changing electorial process

I was still in high school in 2000, so I didn't have a chance to participate in the voting process. But after the process all shook out, I remember thinking that it would be necessary to amend the process of how we elect a president (electoral college). I mean Websters defines democracy as "government by the people; rule of the majority." The guy that got the most votes (majority) by half a million did not win in 2000.

Fast forward 12 years and obviously we have not addressed this issue. Now if the election were held today, going by the Pew numbers released yesterday, Mr Romney would win the popular vote by 4%, which would translate to somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 million votes, and yet President Obama would be re-elected. Is this outcome really acceptable? I mean for the leading 'democracy' in the world, the very place that goes around the world pushing democracy and free elections, to have an election where the 'winner' would receive 5 million fewer votes than the loser is kind of a joke. The whole democracy thing loses credibility, IMO.

I suppose in it's day this electoral college served a purpose, but today it has outlived that purpose. It actually works against it's initial intent by making sure that all voters do not have the same say. Obviously, under the current system and climate, voters in a swing state like Ohio, or Virginia, or Florida have a much bigger say in the electoral process. Voters in Texas, Georgia, Idaho or any other safe republican state, as well as voters in California, Massachusetts, or any other democratic strong holds aren't really getting a say. And furthermore if you are a voter in any one of these 'safe' states for either side, you don't have the same advantage as the swings states in that you can't go out and meet a candidate at a rally or campaign event....neither candidate will be in your state. The candidate that has it locked up doesn't need to and the candidate that isn't going to win that state won't waste his time and resources.

If we elected by popular vote, which I believe is an idea who's time has come, every vote in Texas, California, Montana, Massachusetts would carry the same weight as Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. The president would visit Texas, Mr Romney would visit California, because picking up some votes there would be of equal value to picking up votes anywhere else. Everyone would have an equal say. A secondary benefit would be we would lose this divisive blue-state, red state mentality that has thrown our country into so much gridlock.

Thoughts?

You base everything on the US being a democracy. We are a representative republic. There is a huge difference. Do some research and then pose your questions based on our constitution. Remember that things such as women being allowed to vote, or more recently, the Civil Rights Act would never have passed if we were a democracy where majority rules.

Realistically, if we have another 2000 it will not be 5MM more votes for the popular winner/electoral loser. We get that situation once every 100 years or so. If one candidate is that far ahead nationally, it will carry over to many places.

On your "Romney would campaign in CA" scenerio, yes he would. And neither would go near OH/WI/MI. It would all be in the major population centers. A careful reading of the Constitution shows that power was made to be as indirect as possible. We had that for the US Senate until they changed it. After they changed it is the start of major growth in government. Coincidence? Nope.

Presidential candidates only campaign in major population centers now. Eliminating the electoral college would change WHICH population centers receive visits.

Are you familiar with the "National Popular Vote" project (www.nationalpopularvote.com)? The theory is, since the Constitution leaves it up to each state how to choose its Electoral College members (e.g. statewide winner-take-all, by congressional district vote, American Idol-style phone-in, rock-paper-scissors, best two out of three falls), if enough states (whose total Electoral Votes are at least 270) agree to change to "the winner of the national popular vote gets all of our Electoral Votes," then whoever gets the most votes nationwide becomes President.

This has the added "advantage" of not having to get 290 Representatives, 67 Senators, and 37 state legislatures to agree; the latter would be especially hard to do, as the smaller states realize that they have more power with the current system than with a direct vote.

BTW, if you are wondering whether or not we are a Democracy, refresh my memory - what is the 16th word in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Quote: ThatDonGuy

Are you familiar with the "National Popular Vote" project (www.nationalpopularvote.com)? The theory is, since the Constitution leaves it up to each state how to choose its Electoral College members (e.g. statewide winner-take-all, by congressional district vote, American Idol-style phone-in, rock-paper-scissors, best two out of three falls), if enough states (whose total Electoral Votes are at least 270) agree to change to "the winner of the national popular vote gets all of our Electoral Votes," then whoever gets the most votes nationwide becomes President.

This has the added "advantage" of not having to get 290 Representatives, 67 Senators, and 37 state legislatures to agree; the latter would be especially hard to do, as the smaller states realize that they have more power with the current system than with a direct vote.

BTW, if you are wondering whether or not we are a Democracy, refresh my memory - what is the 16th word in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I have heard about that idea. Crazy for a state to do it if you ask me. Just sour grapes that Gore was not successful in his attempt to steal the 2000 election.

Watch it pass and a GOP candidate gets elected when the old way the dem would have won. They would mount a challenge to the constitutionality of the idea.

So, what is the greatest possible discrepancy between electoral and popular vote outcomes under the current system.

1 person only votes for candidate A is enough states to get the 270 seats required.

Full voter turn out in every other state, unanimously voting for candidate B.

Candidate A wins, despite having maybe two dozen popular votes versus 200 million.

Well, as has been said before, the US is a Republic, not a Democracy. And democracy is a scary, scary form of government (and a Democracy would not have a President, or head of state.)


I do, however, advocate a change in the election process. I don't think the electoral college is specifically too problematic (it may be preferable to use popular vote) but what I think we should do is create a system where you got to rank the people you vote for. (In that way, you can vote for more than 1 candidate, hopefully making more parties far more viable.)

For example, say you could give 3 rankings for a total of 6 votes. And say there are 5 candidates. The ballot would look like this

Ticket A - 2
Ticket B - 1
Ticket C - 3
Ticket D
Ticket E

Then you'd be giving ticket B 3 votes, ticket A 2 votes, ticket C 1 vote, and no votes to ticket D or E.

If you only selected

Ticket A - 2
Ticket B - 1
Ticket C
Ticket D
Ticket E

Then you'd give 3 votes to ticket B, and 2 to ticket A. You'd be giving no votes to tickets C, D, or E.



The only other change I'd like to see is that, along with this system of voting, the electoral college would be narrowed to the top 2 contenders, and then compared to only each other to determine the electoral college (which requires a majority of votes for a candidate.)



An alternative is to rank all the ticekts in order, eliminating one of the tickets during each count (if your preferred candidate is eliminated, then the second highest ranked would be considered in the runoff.) Keep recounting until one candidate has at least 50% of votes. If the runoff is between candidates you refused to rank, your vote isn't counted.

Quote: rxwine

So, what is the greatest possible discrepancy between electoral and popular vote outcomes under the current system.

that's a really great question! You'd start with a single vote for candidate A in each state with only 1 representative (DE, WY, MT, ND, SD, and DC) because electoral votes are over-valued in those states. That gets you 18EV. Then I think you'd look at states with a population-to-EV ratio that was as small as possible and add them in. I think MN and MO both narrowly avoided losing congressional seats after the census, so they might by among the next states in, along with the other small states where the presence of 2 senators inflates the value of the electoral votes in those states. You'd keep building your EV for candidate A until s/he reached 270, then you'd have every eligible voter in the remaining states vote for Candidate B.

Quote: Boney526

W

For example, say you could give 3 rankings for a total of 6 votes. And say there are 5 candidates. The ballot would look like this

Ticket A - 2
Ticket B - 1
Ticket C - 3
Ticket D
Ticket E

Then you'd be giving ticket B 3 votes, ticket A 2 votes, ticket C 1 vote, and no votes to ticket D or E.

Nice method. One suggestion, it's a little confusing that ranking a candidate #1 gives him 3 votes, while ranking a candidate #3 gives him 1 vote. I'd either have the voter specify the number of votes to give each candidate instead of the ranking of each candidate, or have the rankings tie to 30 votes, 20 votes, and 10 votes - just something to make it less confusing for the folks who struggled with hanging chad...:-)

Quote: rdw4potus

Nice method. One suggestion, it's a little confusing that ranking a candidate #1 gives him 3 votes, while ranking a candidate #3 gives him 1 vote. I'd either have the voter specify the number of votes to give each candidate instead of the ranking of each candidate, or have the rankings tie to 30 votes, 20 votes, and 10 votes - just something to make it less confusing for the folks who struggled with hanging chad...:-)

This supposes that you have 3 or more party system, which the US really doesn't, so doesn't need a complicated PR system. You could force all EV college votes to be split along the lines of the popular vote in each state (which would move it away from a winner takes all format).

But it's only rearranging the deck chairs. I don't think the Electoral Vote system is actually a huge problem in the US. it may seem a tad unfair, but it appears to work close enough.

The hanging chad thing was stupid. The rule is easy in the UK. You have X in the box to a name. No X - no vote. Two pencil lines that cross. You can't do that, you don't get to have your vote counted. No need to make it any more complex with punch cards and chads and that nonsense.

Quote: thecesspit

This supposes that you have 3 or more party system, which the US really doesn't, so doesn't need a complicated PR system. You could force all EV college votes to be split along the lines of the popular vote in each state (which would move it away from a winner takes all format).

But it's only rearranging the deck chairs. I don't think the Electoral Vote system is actually a huge problem in the US. it may seem a tad unfair, but it appears to work close enough.

The hanging chad thing was stupid. The rule is easy in the UK. You have X in the box to a name. No X - no vote. Two pencil lines that cross. You can't do that, you don't get to have your vote counted. No need to make it any more complex with punch cards and chads and that nonsense.

But this would make it much easier for local elections that aren't party-oriented like schoolboards or city councils or the like. And it would make it a lot easier to compete as a third party, since the "risk" of voting for a 3rd party candidate would be reduced. I'm quite sure that Al Gore would have won in 2000 if the Nader voters had been able to indicate a second choice. George HW Bush would also have won in 1992 if there were a way to poll the second choice of the Perot voters.

Quote: rdw4potus

Nice method. One suggestion, it's a little confusing that ranking a candidate #1 gives him 3 votes, while ranking a candidate #3 gives him 1 vote. I'd either have the voter specify the number of votes to give each candidate instead of the ranking of each candidate, or have the rankings tie to 30 votes, 20 votes, and 10 votes - just something to make it less confusing for the folks who struggled with hanging chad...:-)

The danger here is zoned or later someone will demand cumulative voting. They already have that in some places to insure minority candidates only need to get minority votes instead of forcing all to have mass appeal.

Quote: thecesspit

This supposes that you have 3 or more party system, which the US really doesn't, so doesn't need a complicated PR system. You could force all EV college votes to be split along the lines of the popular vote in each state (which would move it away from a winner takes all format).

But it's only rearranging the deck chairs. I don't think the Electoral Vote system is actually a huge problem in the US. it may seem a tad unfair, but it appears to work close enough.

The hanging chad thing was stupid. The rule is easy in the UK. You have X in the box to a name. No X - no vote. Two pencil lines that cross. You can't do that, you don't get to have your vote counted. No need to make it any more complex with punch cards and chads and that nonsense.

We don't inherently have a two party system. There has been multiple "two party systems" in the US, and all have changed to form new two party systems. The thing is - all required a major change in the two parties (Federalists/Democratic-Republicans, then Whigs/Democratic-Republicans, then Democrat/Modern Republican).

Either way, we are NOT a two party system, we are Constitutional Republic. Parties are not mentioned, nor forbidden, in the Constitution, so we can decide which parties to elect out of any, or no, party. And I'd like to change the system to make it more friendly to multiple parties.

Essentially I'd like to create an electoral system that allows for multiple parties to be considered, without forcing everyone to just choose ONE candidate. There are many ways to do this, most include either runoff elections, or preferably, ranking systems so you can vote for more than one ticket. (Encouraging people to vote for smaller parties, while insuring their vote with another vote for a larger party).

Under these circumstances, I could cast 3 votes for Gary Johnson, 2 for Romney and possibly one for the Constitution Party, or even just leave that last ballot uncast. I, however, will only vote for Johnson, leaving my incredible distaste for Obama essentially unshown.

Quote: rdw4potus

Nice method. One suggestion, it's a little confusing that ranking a candidate #1 gives him 3 votes, while ranking a candidate #3 gives him 1 vote. I'd either have the voter specify the number of votes to give each candidate instead of the ranking of each candidate, or have the rankings tie to 30 votes, 20 votes, and 10 votes - just something to make it less confusing for the folks who struggled with hanging chad...:-)

Right, I can see how it's confusing, but that's just an idea. A quickly thought of one, which I believe is superior to our one person one vote system.

The point is, if it's that easy to think of a better system, with a little thought, we could come up with a far superior one.

Quote: rxwine

So, what is the greatest possible discrepancy between electoral and popular vote outcomes under the current system.

Had to know how this would look. You'd have candidate A win the following states with 1 vote each (270 EV, total population 135,936,308)
Wyoming
Washington, DC
Vermont
North Dakota
Alaska
Rhode Island
South Dakota
Delaware
New Hampshire
Maine
Montana
Hawaii
Nebraska
West Virginia
Idaho
New Mexico
Nevada
Utah
Kansas
Arkansas
Mississippi
Iowa
Connecticut
South Carolina
Alabama
Minnesota
Oklahoma
Kentucky
Oregon
Colorado
Washington
Wisconsin
Louisiana
Tennessee
Maryland
Arizona
Indiana
Massachusetts
Missouri
North Carolina

Candidate B would win the following states with the maximal possible number of votes (268 EV, pop 185,311,983)
Georgia
Michigan
Virginia
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Ohio
Illinois
North Carolina
Florida
New York
Texas
California


Assumes an outright win (not a broken 269-269 tie). North Carolina was the tipping-point state. I didn't look at demographics at all, but it's possible that there's a slightly better solution if you look at voters & voting population instead of total population.

Wow. Since I raised this issue last week, things have gotten even crazier. Today's gallop poll has Romney ahead by 6 percent 51-45%. That is outside the margin of error. If the election were held today Mr Romney would get somewhere between 6-8 million more votes than President Obama, but according to real clear politics, President Obama would win 294 electoral votes and win re-election.

Could this possibly be an acceptable result? And please don't respond with it wouldn't be acceptable because Obama don't deserve re-election or Mr Romney isn't an acceptable candidate. No political opinions. I mean would it really be acceptable for one candidate, either side, to amass such a large majority and be denied the win? There has to be a point where people say, no that's not acceptable. In 2000, when Gore won the popular vote by less than a million and bush won the electoral vote, it was said that it was no big deal. It was a fluke. Only the second time in history that it had happened and wouldn't happen again for another 100 years. Would such a large discrepancy finally be the catalyst for changing the way we elect a president?

Quote: kewlj

Would such a large discrepancy finally be the catalyst for changing the way we elect a president?

Each candidate knows (presumedly) the system we have in place. If one candidate expends energy locking up the electoral areas he/she needs to get, it could mean not being exposed as much to the larger poplulation, where the other candidate has been amassing more popular votes. Both candidates could be working just as hard, but with the system we have, locking up electoral votes is a necessity. Each candidate needs to win, and has to be aware of where they spend their energy, time and money. I don't know that that makes it unfair though.

Quote: kewlj

Wow. Since I raised this issue last week, things have gotten even crazier. Today's gallop poll has Romney ahead by 6 percent 51-45%. That is outside the margin of error. If the election were held today Mr Romney would get somewhere between 6-8 million more votes than President Obama, but according to real clear politics, President Obama would win 294 electoral votes and win re-election.

In reality it is unlikely to happen. Gallup is one polling firm and RCP uses an average of many. All of the others use a different sample methodology than RCP. Some sample all adults, some likelys, some oversample Democrats, some are small, and some are large. The only way to get a real prediction is to do a large sample in all states using the same methodology preferebly by one firm. As you can imaging, that is very expensive and as important very time consuming.

Quote: AZDuffman

I have heard about that idea. Crazy for a state to do it if you ask me. Just sour grapes that Gore was not successful in his attempt to steal the 2000 election.

Watch it pass and a GOP candidate gets elected when the old way the dem would have won. They would mount a challenge to the constitutionality of the idea.

From Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. 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.
You will notice that "popular vote" does not appear in that statement anywhere. In theory, a state could choose its electors by drawing straws, rock-paper-scissors, or best two out of three falls.

I don't think the Constitutionality of a "national popular vote"-based system would be questioned.

Quote: thecesspit

This supposes that you have 3 or more party system, which the US really doesn't, so doesn't need a complicated PR system. You could force all EV college votes to be split along the lines of the popular vote in each state (which would move it away from a winner takes all format).

This is still a problem, as smaller states still have a larger "electoral votes per person" value, because of the two votes every state gets for having two Senators.

(Trivia: the only thing in the Constitution that cannot be amended is the right of every State to have at least as many Senators as every other State.)

Quote: ThatDonGuy

This is still a problem, as smaller states still have a larger "electoral votes per person" value, because of the two votes every state gets for having two Senators.

Not only is the value per vote different, but surely under the current format, the importance of each voter is not the same. Clearly 80% of the voters, who live in 40 states that are clearly going to one or the other candidate just don't matter that much. And it is really more than 80%, because the most populous states, California, New York, Texas, Illinois are all in that category. So about 10% of the voters in a handful of swings states in reality have their vote count more. Breaking it down even further, this current election going to be ALL about Ohio. Both sides agree on that. And within Ohio, it really comes down to a few suburban counties. People in these two or three counties are in reality going to elect the next president. So you can't tell me that their vote counts the same as a voter in New York, California, or Texas. But under the popular vote, their vote would count exactly the same.

It will take a really freakish unusual event like one candidate winning the majority of of votes by a rather substantial margin, 5 million, maybe while still losing the election, for the general population to really start thinking about changing the system. Maybe this is the election for that freakish unusual results. Maybe not.

Quote: ThatDonGuy

This is still a problem, as smaller states still have a larger "electoral votes per person" value, because of the two votes every state gets for having two Senators.

(Trivia: the only thing in the Constitution that cannot be amended is the right of every State to have at least as many Senators as every other State.)

This is as the Founders intended, to keep interests and influence of states more equal.

Quote: AZDuffman

This is as the Founders intended, to keep interests and influence of states more equal.

But the founders didn't and couldn't know what our country would look like today. Today this attempt at keeping things equal, not only doesn't keep things equal but opens the door to illegal abuse. With these super PACS raising and spending unprecedented amounts of money, more than a billion dollars, what if they really targeted the few undecided voters. But instead of swamping those voters that they target with TV commercial, mailers and phone calls, they just went to these 2 or 3 key counties in Ohio and started buying votes. $10,000, $20,000, $50,000 per vote in these critical decisive counties. That would probably even be cheaper than what they are doing right now. Voters in key counties in Ohio and Virginia, would be worth money. Voters in Texas and California, worth nothing. lol

Times change.

Quote: kewlj

Wow. Since I raised this issue last week, things have gotten even crazier. Today's gallop poll has Romney ahead by 6 percent 51-45%. That is outside the margin of error.

I'm too lazy to look this up, but isn't the MoE on their tracker still 3.2%? If so, then this poll is just barely within the margin of error. Romney could be as low as 47.8%, Obama could be as high as 48.2%.