[BadKosh]

I guess when you can't remember why it was done that way in the past, and you don't agree with national standards and practices anyway, you go re-invent the square wheel. So when Mass. voters all want X to be president, and Y wins at the national level, the votes of Mass. voters doesn't mean anything. Sounds fair to me.........


Mass. Legislature approves plan to bypass Electoral College - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe

[The Final Dakar]

Really strange idea. It make sense that they won't implement it until other states sign similar laws into question, but at the same time it completely undermines the move (unless there's some serious talk to do this elsewhere that I haven't heard). Also, this is going to have a bizarre effect on how results are tallied... I suppose this isn't a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it will be confusing in today's instant gratification news world.

Personally, I think the better idea would be to wreck the stupid winner-take-all electoral vote system, but any state that enacts that effectively reduces their electoral influence (usually further), so its another case where you don't want to go it alone.

[BadKosh]

Here is another attack on voters rights:

FOXNews.com - EXCLUSIVE: DOJ Accused of Stalling on MOVE Act for Voters in Military

I guess those in power don't want conservatives to vote...

[Laminar]

The Libs and Dems are at it again!

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The Libs and Dems are at it again!

Yeah, I don't know why i took the time to write out a response, I forgot BadKosh just posts a incredulous remark, a link, and a quote and then moves on to the next thing he can rage about.

[BadKosh]

I'd like to read some liberal defenses of this.

[SpaceMonkey]

I'm not sure how this would emerge as a "liberal" issue.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'd like to read some liberal defenses of this.

Of which? I posted my thoughts on your first article. Not necessarily a defense. Do I have to defend it?

[Dork.]

I think the Electoral College has a lot of value. It forces the candidate to wage 50 separate campaigns. Sure, in most of those states, the outcome is pre-determined by demographics. But what is the alternative? One nationwide election, which can be just as pre-determiend by demographics.

Also, candidates will invest their campaign dollars in densely populated areas, where they will make the most difference. If this ever becomes reality, no Presidential candidate will ever step foot in Wyoming, since there are 32 individual US cities with more votes than all of Wyoming. Sure, Wyoming tends to lean Republican, but the Electoral College gives Wyoming proportionally more weight than its population would give it, to reflect how spread out the area is and how hard it is to campaign for fewer votes there.

In fact, I would take it even further: allocate electoral college votes by congressional district, with two additional at-large votes per state. This way, campaigns would be tuned like a laser beam to the local concerns of districts in play....

[SpaceMonkey]

Plus the whole federalism thing.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

I think the Electoral College has a lot of value. It forces the candidate to wage 50 separate campaigns. Sure, in most of those states, the outcome is pre-determined by demographics. But what is the alternative? One nationwide election, which can be just as pre-determiend by demographics.

How much does value does the electoral college really have? It's overturned the popular vote, what, once? And it came down to a few hundred votes. Is a margin of a few hundred votes really worth a 25-0 electoral vote difference? That's preposterous.

Originally Posted by Dork. 

Also, candidates will invest their campaign dollars in densely populated areas, where they will make the most difference. If this ever becomes reality, no Presidential candidate will ever step foot in Wyoming, since there are 32 individual US cities with more votes than all of Wyoming. Sure, Wyoming tends to lean Republican, but the Electoral College gives Wyoming proportionally more weight than its population would give it, to reflect how spread out the area is and how hard it is to campaign for fewer votes there.

But why should they get more weight? In every other situation where someone doesn't like the rights afforded by their state it's argued that they're free to move elsewhere where they can enjoy those rights they desire. Why would that argument not apply here?

It's argued that it's unfair that people in Wyoming will be essentially ignored. Someone will always be ignored. That's how the game plays. Is it fair that swing states get as much attention as they do? Is fair that a Californian's vote is worth less than an Iowans electorally? Is it fair that a Republican vote in California and a Democratic one in Texas are worth exactly nil?

Originally Posted by Dork. 

In fact, I would take it even further: allocate electoral college votes by congressional district, with two additional at-large votes per state. This way, campaigns would be tuned like a laser beam to the local concerns of districts in play....

I'd be willing to give that a try. Basically, I'm willing to give anything but the current system a try.

---

Call me a pessimist, but I think there would be less resistance to the abolition of the Electoral College if it weren't generally regarded that the densely populated urban areas are liberal leaning.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Of which? I posted my thoughts on your first article. Not necessarily a defense. Do I have to defend it?

I read and pretty much agreed with your assessment.

[OAW]

This is how I see this situation ....

1. The Electoral College is the body that elects the POTUS. The Founders set it up this way because many of them were elitists who didn't think that the people should do this directly. Suffice it to say that in its original form the US electoral process was designed for white male property owners only. This left a lot of the population disenfranchised when it came to voting rights.

2. Over time voting rights have been expanded to other groups of people as follows:

- Abolition of property qualifications for white men, 1812-1860
- Non-white men, 1870 — Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Women, 1920 — Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Residents of the District of Columbia for US Presidential Elections, 1961 — Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution
- Poor, 1964 — Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, prohibiting imposition of poll tax in Federal elections
- Adults between 18 and 21, 1971 — Twenty-sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

3. Consequently, for many the Electoral College is viewed as anachronistic and antiquated. An institution that is at odds with the expansion of voting rights over the last 2 centuries. It has the potential to ... and has on several occasions ... led to the election of a POTUS who did not win the popular vote. IOW ... under certain circumstances a POTUS can be elected that does not reflect the will of the people.

4. The problem is that the Electoral College is still a part of the US Constitution ... which is notoriously and purposefully difficult to amend. An amendment must be passed by a 2/3 vote in the US House & Senate ... and it must be ratified by 3/4 of the State legislatures.

5. So rather than try to eliminate the Electoral College, the strategy of the National Popular Vote campaign is to effectively turn it into a "formality". The thing is under the US Constitution the states can select their electors as they see fit. Additionally, each state has laws that determine how their electors must cast their vote. Winner take all. Proportional. Etc. This approach basically says that electors for a given state must cast their vote for the winner of the national vote. It also doesn't go into effect until enough states have passed similar laws to render the Electoral College process moot.

So is this constitutional? Most definitely.

Is this "fair"? I don't see how it's any more or less fair than the "winner takes all" approach at the state level. This is just a "winner takes all" approach at the national level.

Is it a good idea? I'd say so. Though I would be open to an alternative approach that if it achieved similar results in an even fairer manner.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

This is how I see this situation ....

1. The Electoral College is the body that elects the POTUS. The Founders set it up this way because many of them were elitists who didn't think that the people should do this directly.

Your underlying premise is incorrect. It is set up in this way because the President is intended to be the executive of a compact of independent states. This is why each state's legislature has the power to determine how its electors are chosen. It's certainly fine if every state chooses to follow Massachusetts' lead and we get de facto direct popular election of the President and Vice President. But I don't think it has anything to do with "fairness" or some natural next step in the expansion of voting rights. It has nothing to do with popular participation at all.

[andi*pandi]

Seems like something that the states shouldn't decide, but I suppose if enough states enact this, then something will be done to rebalance the people's vote in the electoral college. It will be confusing having different states do things differently.

I'd prefer my vote to go to my candidate.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Your underlying premise is incorrect. It is set up in this way because the President is intended to be the executive of a compact of independent states. This is why each state's legislature has the power to determine how its electors are chosen. It's certainly fine if every state chooses to follow Massachusetts' lead and we get de facto direct popular election of the President and Vice President. But I don't think it has anything to do with "fairness" or some natural next step in the expansion of voting rights. It has nothing to do with popular participation at all.

I suppose I fail to see how what you just said here conflicts with #1 that you quoted above?

#1 simply meant that the Founders didn't intend for the POTUS to be directly elected by the people. They set it up so that the State governments would elect the POTUS.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I suppose I fail to see how what you just said here conflicts with #1 that you quoted above?

#1 simply meant that the Founders didn't intend for the POTUS to be directly elected by the people. They set it up so that the State governments would elect the POTUS.

OAW

You seemed to be saying that as "elitists," the founders set it up in this way because they didn't want to risk a popularly-elected president, in the same way that they originally set up the indirectly-elected Senate as a counterbalance to the directly-elected House. I'm saying that it didn't have much to do with their opinions about the aggregate wisdom of the mob (elitism). It was about the conception of the federal structure of the government on a more basic level, that it was a federation of independent states who would, naturally, elect the executive of the union. I don't think it is correct to draw a line through America's history of abolishing certain limitations on voting rights as if this is a natural extension of that progress. It is more about an evolving view of whether the state or the federal government is the most basic "unit" of sovereignty in the U.S. system. Americans are more dissatisfied with the electoral college because we tend to self-identify first as Americans rather than as citizens of states, in contrast with the United States' earlier history.

I think a change like what MA's legislature is suggesting is of dubious benefit.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

You seemed to be saying that as "elitists," the founders set it up in this way because they didn't want to risk a popularly-elected president, in the same way that they originally set up the indirectly-elected Senate as a counterbalance to the directly-elected House. I'm saying that it didn't have much to do with their opinions about the aggregate wisdom of the mob (elitism). It was about the conception of the federal structure of the government on a more basic level, that it was a federation of independent states who would, naturally, elect the executive of the union. I don't think it is correct to draw a line through America's history of abolishing certain limitations on voting rights as if this is a natural extension of that progress. It is more about an evolving view of whether the state or the federal government is the most basic "unit" of sovereignty in the U.S. system. Americans are more dissatisfied with the electoral college because we tend to self-identify first as Americans rather than as citizens of states, in contrast with the United States' earlier history.

I think a change like what MA's legislature is suggesting is of dubious benefit.

Ok. Now I see what you are saying. And looking back at my original post I can understand why you would think that considering how I structured it "numerically". I suppose for me #1 and #2 were independent of each other. Sort of "dual tracks" so to speak. #3-5 is flowing from the intersection of those two. And you are absolutely correct when you factor in the fact that in 2010 people think of themselves more as "Americans" whereas 200 years ago they thought of themselves more as "Marylanders" or "Virginians". But I would contend that it is because of that evolving viewpoint people have begun to see the Electoral College as antithetical to the expansion of voting rights to the "people".

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Ok. Now I see what you are saying. And looking back at my original post I can understand why you would think that considering how I structured it "numerically". I suppose for me #1 and #2 were independent of each other. Sort of "dual tracks" so to speak. #3-5 is flowing from the intersection of those two. And you are absolutely correct when you factor in the fact that in 2010 people think of themselves more as "Americans" whereas 200 years ago they thought of themselves more as "Marylanders" or "Virginians". But I would contend that it is because of that evolving viewpoint people have begun to see the Electoral College as antithetical to the expansion of voting rights to the "people".

OAW

I question whether this evolving viewpoint is valuable and worth accommodating. It seems to me that it encourages the worst qualities of our presidential election cycles for us to reinforce that every four years is a do-or-die expression of popular will. I would rather we encourage the originally-intended remoteness (relatively speaking) of the Presidency as an institution.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I question whether this evolving viewpoint is valuable and worth accommodating. It seems to me that it encourages the worst qualities of our presidential election cycles for us to reinforce that every four years is a do-or-die expression of popular will. I would rather we encourage the originally-intended remoteness (relatively speaking) of the Presidency as an institution.

I fear the horse is out of the barn on that one. The typical American couldn't name their state legislature representative if there was $1000 on the table. Of those that even get involved in the political process, they pay way more attention to it at the federal level. What you are proposing would require people to think about the "basic unit of sovereignty" in a manner in which they simply don't anymore.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

What state are you from, OAW?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I fear the horse is out of the barn on that one. The typical American couldn't name their state legislature representative if there was $1000 on the table. Of those that even get involved in the political process, they pay way more attention to it at the federal level. What you are proposing would require people to think about the "basic unit of sovereignty" in a manner in which they simply don't anymore.

OAW

Then I wish MA's initiative godspeed. If all the states sign up for it? Fine. But we're still deciding it on a state level, which is how it should be. I relish the then-inevitable jump some big state makes to apportion its electors based on voting there.

[OAW]

I'm from the Midwest. Perhaps participation at the state level is different in other regions. That's just my impression of it given various news reports about voter participation. In any event, I think it's way too late to return to the notion of the Presidency as envisioned by the Founders.

OAW

[OAW]

Now having said that I found this part of the article intriguing:

The current Electoral College system is confusing and causes presidential candidates to focus unduly on a handful of battleground states, supporters say. They also say that the popular vote winner has lost in four of the nation's 56 elections.

Presidential candidates now "ignore wide swaths of the country" they consider strong blue or red states and focus their campaigning on contested states, Eldridge said. If the president were picked by national popular vote, he argued, candidates would spread their attention out more evenly.

"That's really what we're talking about is making sure that every voter, no matter where they live, that they're being reached out to," he said.

IMO ... the only thing such an approach is guaranteed to address is the part in blue. It might encourage Presidential candidates to visit the more sparsely populated states more. It might encourage Presidential candidates to visit those states that traditionally vote for the other party at the state level. It might encourage Presidential election strategy to no longer be about "Red" vs. "Blue" states. But at the end of the day it's still a numbers game. NY and California and Texas are still going to get more attention than Wyoming and South Dakota. It's about votes and a prudent election strategy would still have a campaign spend most of its resources where the majority of voters are.

OAW

[TheoCryst]

Seems fine to me. After all, it's up to the states to decide how to choose electors.

Originally Posted by Article II Section 1 of the Constitution

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

I'd like to read some liberal defenses of this.

Why? Would it make a bit of difference? Really?

[besson3c]

Aren't there some states that don't do a winner-takes-all sort of thing, perhaps in primaries? I always thought that was interesting.... Keep the electoral college, but weigh the overall points allocation based on the total percentage of people that voted for each candidate. What are the downsides to this?

[Dork.]

There's a point of view that I do not understand -- the concept that if you vote for a candidate who ultimately ends up losing, that somehow your vote doesn't count or you get disenfranchised, and the notion that the Electoral College makes this worse. (If anything, the Electoral College helps your vote to be more relevant, no matter who you vote for).

Since Wyoming is my new best friend, let's look at the results there in 2008. McCain/Palin got 164,958 votes, and Obama/Biden got 82,868 votes. Wyoming was always considered to be a safe Republican state. Do the votes of Democrats in the state count? Of course they do: I just told you the count after all. Just because Obama lost there doesn't mean those votes don't count. They're recorded, and if Republicans start to do things that people in Wyoming don't like, then Democrats may get more votes there in the future, and eventually both sides may campaign there if the election there is expected to be close. But if there's one nationwide election, then it doesn't pay for either party to campaign there at all, ever, even if the state is split 50/50, since you can sway more voters elsewhere.

I like the concept that the Presidential election is a weighted combination of 50 state elections. It's not that hard a concept to understand, and there's an elegance to it that simply doesn't exist in a full-on national election. It is a reminder that states (and federalism) do matter. Maybe the real problem is our school system is so bad that the concept of a weighted combination is too complicated for most High School graduates to comprehend?

[The Final Dakar]

Is that post supposed to be addressed to me?

[Dork.]

It's not addressed to anyone in particular, just one of my observations (pre-coffee, so it wasn't very coherent.)

[hyteckit]

1 person == 1 vote

Electoral College sucks.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Dork. 

It's not addressed to anyone in particular, just one of my observations (pre-coffee, so it wasn't very coherent.)

Then I suppose my next question is, is that closest I'm going to get to a personal reply?

[Dork.]

Probably. I've already forgotten about this thread.

[The Final Dakar]

That's cool. I think the constitution supports your position anyway. Just not sold on all the logic of it.

My only real response:

Originally Posted by Dork. 

There's a point of view that I do not understand -- the concept that if you vote for a candidate who ultimately ends up losing, that somehow your vote doesn't count or you get disenfranchised, and the notion that the Electoral College makes this worse. (If anything, the Electoral College helps your vote to be more relevant, no matter who you vote for).

You can't make votes more relevant without devaluing other votes. How does the Electoral College make a republican Presidential vote in California more relevant than a straight popular vote?

---

I think there's an inherent flaw in a system where people started vote trading sites a few elections ago because there was a segment of certain states' populations that knew their vote had no impact on the outcome no matter how they voted.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

people started vote trading sites a few elections ago because there was a segment of certain states' populations that knew their vote had no impact on the outcome no matter how they voted.

How can that work? If you're in a place where your vote doesn't count in one direction, then by definition it wouldn't count in the other direction either and you would have nothing to trade away.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How can that work? If you're in a place where your vote doesn't count in one direction, then by definition it wouldn't count in the other direction either and you would have nothing to trade away.

The details were actually the reverse of what I remember.

Vote Trade: The Democratic Way?

As Ralph Nader's bid for the presidency has gained favor among some liberal voters during recent weeks, supporters of Vice President Al Gore have repeated a single fire-and-brimstone warning about the Green Party candidate: "A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush."
Because of the peculiarities of the electoral college, the Democrats' mantra makes a point. It's conceivable that Nader could drain away enough liberal support from Gore in key states to deliver the White House on a Texas-sized platter to the Lone Star State's Gov. George W. Bush.
So what's a Nader-loving, Bush-bashing voter to do? How can one support Nader, who needs 5 percent of the popular vote to qualify for federal matching funds during the next election, while ensuring a Gore White House?
Swap it.
That's the advice of people who have put up a host of websites encouraging Nader voters and Gore voters to "trade" votes with each other -- allowing Gore to win swing states like Wisconsin, Oregon and Pennsylvania, while letting Nader win votes in Bush-secure states such as Texas.

[TheoCryst]

Right, the electoral college mostly poses a problem in swing states, specifically during elections with a healthy third-party candidate. Since most third-parties are "extreme" left or "extreme" right*, they draw votes from a stronger "mainstream" candidate and potentially sway the election in the opposite direction.

Of course, the same would be true if we did away with the electoral college altogether (Nader votes in 2000 still could have potentially gone to Gore), but that effect would be dampened on the national level.

*Side note: I wonder why that's the case? I feel that a third-party that walked the middle ground between Dems and Reps could potentially do very well for themselves.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

Right, the electoral college mostly poses a problem in swing states, specifically during elections with a healthy third-party candidate. Since most third-parties are "extreme" left or "extreme" right*, they draw votes from a stronger "mainstream" candidate and potentially sway the election in the opposite direction.

Of course, the same would be true if we did away with the electoral college altogether (Nader votes in 2000 still could have potentially gone to Gore), but that effect would be dampened on the national level.

Right, which is why I noted it was pretty much the opposite of what I remembered. I suppose in the end this more and indictment of the two-party system than the electoral college. (Which is why I favor a run-off system, but I'm suspect some nutcases would object to it as being communist(ic) or something)

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

*Side note: I wonder why that's the case? I feel that a third-party that walked the middle ground between Dems and Reps could potentially do very well for themselves.

Well, a couple reasons in my opinion. First, as many people note, the parties a very similar in most respects minus a few issues. Second, if you believe the material out there, there's only a small pool of swing voters for these candidates to woo. Third: Campaign funds. And finally, incumbents have a 90%+ win rate.