[BRussell]

This is a nice little website that keeps up to date with state polls. It's changed now, but a few days ago the electoral college was tied at 269 to 269. There are quite a number of other, highly plausible ways that the electoral college could tie this fall. In 2000, it was 266 to 271 - one elector did not cast a ballot, so it didn't add up to 538 as it should have. The odds are against a tie, but it's at least a very real possibility.

So what happens if there's a tie?

The House of Representatives elects the president. But they are only allowed one vote per state. The Senate elects the vice-president. That probably helps Bush because 1) Congress is currently Republican-controlled and 2) Republicans in general have more seats in smaller states.

But there are a number of questions and oddities:

1. Which Congress votes, the old one or the newly elected one? The Twelfth Amendment says Congress must choose by March 4th, which would be well into the next Congress. But it also uses the term "immediately," which suggests the current Congress.

2. The prez and veep could theoretically be of different parties. Could you imagine a Kerry-Cheney administration?

3. What happens if there is a tie among the representatives in the state, and so they can't agree on their vote? And more importantly, what happens if that occurs often enough that there's no majority? There's no provision for that possibility, as far as I can tell.

4. A tie also brings up the problem of the faithless elector - an elector who doesn't vote the way the citizens of the state voted. One bozo elector could change the history of the US, and in most states, there's no way to prevent it.

We 'mericans have some real strange aspects of our system. I think we need serious reform.

First, I think we need to get rid of the electoral college, and have a direct popular vote of the president, now that the electors don't mean anything anyway.

Second, I'd really like to see some kind of instant-run-off or ranking system so a third-party vote wouldn't be a vote for the least preferable option, as it is today.

Third, we need improvements in our voting apparatus. I don't know if that means machines or what, but user interface, as we Mac users all know, is important. Let's try to achieve 100% accuracy in turning voter intention into actual vote.

Finally, let's have some consistency in voting technology. The Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore said that there was an equal protection issue in treating votes from different counties differently. It is a problem. Let's fix it. It should be a bipartisan issue.

[Zimphire]

Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: _ Kerry 246 _ Bush 265

WV will end up voting for Bush again.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: _ Kerry 246 _ Bush 265

What's that, your prediction? Because it's supposed to add up to 538.

[AKcrab]

I hate the damn electoral college!!


Let the people choose!!

[Millennium]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I hate the damn electoral college!!


Let the people choose!!

The people do choose. Here is the proof.

[cpt kangarooski]

Meh. I don't think it's a serious enough issue to warrant an amendment. I probably wouldn't have bothered with the 17th Amendment either, personally.

[doctorkeyser]

So what happens if there's a tie?

Bush wins, of course.

[Turias]

Originally posted by BRussell:
First, I think we need to get rid of the electoral college, and have a direct popular vote of the president, now that the electors don't mean anything anyway.

Second, I'd really like to see some kind of instant-run-off or ranking system so a third-party vote wouldn't be a vote for the least preferable option, as it is today.

Third, we need improvements in our voting apparatus. I don't know if that means machines or what, but user interface, as we Mac users all know, is important. Let's try to achieve 100% accuracy in turning voter intention into actual vote.

Finally, let's have some consistency in voting technology. The Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore said that there was an equal protection issue in treating votes from different counties differently. It is a problem. Let's fix it. It should be a bipartisan issue.

I completely agree.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Millennium:
The people do choose. Here is the proof.

There's something in that analysis that really bugs me, but I haven't yet put my finger on it. I'll have to think about it, thanks for the link.

[AKcrab]

It's not about "voter power", and how the electorate supposedly increases voter power. I want my vote to count exactly as much or as little as the next guy.

The problem I have with the study, is that he assumes that the electoral college somehow follows a mathematically predictable pattern. They don't. In most states they cast their vote however they want, regardless of the popular vote in their state.

Let me use Alaska as an example.. We have 3 electoral votes, so the minimum a candidate can get is 33%. In fact, either you get 33%, 66%, or 100% of the electoral, no matter what. There is no way to represent 25%, 50%, or 75% or any other percentage other then 33, 66 or 100.

We don't use the electoral college for any other ballot initiative.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

[Logic]

I must say that I find your electoral system quite interesting. OK, better word would be weird. If I understand it correctly you can't leave an empty vote(or at least it won't be counted). So there is no way for people not happy with the choices they have to show that. That sounds weird in a democracy.

Ah well, we've had more than a thousand years to develop our system so I guess you can't expect you to get it right in the short amount of time you've had

[f1000]

Originally posted by Logic:
If I understand it correctly you can't leave an empty vote(or at least it won't be counted). So there is no way for people not happy with the choices they have to show that.

Sure there is: Americans who don't care to vote can just stay at home and let others decide who will run the country.

Our approach keeps polling lines shorter and saves money.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by BRussell:
What's that, your prediction? Because it's supposed to add up to 538.

He has only learned 48 of the 50 states. Give him time.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by itai195:
There's something in that analysis that really bugs me, but I haven't yet put my finger on it. I'll have to think about it, thanks for the link.

The mathematical principles are easy to grasp. The problem is that he presupposes that voting in blocks by state is the most desirable approach to a Presidential election, which is a value judgment, not a mathematical problem. There's no particular reason why a Presidential election should be treated like a World Series. It sounds charming but there's nothing inherently analogous about the two events.

If the electoral system were still deliberative, as it was intended to be, it would be meaningful. But it isn't deliberative - it's merely become an extension of popular voting by state. The cliched argument is that it protects us from mob rule, but can anyone name an instance in which this was really a danger? In the few cases in which the electoral vote deviated from the popular vote, was there really a danger presented by the popular vote? No, there was nothing inherently dangerous about Samuel Tilden or Al Bore. And Republicans have had no difficulty winning the White House without the help of the electoral college. If we really needed protection from mob rule, we would make it a deliberative body. As it is, its effects are purely arbitrary.

The other usual arguments - that it helps smaller states, that it leads to more campaigning in smaller states - sound good in theory but have become meaningless in practice. When was the last time two Presidential candidates focused their attentions on Utah or North Dakota?

While I would agree with BRussell's proposals, if we're going to retain the electoral system we should at least do away with winner-takes-all formats. Maine has the right idea - they apportion their electors.

[itai195]

I think my problem with it is really the focus on voting power as opposed to democratic principles, such as direct election and equality. Like you said, the mathematics make sense... but I don't think 'voting power' is what should be maximized. The baseball analogy is inappropriate, because in elections votes (runs) should matter more. And the idea that the electoral college is good because it enhances voting power in elections that aren't close sounds wholly undemocratic to me.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by zigzag:
While I would agree with BRussell's proposals, if we're going to retain the electoral system we should at least do away with winner-takes-all formats. Maine has the right idea - they apportion their electors.

I found these data (excel format) on the 2000 election, and it reminded me of this thread. The last few columns show what would have happened if states had used a proportional system in 2000. It wouldn't have helped, because enough electoral votes would have gone to third-party candidates that no candidate would have gotten a majority of electoral votes, and it still would have been thrown to Congress.

But the way the two states that do use proportional electoral votes work, the candidate who gets the most votes gets two electoral votes automatically, and the remaining are given out proportionally. I haven't played around with that yet, but that might change things (the way the system in my link work, all electoral votes were just given out proportionally). The other possibility would be to use a combination of the instant run-off system to give only two candidates electoral votes, and then use the proportional electoral vote method.

[macvillage.net]

Here's an easier solution: Stay home.

It's already been decided. No point in wasting the time. Spend the time with your family.

[BlackGriffen]

I've proposed this system before, so here I go again:

The President elect is the person who receives the most votes who meets the requirement of receiving at least 1/3 (2/5 or whatever) of the vote in 2/3 (3/4 or 4/5 etc) of the states.

The best argument I've heard for the electoral college is that it is supposed to ensure that the president's support is broad geographically and deep in the population. Frankly, if that's the goal, I say we quit beating about the bush and require it directly.

BlackGriffen

[cpt kangarooski]

BRussell--

2. The prez and veep could theoretically be of different parties. Could you imagine a Kerry-Cheney administration?

It's happened before. We had an Adams-Jefferson administration.

4. A tie also brings up the problem of the faithless elector - an elector who doesn't vote the way the citizens of the state voted. One bozo elector could change the history of the US, and in most states, there's no way to prevent it.

There's no way to prevent it anywhere. The Constitution empowers the states to choose electors. But it gives the vote to the electors, not the state. Governments cannot instruct anyone as to how they are to vote in an election. That goes for electors too. If this weren't so, then the vote would've been given directly to the state. It's unconstitutional to interfere with faithless electors.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
BRussell--


It's happened before. We had an Adams-Jefferson administration.

I wonder what would happen if a president tried to fire a vice-president.

There's no way to prevent it anywhere. The Constitution empowers the states to choose electors. But it gives the vote to the electors, not the state. Governments cannot instruct anyone as to how they are to vote in an election. That goes for electors too. If this weren't so, then the vote would've been given directly to the state. It's unconstitutional to interfere with faithless electors.

But about half of states have passed laws against it, and many require signed pledges.

In any case, this is what seems so anachronistic about the electoral college. It was originally intended that the electors would do the actual voting, and there was no popular vote at all. Now we have this weird combination of popular vote and electors. When we started using popular voting, we should have just dumped the electors completely.

[Lerkfish]

just checking it today:

Kerry 322 _ Bush 205

interesting.

[dcolton]

The electoral college is a form of checks and balances and it limits the power of one state over another. It is not antiquated, it ensures that Maine's voice is as powerful and relevant to California's vote (for example). I don't want states like CA and NY to decide an election for me. It weakens my vote as a citizen of KY, thus limiting the role KY would be able to play in the federal government.

[cpt kangarooski]

BRussell--

I wonder what would happen if a president tried to fire a vice-president.

I'm not sure he can. But it doesn't much matter -- the vice president doesn't do a hell of a lot other than serve as president of the senate and protect the space-time continuum. So probably he'd just get to do a lot of nothing.

But about half of states have passed laws against it, and many require signed pledges.

Which is still irrelevant since they don't have any power to enforce it. That said, since they do get to choose who serves as an elector, they don't usually choose people who are not going to toe the party line.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Which is still irrelevant since they don't have any power to enforce it. That said, since they do get to choose who serves as an elector, they don't usually choose people who are not going to toe the party line.

When you say enforce it, do you mean force them to vote a particular way, or do you mean enforce their law against being faithless? You're probably right that states can't change electors' votes, but I believe you're wrong if you're saying they can't punish electors (with fines, etc.) if they don't vote the way they pledged to vote.

[dcolton]

When was the last time an electoral vote contradicted the populart vote (lets skip the Florida debate)

[cpt kangarooski]

BRussell--

When you say enforce it, do you mean force them to vote a particular way, or do you mean enforce their law against being faithless? You're probably right that states can't change electors' votes, but I believe you're wrong if you're saying they can't punish electors (with fines, etc.) if they don't vote the way they pledged to vote.

I think both.

Presidential electors fill a federal role; the supremecy clause alone should preclude the states from interfering with them even through discouraging them with fines (which is really just a 'clever' way of dictating who they have to vote for, and doesn't fool anyone). The ONLY role states play in presidential elections is choosing a slate of electors; they can do it however they want within the confines of the Constitution -- holding a proper election, having the legislature just arbitrarily pick, whatever -- but afterwards everything hinges on the electors and Congress.

[bleuvixen]

As of today:
Electoral Vote Predictor 2004: _ Kerry 332 _ Bush 195

If Kerry can keep the states his is barley winning then things look good for him.
Wonder what will will happen with Florida he's ahead by like 3% right now which will be a huge state win for him if he can pull it off.

[voodoo]

El pr�ximo presidente en EE UU no est� de la familia Bush. �Lo siento hombres locos derecho!

[bleuvixen]

Originally posted by voodoo:
El pr�ximo presidente en EE UU no est� de la familia Bush. �Lo siento locos hombres derecho!

one can hope..