[Chongo]

The U.S. takes a lot of grief over our Electoral College System. This got me to thinking. Are there any Western nations that the people, through direct election, elect the head of their government? Russia and France do have directly elected presidents, but the Russian and French presidents share power with a prime minister they appoint (approved by their legislatures) which in theory, limits presidential power.

[Chongo]

Brits, Canadians?

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Brits, Canadians?

I think neither directly elect their head of government.

[Dork.]

Vatican City does. And it's larger than a breadbox (but not by much)....

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Vatican City does.

No. Cardinals elect the Pope, not citizens of the Vatican.

[legacyb4]

Does cheating on votes count?

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

The U.S. takes a lot of grief over our Electoral College System. This got me to thinking. Are there any Western nations that the people, through direct election, elect the head of their government? Russia and France do have directly elected presidents, but the Russian and French presidents share power with a prime minister they appoint (approved by their legislatures) which in theory, limits presidential power.

France.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

No. Cardinals elect the Pope, not citizens of the Vatican.

Well, some Cardinals are citizens of the Vatican, but you do have a point....

[OreoCookie]

Most democracies have a prime minister and a president. They have a different power balance (distribution of powers), but I don't see how this sharing of powers is relevant when you want to compare how presidents of other countries are elected.

The electoral college is a historical institution and these days, voting directly for (or against) someone is definitely the more natural choice.

[Dork.]

I think the Electoral College has more than just historic value. The main benefit is that it weights the election for President a little bit towards states with lower population. This forces candidates to pay a little more attention to these states than they normally would.

It makes more sense when you think of the election for President not as a single election, but as 50 separate state elections (and the DC election) whose results are combined. And since they are combined on the basis of their representation in Congress (plus D.C.), the voter turnout in one state doesn't affect the representation of the other states. (i.e. if California turned out 20% more voters than they normally do, it would not affect Wyoming's contribution to the process).

A common criticism of the electoral college is that, for states which lean one way or the other, they tend to not be "in play" and so it appears that a vote for the opposition doesn't count. But can you imagine how much worse it would be if there were a single nationwide election? Then, if the country as a whole is leaning one way, but there are regions that lean the other, that entire region would feel their vote doesn't count. They won't even get the chance to "officially" claim their state for their candidate.

I think there's value to having the results recorded and tabulated on a state-by-state basis, and that the Electoral College is still a good way to do it. Perhaps having each state name a slate of electors is a bit antiquated by now: we have the technology to tabulate and enter the results into the record without having each state send warm bodies to Washington. But I think things will just get worse if we start electing the President by a straight popular vote.

[BRussell]

You make a good case, but your argument rests largely on the idea that smaller states benefit from the EC. Are you sure that's true? Mathematically, votes in smaller states are usually going to be worth more, in the sense that less individual votes go into each EC vote in smaller states, but I dont think that males up for the harm that's done to small states by the nature of the system in general. Voters in states with fewer EC votes are much less important than voters in larger states, and that wouldn't be the case if the EC wasn't used. Each individual voter would be equal, even if they happened to live right across a border from one another in small an large states.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think the Electoral College has more than just historic value. The main benefit is that it weights the election for President a little bit towards states with lower population. This forces candidates to pay a little more attention to these states than they normally would.

It makes more sense when you think of the election for President not as a single election, but as 50 separate state elections (and the DC election) whose results are combined. And since they are combined on the basis of their representation in Congress (plus D.C.), the voter turnout in one state doesn't affect the representation of the other states. (i.e. if California turned out 20% more voters than they normally do, it would not affect Wyoming's contribution to the process).

A common criticism of the electoral college is that, for states which lean one way or the other, they tend to not be "in play" and so it appears that a vote for the opposition doesn't count. But can you imagine how much worse it would be if there were a single nationwide election? Then, if the country as a whole is leaning one way, but there are regions that lean the other, that entire region would feel their vote doesn't count. They won't even get the chance to "officially" claim their state for their candidate.

I think there's value to having the results recorded and tabulated on a state-by-state basis, and that the Electoral College is still a good way to do it. Perhaps having each state name a slate of electors is a bit antiquated by now: we have the technology to tabulate and enter the results into the record without having each state send warm bodies to Washington. But I think things will just get worse if we start electing the President by a straight popular vote.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I don't think the EC makes things fairer, it just shifts power from high-population areas (and what's their power really? That candidates will visit them?) to smaller states, or states whose outcome is in question.

If we moved away from a winner take all system, I could at least live with the idea of the EC.

[Chongo]

There is a move to awarding electoral votes by congressional district with the winner of the state vote getting the two at large votes (Maine-Nebraska Method)

[Dakar the Fourth]

Which is better, but applying such a thing a few states at a time sabotages the process. Imagine if only California, or only Texas, did such a thing it -- it would create a scenario where one party has a significant advantage in the election.

[Helmling]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think the Electoral College has more than just historic value. The main benefit is that it weights the election for President a little bit towards states with lower population. This forces candidates to pay a little more attention to these states than they normally would.

It makes more sense when you think of the election for President not as a single election, but as 50 separate state elections (and the DC election) whose results are combined. And since they are combined on the basis of their representation in Congress (plus D.C.), the voter turnout in one state doesn't affect the representation of the other states. (i.e. if California turned out 20% more voters than they normally do, it would not affect Wyoming's contribution to the process).

A common criticism of the electoral college is that, for states which lean one way or the other, they tend to not be "in play" and so it appears that a vote for the opposition doesn't count. But can you imagine how much worse it would be if there were a single nationwide election? Then, if the country as a whole is leaning one way, but there are regions that lean the other, that entire region would feel their vote doesn't count. They won't even get the chance to "officially" claim their state for their candidate.

I think there's value to having the results recorded and tabulated on a state-by-state basis, and that the Electoral College is still a good way to do it. Perhaps having each state name a slate of electors is a bit antiquated by now: we have the technology to tabulate and enter the results into the record without having each state send warm bodies to Washington. But I think things will just get worse if we start electing the President by a straight popular vote.

This really wouldn't be as much of a problem, though, if the historic balance of power had been preserved. Since the executive has absorbed more and more power throughout the years, though, it validates your concerns.