Should the Electoral College be reformed or eliminated?

[Raven]

As I asked in a previous thread: should we also disband the Senate?

I don't really see the purpose in this question. The senate gives each state an equal say on federal laws and federal issues, which is necessary since each state has an independent right within the nation to approve or disapprove federal laws. The congress' members are representative of each state's populous. The combination of both Houses of course creates an equal balance in legislation. And last I checked all members of congress and the senate are voted in on a popular vote.

The executive branch represents the nation ("one state" so-to-speak). The executive branch does not function like the legislative branch where two houses are necessary to create balance within population and state representation. The executive branch represents the country (one population). Therefore a popular vote of the executive branch makes absolute sense to me.

 

[russ_watters]

The key word in what you've said is states. A Senator represents a state. The President may deal with an individual state, but he shouldn't favor one over the other. Ideally, Bush would never send federal aid money to Texas just because it was his own state since he represents all 50 states. A senator on the other hand, would be expected to do just that.

The President does not have direct control over spending bills. The President could, however, federalize the National Guard and send it to Alabama to force the Governor to allow a black student to attend college, or send federal aid money to California following an earthquake...

 

[Grogs]

The President does not have direct control over spending bills. The President could, however ... send federal aid money to California following an earthquake...

What the heck? You just used exactly the same four words I did 'send federal aid money.' I never mentioned spending bills. The point remains that the President should not be loyal to one particular state. If a hurricane struck Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, it would create quite a stir if President Bush sent disaster relief *only* to Texas, citing that the hurricane would hurt property values in Texas.

The President could, however, federalize the National Guard and send it to Alabama to force the Governor to allow a black student to attend college

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The governor of Alabama didn't want this. The senators from Alabama didn't want this. A majority of citizens from Alabama didn't want this (at least voting citizens.) The senators from Alabama could have been expected to fight this tooth and nail. LBJ on the other hand saw things from a national perspective. It was the rule of law (as interpreted by the Supreme Court) that this happen and Alabama was the only state that failed to comply. Thus he (LBJ) used the national guard to protect the national interest within the state of Alabama. If it had happened in Mississippi, or Arkansas, or Georgia, that's where he would have federalized the National Guard.

 

[BobG]

Maybe you consider that the the US has had two distinct phases in its history.

Pre-Civil War:

We are a federal republic of states. The Senate represents the states, each state getting an equal number; this is just. That is no reason for the president to be elected by a biased vote system. That was never a true part of federalism, but just an expedient compromise to get the Constitution ratified.

Post-Civil War:

But in the 1970's the supreme court ruled that, according to the 14th amendment (passed just after the Civil War to give federal guarentees of freedom to citizens of the individual states), states had to base representation entirely on population. Of course, the federal government, precisely the body that is telling the states they have to represent everyone equally, doesn't have to do that because its bicameral legislature is written into the federal constitution!

If we truly were a federal republic of states as envisioned back in the 1780's the federal government wouldn't have the right to tell states whether they could secede from the country or not. Or then again, maybe it could. The federal government can get involved with issues which affect interstate trade, and secession definitely affects interstate trade. In practice, the federal government tends to dominate, either directly or through laying conditions to receive federal benefits (something every state has the right to turn down).

Allowing individual states to group all of their votes into a single block is a quaint tradition that's outlived its purpose. Capping the number of representatives in the House at 435 and apportioning one EC vote for each representative (including Senators) is more than enough ballast for the smaller states.

If not a direct popular vote, the EC vote should at least be distributed proportionally based how each candidate did in that state. As it stands now, if you're a Western New Yorker, with little in common with New York City residents, the Presidential election is meaningless. Buffalo and the rest of Western New York just gets dragged along with New York City. Likewise with the entire state of California being dragged behind Los Angeles and San Francisco.

The current system is at least as 'disenfranchising' as electing State Senators by county instead of by population. (By the way, the Constitution and Amendments don't make any reference as to how each state divvies up their Electoral College votes - it only talks about the total number each state has)

 

[Scientific Method]

First, it should be mentioned that the people at Physics Forums, who I speculate make up for the most part people with above average IQs, will be a minority voting block and will be overpowered in the elections by the stupid majority, so whatever "ideal" ideas we come up with will have no affect on national policy. That being said, I oppose the electorial college and only want the popular vote, like in the rest of the world. Also, I am opposed to representative democracy; I want direct democracy instead where we elect officials, but then these officials will only suggest policies, and then we the citizens will directly vote on them. So, if Bush suggests we invade a country, instead of Congress voting on it, we the people will directly vote on it. This way, the power stays in our hands, not the politicians. The argument though will come up that most people are too stupid to vote, which is true. So on one hand, if we let politicians decide everything, they will continue to lie to the public and push policies that serves them a lot more than the voters. On the other hand, if we let the citizens vote, they will support bad policies because they are too stupid. So, it's a double edged sword.

 

[Smurf]

I like the athenian idea of limited citizenry, where not everyone has the right to vote just because they've lived in the country for X years since or since birth and have achieve X years of age. And whoever shows up gets to vote.

Now if only I can come up with a feasible way to implement it into a large nation and to do it without making it too easy for it to develop into an oppressive oligarchy

 

[BobG]

Also, I am opposed to representative democracy; I want direct democracy instead where we elect officials, but then these officials will only suggest policies, and then we the citizens will directly vote on them. So, if Bush suggests we invade a country, instead of Congress voting on it, we the people will directly vote on it. This way, the power stays in our hands, not the politicians. The argument though will come up that most people are too stupid to vote, which is true. So on one hand, if we let politicians decide everything, they will continue to lie to the public and push policies that serves them a lot more than the voters. On the other hand, if we let the citizens vote, they will support bad policies because they are too stupid. So, it's a double edged sword.

There's a couple problems with direct democracy.

1) It's inefficient. Your government can either do things just once a year or you have the added expense of conducting several votes during the year. Your government winds up crippled and unable to make any kind of immediate decision (even slower than government acts, today).

2) It's not as much a matter of stupidity as it is time. How many hours do you spend each week researching all the issues your federal government, your state government, your county government, and your city government now handle. There's no way voters can be experts on all the issues that affect the functioning of government at all the different levels. That's why we outsource the job to people who can devote all their working hours to the issues.

3) Responsible government would be more expensive. Not only would the government have to research what should be done to keep the city, state, and nation going, it would have to pay to get the word out to the public via advertising. Advertising is a poor way to get the message across for any kind of complex issue, plus the sheer number of issues decided by governments will overwhelm voters. Many issues will be decided simply by who can generate the strongest emotions rather than legitimate pros and cons.

With a representative government, power still stays in the voters' hands. If the politician doesn't do a good job, you can get rid of him, usually before he has a chance to do much damage.

Keep in mind, that most local governments do a fairly decent job for their communities. At a national level, it can be frustrating watching members of Congress put the selfish local interests of their own district ahead of national good, but isn't that what you pay your Congressman for? To make sure your community isn't short changed relative to other communities in the nation? If put to a direct vote, would your community vote that the local military base or defense plant be shut down and half the city's jobs lost in order to improve the financial situation of the nation as a whole or would they just be more inefficient pork barrelers?

 

[gnome]

First, it should be mentioned that the people at Physics Forums, who I speculate make up for the most part people with above average IQs, will be a minority voting block and will be overpowered in the elections by the stupid majority, so whatever "ideal" ideas we come up with will have no affect on national policy...

How about a direct popular election in which only Physics Forums members are eligible to vote?

All kidding aside, I think the overall quality of life that the majority of us enjoy shows that our system works pretty well on balance.

 

[SOS2008]

...I oppose the electorial college and only want the popular vote, like in the rest of the world.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but aside from acting as a tie-breaker, the electoral college also provides protection from block voting by special interest groups, like the evangelicals in 2004. That doesn't mean the electoral college couldn't be improved. The proposal made by JoeB would make me feel like my voted counted more.

Also, I am opposed to representative democracy; I want direct democracy instead where we elect officials, but then these officials will only suggest policies, and then we the citizens will directly vote on them.

This concept has been debated over the years, as well as concepts of citizens serving in government similar to jury duty, etc. I like the idea of direct democracy, though the complexity of making it workable has been well covered already.

With regard to checks and balances, I feel our country does well. But the last couple of elections do indicate need for election reforms. For example, I would like federal elections to be uniform (to prevent the Florida Fiasco), and separate (to prevent "wedge" issue fear mongering to manipulate voter turn-out, i.e., props to ban gay marriage). Then there is the matter of re-districting in questionable ways, party targeting of specific offices, and of course, our wonderful media and increasing propaganda.