Should the electoral college be abolished?

[russ_watters]

On a suggestion by pattylou (really, something that has come up a lot)...

Do you think the Electoral College should be abolished and the President decided strictly on the basis of total national popular vote.

The "hybrid" answer would be some form of popular vote that is not a strict plurality. For example, a majority could be required for a win, some sort of ranking and instant run-off system, etc.

 

[loseyourname]

I'm not sure what kind of system I would institute (plurality or majority and what have you), but the answer is definitely "yes, abolish the electoral college."

 

[pattylou]

I voted no.

My problem with Bush's actions are his smarminess.

The electoral college is in place for good reason. It may need to be revisited, as demographics and society changes. I like that some states split their electroal votes.

But the bottom line is: If I won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote, you would know that that gave me pause. I would sincerely work it into my speeches, that I recognized I was not the choice of the majority of people in the country.

If, on the other hand, I bulldozed ahead and pretended to be on some God - driven mission after such a result, and implied that my counterpart in the other party was a real *loser* for contesting the numbers, ...

I woud not be surprised if my actions sent up HUGE red flags for people across the nation.

I would NEVER talk about *political capitol* and a mandate from the people.

The guy is a serious moron. He is also a liar and he is trigger happy, and he thinks he can spin anything or even worse he thinks it doesn't matter what the people in the country think.

This is our president. God.

 

[Pengwuino]

Patty... can you even begin to realize the ramifications of someone saying that they knew they weren't the popular choice? And you're calling someone names?

The SECOND a politician says he is illegitimate is the second he decides to resign because from that moment forward, you're a lame duck, you are useless, you will not get anything passed and you will have a political bullseye on your head until the day you're presidency is over.

 

[loseyourname]

The electoral college is in place for good reason.

Here is the reason given in the Federalist papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possesses the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

Basically, he is saying that the general public is too stupid and gullible to be trusted to directly elect a president. What exactly is the good reason that you think we should have an electoral college?

 

[pattylou]

I think that some areas have had difficulty getting to polls historically.

If you have an isolated geographical region and a non-isolated geographical region, the former will have a harder time getting to whatever polling set up they put in place.

You need to adjust for that, and it is reasons like this that the electoral college has merit.

 

[pattylou]

Patty... can you even begin to realize the ramifications of someone saying that they knew they weren't the popular choice? And you're calling someone names?

The SECOND a politician says he is illegitimate is the second he decides to resign because from that moment forward, you're a lame duck, you are useless, you will not get anything passed and you will have a political bullseye on your head until the day you're presidency is over.

I'm not convinced. He lost *me* when he went the route *you're* suggesting. I doubt I'm the only one. I expect comments like Kerry's "Those crooks" comment that was picked up on microphones at some press thing - i expect such comments stem in part from Bush's utter disregard for anyone but himself.

 

[SOS2008]

I voted no.
My problem with Bush's actions are his smarminess.
The electoral college is in place for good reason. It may need to be revisited, as demographics and society changes. I like that some states split their electroal votes.
But the bottom line is: If I won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote, you would know that that gave me pause. I would sincerely work it into my speeches, that I recognized I was not the choice of the majority of people in the country.
If, on the other hand, I bulldozed ahead and pretended to be on some God - driven mission after such a result, and implied that my counterpart in the other party was a real *loser* for contesting the numbers, ...
I woud not be surprised if my actions sent up HUGE red flags for people across the nation.
I would NEVER talk about *political capitol* and a mandate from the people.
The guy is a serious moron. He is also a liar and he is trigger happy, and he thinks he can spin anything or even worse he thinks it doesn't matter what the people in the country think.
This is our president. God.

Ditto -- there is a very good reason for the Electoral College, which is to be a check and balance against special interests and/or an uniformed/misguided (stupid) population. Since both of these problems have been increasing, I say we need the check and balance of the Electoral College all the more. It just needs to be fixed, such as highlighted in pattylou's post, and should be fixed (along with the other check and balance known as the Supreme Court) to prevent further elections of morons like Bush.

 

[loseyourname]

If you have an isolated geographical region and a non-isolated geographical region, the former will have a harder time getting to whatever polling set up they put in place. You need to adjust for that, and it is reasons like this that the electoral college has merit.

How does the college adjust for that? This would actually have a lesser impact if there were no college. Consider situation X:

Candidate Y and candidate Z are neck to neck in the election and it all comes down to state A. State A includes several geographically isolated regions where candidate Y would have received most of the votes. However, due to this isolation, candidate Z wins the state, gets all of its electoral votes, and wins the national election. However, candidate Y wins the popular vote. Without a college, candidate Y would not have been so heavily penalized for having so many of his supporters live in geographically isolated regions of state A.

 

[Pengwuino]

i expect such comments stem in part from Bush's utter disregard for anyone but himself.

Or liberal stupidity fueled by DNC lies and deceits. You've been around... haven't you EVER noticed that politicians will NOT, under any circumstance, say something negative about themselves unless they are facing much worse problems if they don't (ie, Clinton lieing to the American people about his criminal act of lieing to a Grand Jury)?

Nothing will convince you, you can't convince an ideolog.

 

[Moonbear]

I voted for the hybrid option. I like the idea of an instant run-off until a majority vote is obtained, so that I could rank my choices. That way, if my first choice didn't make the cut, I still would have a say on second or third choice. This might give a good third party candidate a chance. I can't stand the two-party system because both parties are pretty awful. I'd rather get a good candidate who had no party affiliation.

 

[Smurf]

there's no "other"

 

[pattylou]

Or liberal stupidity fueled by DNC lies and deceits. You've been around... haven't you EVER noticed that politicians will NOT, under any circumstance, say something negative about themselves unless they are facing much worse problems if they don't (ie, Clinton lieing to the American people about his criminal act of lieing to a Grand Jury)?
Nothing will convince you, you can't convince an ideolog.

I'm sorry. I don't see what you're saying. I realize I must sound dense.

It seems obvious to me that people should be good, honest, and trustworthy.

It seems right to me that our leaders should exemplify these qualities to an even *greater* extent than the populace, for the sole reason that they are ... our *leaders.*

I don't know what you mean by "idealog" --- You seem to be directing that at me. I'm a registered democrat but I am sure that you are aware that I routinely point out the hypocrisy within the democratic party and candidates. I am sure you realize that my disgust for Bush has no bearing one way or another on my opinion of other candidates. I am sure you would not try to stereotype people unfairly.

I am an idealist, and I think the best truths are very simple. Be good to one another, be honest, try your best, etc.

 

[Smurf]

ah yes, "try your best".

Never could get much of a grasp on that one.

 

[SOS2008]

Or liberal stupidity fueled by DNC lies and deceits. You've been around... haven't you EVER noticed that politicians will NOT, under any circumstance, say something negative about themselves unless they are facing much worse problems if they don't (ie, Clinton lieing to the American people about his criminal act of lieing to a Grand Jury)?
Nothing will convince you, you can't convince an ideolog.

:rofl:

I'm sorry. I don't see what you're saying. I realize I must sound dense.
It seems obvious to me that people should be good, honest, and trustworthy.
It seems right to me that our leaders should exemplify these qualities to an even *greater* extent than the populace, for the sole reason that they are ... our *leaders.*
I don't know what you mean by "idealog" --- You seem to be directing that at me. I'm a registered democrat but I am sure that you are aware that I routinely point out the hypocrisy within the democratic party and candidates. I am sure you realize that my disgust for Bush has no bearing one way or another on my opinion of other candidates. I am sure you would not try to stereotype people unfairly.
I am an idealist, and I think the best truths are very simple. Be good to one another, be honest, try your best, etc.

pattylou--you're fine, it's Pengwuino who is the ideologue.

 

[pattylou]

ah yes, "try your best".

Never could get much of a grasp on that one.

Well, it's one of the trickier ones, but I finally figured it out about ten years ago after decades of getting hung up on always feeling like I could have done better...

- the emphasis is on "try" not on "best."

 

[Smurf]

- the emphasis is on "try" not on "best."

I know... that's where the difficulty is. :grumpy:

 

[Townsend]

Here is the reason given in the Federalist papers:
Basically, he is saying that the general public is too stupid and gullible to be trusted to directly elect a president. What exactly is the good reason that you think we should have an electoral college?

That is not what Hamilton or Madison or any of the Federalist were saying at all...

The point being made is that power corrupts and that corruption can take form not only in government but also in faction. The purpose of the indirect democracy is to limit the effectiveness of popular opinions and powerful leaders that could mobilize the people to form a powerful voice, a voice that would be used to undermine the rights of the individuals.

 

[loseyourname]

That is not what Hamilton or Madison or any of the Federalist were saying at all...

The point being made is that power corrupts and that corruption can take form not only in government but also in faction. The purpose of the indirect democracy is to limit the effectiveness of popular opinions and powerful leaders that could mobilize the people to form a powerful voice, a voice that would be used to undermine the rights of the individuals.

Okay, fine, he wasn't just saying that the average man was too stupid, although part of his argument was that the common man on the street wasn't going to be terribly well-informed (which was true) and that they shouldn't be trusted with direct election.

I see people saying that the electoral college protects against a charismatic leader mobilizing popular opinion, but how? Presidential candidates still bring their campaigns to the people, not to the college. The electoral college simply votes the way the people vote. If it was obvious that a candidate was lying and people voted for him anyway, the electoral college would not vote for someone else (they do have that power, but it has never once happened). The only purpose I have seen the college actually fulfilling is overblowing the importance of places like Florida and Ohio.

 

[Townsend]

I see people saying that the electoral college protects against a charismatic leader mobilizing popular opinion, but how? Presidential candidates still bring their campaigns to the people, not to the college. The electoral college simply votes the way the people vote. If it was obvious that a candidate was lying and people voted for him anyway, the electoral college would not vote for someone else (they do have that power, but it has never once happened). The only purpose I have seen the college actually fulfilling is overblowing the importance of places like Florida and Ohio.

I see what you're saying but I believe the reason we have not seen faction take a very strong hold is because of the indirect democracy we started with. In other words, I believe that if America were a direct democracy, then a couple of powerful businesses could generate enough money to put their own Manchurian candidate in office and I think they would. I would venture to say that is exactly what businesses try to do now. I think the only thing that is really stopping them is the knowledge that the Electoral College can easily prevent them from achieving victory.

 

[loseyourname]

You think the presidents we've had were not controlled by business interests or some other form of special interest? Seriously?

 

[mattmns]

I definitely want to see the electoral college abolished. I personally feel that it is very silly. I would like a majority, maybe a certain percentage needed, and if not met then a run off.

 

[Townsend]

You think the presidents we've had were not controlled by business interests or some other form of special interest? Seriously?

I didn't say that at all...

I am saying that none of them were hand picked by businesses to be president, and that if it were a direct democracy then our government would be completely controlled by business and the voice of that average man would be worthless.

 

[Townsend]

I definitely want to see the electoral college abolished. I personally feel that it is very silly. I would like a majority, maybe a certain percentage needed, and if not met then a run off.

So what if the highest percent any candidate gets is say 15 percent and let’s say this guy is a Hitler all over again. Do you really want to take that chance?

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Have we installed an electoral college in Iraq?

 

[faust9]

I definitely want to see the electoral college abolished. I personally feel that it is very silly. I would like a majority, maybe a certain percentage needed, and if not met then a run off.

The constitution was written to prevent majority rule. Majority rule is like asking two wolves and a lamb what's for dinner---I believe that's how it goes.

[edit] I keep saying this---some day I will learn to type.

 

[Townsend]

The constitution was written to prevent majority rule. Majority rule is like asking two wolves and a lamb what's for dinner---I believe that's how it does.

Exactly. Very good analogy faust9

 

[loseyourname]

So what if the highest percent any candidate gets is say 15 percent and let’s say this guy is a Hitler all over again. Do you really want to take that chance?

I see what you're saying, how it's a sort of last-ditch contingency in case some guy like Hitler ever wins a popular election. I would personally like to think that the separation of powers would itself be enough protection from a guy like that. That is, he can be as fascist as he wants - but he isn't getting any legislation passed or violating the constitution no matter how much he wants to.

 

[faust9]

Have we installed an electoral college in Iraq?

Iraq doesn't even have a constitution. Besides how or why does this even matter?

 

[loseyourname]

I should note that my problem isn't with the electoral college per se; it is with the winner-take-all system of apportioning electoral votes. The reason being that for every presidential election I have been old enough to participate in, the winner of California was never in anything close to doubt and it frankly made no difference whatsoever who I voted for or whether or not I even voted. A system that disempowers voters in highly partisan states and places so much emphasis on the 'swing-states' is a bad system. I wouldn't mind the college so much if they would just apportion votes according to the percentages won, instead of doing it winner-take-all.

 

[faust9]

I should note that my problem isn't with the electoral college per se; it is with the winner-take-all system of apportioning electoral votes. The reason being that for every presidential election I have been old enough to participate in, the winner of California was never in anything close to doubt and it frankly made no difference whatsoever who I voted for or whether or not I even voted. A system that disempowers voters in highly partisan states and places so much emphasis on the 'swing-states' is a bad system. I wouldn't mind the college so much if they would just apportion votes according to the percentages won, instead of doing it winner-take-all.

This idea of a winner take all system is not really true. There have been electoral voters who have defied the norm and cast a vote for the other guy. The system works out the way it does because the party of the candidate who wins the state chooses the electoral voters who then choose to vote with the party or their conscience---the party usually wins. A few states do have all-or-nothing laws but many many legal analysists feel these laws are unconstitutional; however, one needs standing to sue before challanging these laws and as of yet we have not seen a defector (last defector was in the 60's IIRC) run up against one of these laws.

The electoral voters still have the right to vote their conscience though.

 

[mattmns]

So what if the highest percent any candidate gets is say 15 percent and let’s say this guy is a Hitler all over again. Do you really want to take that chance?

Why can that not happen now? The electoral people vote with their party nearly every time. If Hitler is the leader of your party then the electoral people for that party will be voting for Hitler.

 

[russ_watters]

I voted no.

I know I said I wouldn't argue it, but can I at least ask why you keep bringing it up if you don't think it should be changed?

smarminess

I don't think I've ever heard that word before...

"smarminess - Hypocritically, complacently, or effusively earnest; unctuous. See Synonyms at unctuous"

I like it.

But the bottom line is: If I won the electoral vote and lost the popular vote, you would know that that gave me pause.

I assure you I won't argue against this, but could you please tell me why? All it seems to me that it indicates is that you won a close election. Saying it would give you pause implies that it should make you think you lost, yet you voted "no" to the poll. That appears to me to be a contradiction.

 

[russ_watters]

Ditto -- there is a very good reason for the Electoral College, which is to be a check and balance against special interests and/or an uniformed/misguided (stupid) population. Since both of these problems have been increasing, I say we need the check and balance of the Electoral College all the more. It just needs to be fixed, such as highlighted in pattylou's post, and should be fixed (along with the other check and balance known as the Supreme Court) to prevent further elections of morons like Bush.

Could you elaborate, please? How would such a system work? It seems to me that you are saying that even if the popular vote is for person "A", the electoral college should utterly disregard their wishes and choose person "B" if they think the electorate is making a bad choice. How would that work?

Loseyourname described the original intent of the electoral college, where the electors would essentially vote based on their personal opinions, with no regard to the wishes of the electorate whatsoever. Is that what you are proposing.

 

[russ_watters]

I voted for the hybrid option. I like the idea of an instant run-off until a majority vote is obtained, so that I could rank my choices. That way, if my first choice didn't make the cut, I still would have a say on second or third choice. This might give a good third party candidate a chance. I can't stand the two-party system because both parties are pretty awful. I'd rather get a good candidate who had no party affiliation.

Instant runoff would be my second choice, though I am somewhat ambivalent about the issue. For those who don't know what it means (perhaps I should have explained it in the OP): http://www.instantrunoff.com/

Instant runoff voting (IRV) is a voting reform that asks the voter to rank the candidates in order of preference. It is simple, common-sense reform that will greatly improve our democratic process.