s where the most people they will be representing are located.

It will never be fixed though with how its set up so I have mostly given up arguing about it. We are just stuck with it because we were the first to go democratic and the government wasn't sure if they could trust the people.

[steaLer]

i think we need Evil Ernie in here. this is boring...

[acme420]

the 2000 presidential elections come to mind.

[squeak]

what election? Bush was appointed by the SC.

[acme420]

that was my point. gore won the popular vote but bush got appointed by the electoral college. making me think my vote is worthless since a buncha cock grabbers sitting in a room somewhere are gonna make the decisions anyway. i always knew that the final word was down to the electoral college ever since grade school history when you learn that shit. but when bush won even though he didnt win the majority vote i started losing my faith in the system. i am gonna vote in november but at the back of my mind theres a little voice telling me im wasting my time.

[ferret]

As I said before. If your candidate loses 51 to 49%, all 100% of the electorial college votes goes to the other guys.. Effectively making your vote null and nonexistant nationally.

[Soxmls35]

For that to happen ferret the Electoral College would have to vote off party. This almost never happens. But like the 2000 election it can occur that the popular vote will give one side the win but the Electoral College will elect another voting the way they should.

I have heard that the chances of what happened in the 2000 election are like super rare. Something like it’s a one in a million occurrence that the popular vote would be different than the electoral vote. Anybody got any statistics on this.

[meaty]

For that to happen ferret the Electoral College would have to vote off party.
What? Each party has a set of electors per state, and if they win that state, their electors are the ones to ultimately decide who the President will be (most of the time).

It's rare that electors will not vote within party lines.

[Soxmls35]

That’s exactly what I said...

I was looking at what ferret said on a national level not state level and for a candidate to get 50% they would have to have some electoral votes so to make the other candidate get 100% of the electoral votes electors would have to vote off party. I see now he probably meant state.

[Soxmls35]

I found some stats that kind of disprove what I heard about it being very rare to have a candidate win the electoral but lose the popular.

Has a presidential candidate ever lost the nationwide popular vote but been elected president in the Electoral College? Yes, three times:


In 1876 there were a total of 369 electoral votes available with 185 needed to win. Republican Rutherford B. Hayes, with 4,036,298 popular votes won 185 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Samuel J. Tilden, won the popular vote with 4,300,590 votes, but won only 184 electoral votes. Hayes was elected president.

In 1888 there were a total of 401 electoral votes available with 201 needed to win. Republican Benjamin Harrison, with 5,439,853 popular votes won 233 electoral votes. His main opponent, Democrat Grover Cleveland, won the popular vote with 5,540,309 votes, but won only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected president.

In 2000 there were a total of 538 electoral votes available with 270 needed to win. Republican George W. Bush, with 50,456,002 popular votes won 271 electoral votes. His Democratic opponent, Al Gore, won the popular vote with 50,999,897 votes, but won only 266 electoral votes. Bush was elected president.

[Dissman]

Here's the problem with eliminating the electoral college.

Under the current system, you have fifty seperate elections... all of them will probably not be close... at worst, only a few of them will be within the percentage points close enough to cause issue... the electoral college prevents chaos on a nationwide scale... and renders a lot of voter inconsistancies inconsequential.

Think of the 2000 election, during that election, a lot more than just what happened in florida went wrong... (and a lot more people than just them vote on punchcards) I mean, DEAD PEOPLE are known to still vote regularly in chicago... one tangable example: In St. Louis, Missouri (i believe) the polls were closed at a certian hour, but then were reopened by a judge and were held open for several hours... (a democrat stronghold) during that time period people went out and rounded people up off the street to go vote. (where thousands if not hundreds of thousands of possibly illegal ballots were cast and are now inseperable from the rest.. maybe even enough to have given the popular vote to Bush) Another, the absentee ballot crisis... what constituted a proper ballot? Imagine if we had to ask that question in all 50 states?

The fact is, bush only lost the popular vote by a few hundred thousand votes (which is still less than a percentage point)... and that would have triggered this whole "recount" thing across the entire USA... and with ALL of the problems in florida (democrat poll workers going alone behind closed doors to "count the vote"... large piles of chads being swept up off the floors at the election headquarters... with EVERYONE being forced to count again and again and again... we would have had WIDESPREAD fraud of people trying to steal the election for one canidate or another...

Now, with the electoral college, the "crisis" was confined to florida, and under the watchful microscope of the media... all problems were pointed out and grilled over (that's why we found out about the sweeping up of chads), something that would have been nearly IMPOSSIBLE if it was the entire USA doing this recount...

The Electoral college does a good job of keeping problems out of our elections, and according to statistical modeling, (according to dick morris) will agree with the popular vote in virtually every scenario given that one of the canidates win it by more than four points... also, if the entire nation would have had to recount, there's no telling how long it would have gone on... and then there would have been some mechanism to decide the election, probably kicking it into the house, and in 2000, the republican party controlled the house... so he would have won if that happened.

In 1960, widespread vote fraud was alleged... in chicago, 89% of the eligable voters turned out... compared to 60ish percent for the rest of the nation. The [alleged] fraud was bad enough to swing the entire election, both by the electoral college and by the popular vote. In an electoral college, you need to tamper with the vote by enough in any given state to throw that state in the other direction... most of them you would have to tamper in excess of > 5%. Whereas by direct popular vote the opportunity and ability to tamper with the vote to get it to go one way or the other is just too good to pass up... because one vote, no matter where fradulently entered... can decide it all.

[Canon]

This is far too civil. Nef needs to start flinging poo... or EE needs to come in here an eat someone.

[Nefarious]

/me flings poo

[Canon]

For that to happen ferret the Electoral College would have to vote off party. This almost never happens. But like the 2000 election it can occur that the popular vote will give one side the win but the Electoral College will elect another voting the way they should.

I have heard that the chances of what happened in the 2000 election are like super rare. Something like it’s a one in a million occurrence that the popular vote would be different than the electoral vote. Anybody got any statistics on this.

Let's not forget the Spreme Court's involvement in that case. That was another of many factors that further served to screw up that election.

[Soxmls35]

To bring this issue back up. I learned something new in my law class today. As ferret says if 51% of the people in the state vote one way all of the Electoral College votes that one way. This isn't part of the system. The system lets states decide on how they do their electoral votes. 48 of the states currently do it the way ferret said. Maine and Nebraska do it differently. (Not certain on how)

However Colorado is doing a vote this year that will do it proportionally. So if you got 60% of the popular vote you get 60% of the Electoral College vote. The problem is they are doing it in an election year and trying to make it take effect this election year. My law professor says it won't stand up legally because of due process and because it is suppose to be done by legislation not by a vote. I don't even think the vote will go though because doing it in an election year will make it so that anyone who wants the candidate that is the majority in that state to win will vote it down (bush in this case).

It probably won't work in Colorado this time but if it was done right it could be a very viable solution. If the majority of states do a proportionally voting system there would be like a million to one chance of the popular vote being different than the actual result. It also keeps voter fraud down as disman said. Some people's votes will still be worth more than others but the chances of it mattering are very slim. The chances of this happening aren’t very good but better than the chances that the system will be abolished totally.

[Canon]

However Colorado is doing a vote this year that will do it proportionally. So if you got 60% of the popular vote you get 60% of the Electoral College vote.

What if you only get 2 electoral votes?

[ferret]

All states get at least 3 votes. # of House of Representatives Seats plus 2 for the Senate.

[Soxmls35]

The artical on Colorado was in the Wallstreet Journal. They didn't say exactly how they would do it if the proportions didn't work out but im sure that the law would be very detailed on how to do the proportions if they didn't work out just right.

[Canon]

All states get at least 3 votes. # of House of Representatives Seats plus 2 for the Senate.

No. What I'm getting at is how weak is the division of the percentage amongst the electoral votes going to be?