There is a movement to do an end run around the Constitution by going to each state and passing a law to require the casting of that state's electoral votes for the national popular vote winner, regardless of how the people odf the state voted. This is sitting on Schwartzenegger's desk now.
If this had been in place in 2004, all of California'a 55 electoral votes would have gone to Bush, so the gate swings both ways. But in 2000, Gore won 677 counties, Bush over 2400, and yet Gore won the popular vote. So one effect would be to swing the focus of the elction from battleground states to urban areas. California and Texas are now more or less ignored because they are safe, but under this, LA, San Fran, Dallas and Houston would be the areas courted. I guess Wyoming will never be important.
It takes only the eleven largest states to pass this, rendering the opinions of the citizens in the other states moot. In truth, however, even one or two state passing it could sway a close election.
A few years ago, I would have supported this move or a constitutional abolishment of the Electoral College, feeling the electoral college had outlived its purpose and usefulness. But then i realized that it provided an important firewall against fraud. Voter fraud by the Democrats in new York or by the Republicans in Texas now has no effect on the national elections, as it just serves to make larger majorities in those states, but doesn't change even one electoral vote. But under a national system, fraud anywhere affects the whole election. Fraud in South Dakota or south Carolina would affect the whole electin, not just the limited number of electoral votes in those states, and fraud in new York could have the effect of nullifying every vote in a small state. I think we need to keep this firewall.
One system I do like is Maine's. They are the elctoral vote for each Congressional District to the winner in that district, and the two Senatorial electoral votes to the the statewide winner. It seems to me that would more closely approximate a popular election, while maintaining a lot of the firewall protections.
I agree. The states that give a percentage of electoral votes to the person that got the most seems the most logical. I understand the reason for the electoral college when it started, but I think it's not needed anymore considering the technology we have. Just my opinion on the matter.
The electorial college needs to remain in place.
I've always been of the opinion that, more often than not when it comes to our government, the founding fathers knew what they were doing.
Ninerfan1 Wrote:The electorial college needs to remain in place.
I've always been of the opinion that, more often than not when it comes to our government, the founding fathers knew what they were doing.
Overall I agree they knew what they are doing, but on this I think it can be retired. Just my opinion, I've heard good reasons for and against, I just think we have the opportunity to make it one man one vote, rather than pandering to the states like california, florida and ohio who have HUGE electoral votes.
JTiger Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:The electorial college needs to remain in place.
I've always been of the opinion that, more often than not when it comes to our government, the founding fathers knew what they were doing.
Overall I agree they knew what they are doing, but on this I think it can be retired. Just my opinion, I've heard good reasons for and against, I just think we have the opportunity to make it one man one vote, rather than pandering to the states like california, florida and ohio who have HUGE electoral votes.
Versus LA, NYC, Philly, Boston, etc getting all the focus? No thanks.
Lethemeul Wrote:JTiger Wrote:Ninerfan1 Wrote:The electorial college needs to remain in place.
I've always been of the opinion that, more often than not when it comes to our government, the founding fathers knew what they were doing.
Overall I agree they knew what they are doing, but on this I think it can be retired. Just my opinion, I've heard good reasons for and against, I just think we have the opportunity to make it one man one vote, rather than pandering to the states like california, florida and ohio who have HUGE electoral votes.
Versus LA, NYC, Philly, Boston, etc getting all the focus? No thanks.
Perhaps the so-called "flyover states" will actually get some focus like Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma.
JTiger Wrote:Perhaps the so-called "flyover states" will actually get some focus like Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma.
None of the 20 largest metropolitan areas are located in the flyover states (based on the data I can find), and the population of those 20 areas is ~100 million. Just guestimating, but say 75% of those people are of voting age and half of those people vote (fairly accurate, I think).
The total number of people that vote for president is ~100 million, 50 million plus one takes it.
So roughly 75% of the votes necessary to be the next president reside in the 20 largest metropolitan areas whereas 33% of the electoral college votes to become president come from Florida, California, and Ohio.
And yeah, I know it's basically fun with numbers, but I'm just trying to say that I believe a popular vote leaves the folks in the middle out even more than the system we currently have.
Lethemeul Wrote:I believe a popular vote leaves the folks in the middle out even more than the system we currently have.
Well said (and naturally I agree).
The way I see it, the electoral system gives every state a flat 2 electoral votes (for senators) to start out with, plus additional electoral votes for representatives (so, tied to population numbers -- not linearly, but still in some way.) So, the smaller-population states end up getting their votes weighted more *PER PERSON* than the bigger ones do. They still have a lot fewer electoral votes than the big states, but the disparity would be much greater if it were one-person-one-vote.
lauramac Wrote:Lethemeul Wrote:I believe a popular vote leaves the folks in the middle out even more than the system we currently have.
Well said (and naturally I agree).
The way I see it, the electoral system gives every state a flat 2 electoral votes (for senators) to start out with, plus additional electoral votes for representatives (so, tied to population numbers -- not linearly, but still in some way.) So, the smaller-population states end up getting their votes weighted more *PER PERSON* than the bigger ones do. They still have a lot fewer electoral votes than the big states, but the disparity would be much greater if it were one-person-one-vote.
I agree, but I kind of like the idea of splitting the electoral votes up within a state based on overall popular vote. What do you think about that?
lauramac Wrote:Lethemeul Wrote:I believe a popular vote leaves the folks in the middle out even more than the system we currently have.
Well said (and naturally I agree).
The way I see it, the electoral system gives every state a flat 2 electoral votes (for senators) to start out with, plus additional electoral votes for representatives (so, tied to population numbers -- not linearly, but still in some way.) So, the smaller-population states end up getting their votes weighted more *PER PERSON* than the bigger ones do. They still have a lot fewer electoral votes than the big states, but the disparity would be much greater if it were one-person-one-vote.
I have to disagree. Isn't there a situation where I could win the electoral college and lose the popular vote? If so that is a reason to jettison the electoral college right there.
blah Wrote:lauramac Wrote:Lethemeul Wrote:I believe a popular vote leaves the folks in the middle out even more than the system we currently have.
Well said (and naturally I agree).
The way I see it, the electoral system gives every state a flat 2 electoral votes (for senators) to start out with, plus additional electoral votes for representatives (so, tied to population numbers -- not linearly, but still in some way.) So, the smaller-population states end up getting their votes weighted more *PER PERSON* than the bigger ones do. They still have a lot fewer electoral votes than the big states, but the disparity would be much greater if it were one-person-one-vote.
I agree, but I kind of like the idea of splitting the electoral votes up within a state based on overall popular vote. What do you think about that?
Make it that state's popular vote (not overall national vote) and it's better. Actually, if the system must be changed, the method I'd like best would be to award one electoral vote based on the majority for each district (so the electoral votes from the HR numbers are decided by mini-popular votes) and then the two from the Senate go to whatever the majority of the other electoral votes were.
To make up some numbers, suppose you had a state with 18 Congressional districts, hence 20 electoral votes. Suppose the popular vote in that state, clumped by districts, went:
10 districts for Party A
7 districts for Party B
1 district went Libertarian (woot!)
Then you'd have 12 electoral votes for Party A, 7 for Party B, and 1 Libertarian (which would be nigh-impossible under the current system). The folks in flyover country still get their votes amplified as the Founding Fathers intended, but the overall numbers are brought more in line with the popular vote (which addresses Mump's understandable concern).
lauramac Wrote:blah Wrote:lauramac Wrote:Lethemeul Wrote:I believe a popular vote leaves the folks in the middle out even more than the system we currently have.
Well said (and naturally I agree).
The way I see it, the electoral system gives every state a flat 2 electoral votes (for senators) to start out with, plus additional electoral votes for representatives (so, tied to population numbers -- not linearly, but still in some way.) So, the smaller-population states end up getting their votes weighted more *PER PERSON* than the bigger ones do. They still have a lot fewer electoral votes than the big states, but the disparity would be much greater if it were one-person-one-vote.
I agree, but I kind of like the idea of splitting the electoral votes up within a state based on overall popular vote. What do you think about that?
Make it that state's popular vote (not overall national vote) and it's better. Actually, if the system must be changed, the method I'd like best would be to award one electoral vote based on the majority for each district (so the electoral votes from the HR numbers are decided by mini-popular votes) and then the two from the Senate go to whatever the majority of the other electoral votes were.
To make up some numbers, suppose you had a state with 18 Congressional districts, hence 20 electoral votes. Suppose the popular vote in that state, clumped by districts, went:
10 districts for Party A
7 districts for Party B
1 district went Libertarian (woot!)
Then you'd have 12 electoral votes for Party A, 7 for Party B, and 1 Libertarian (which would be nigh-impossible under the current system). The folks in flyover country still get their votes amplified as the Founding Fathers intended, but the overall numbers are brought more in line with the popular vote (which addresses Mump's understandable concern).
Yeah that's kind of what I was thinking too. By allowing the splitting of electoral votes the third party candidates at least have a chance to make an impact.
The only negative I see to your plan of 1 vote per district is re-districting. Although it may balance out because the state would have to weigh the difference between having more clout in the congressional races or in the preseidential race.
blah Wrote:The only negative I see to your plan of 1 vote per district is re-districting. Although it may balance out because the state would have to weigh the difference between having more clout in the congressional races or in the preseidential race.
Who knows, they might even realize it essentially becomes a tradeoff (like you said), and it's not worth the effort -- and start making districts that look like SHAPES and not a big pile of hurl!
Yeah, I know, puff-puff-pass.
Lethemeul Wrote:JTiger Wrote:Perhaps the so-called "flyover states" will actually get some focus like Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma.
None of the 20 largest metropolitan areas are located in the flyover states (based on the data I can find), and the population of those 20 areas is ~100 million. Just guestimating, but say 75% of those people are of voting age and half of those people vote (fairly accurate, I think).
The total number of people that vote for president is ~100 million, 50 million plus one takes it.
So roughly 75% of the votes necessary to be the next president reside in the 20 largest metropolitan areas whereas 33% of the electoral college votes to become president come from Florida, California, and Ohio.
And yeah, I know it's basically fun with numbers, but I'm just trying to say that I believe a popular vote leaves the folks in the middle out even more than the system we currently have.
You may be right but I think it should go the the person that gets the most votes. Whoever it puts in office. If we don't like it we have a chance to fix it in 4 years. I think this is why many people don't vote, it's certainly why I chose to NOT vote for a long time, I have since changed that, but I hated the fact that my vote didn't really count. I guess I shold ask Al Gore about that, I'm sure he would have said in FL that if about 500 more people voted he'd probably still have a job. Go figure.