U.S. Presidential Election

[Apollo]

Senate passes bipartisan election reform

What do you think of the election process for the president of the U.S.? I think the Electoral College is severely flawed, and that such reforms as discussed in the above article aren't enough.

The way the election process works is each state gets a certain number of votes in the Electoral College to elect the next president. This number is determined by combining the number of senators and representatives the state sends to Congress. Every state sends two senators and sends a number of representatives to the House of Representatives proportional to its population.

For example: Washington State has two senators in Congress and nine representatives, for a total of eleven votes in the Electoral College. Delaware, which is smaller in population, sends two senators and only one representative, for a total of three votes in the Electoral College.

Now, assuming that the number of representatives that each state sends to the House of Representatives is an accurate representation of its population compared to other states, which is supposed to be the case, then Washington State has approximately nine times as many people as Delaware. However, in the Electoral College the people in Washington State only have 3.67 (11/3) times as many votes as the people in Delaware. This means that the vote for president from a person in Delaware is worth 2.45 times that of a person in Washington State, and the difference is even greater with people in more populous states than Washington such as California or Texas. (Is this math done correctly?)

This seems like a rather antiquated system, and I think that we have the ability in the modern world to have a truely democratic election that is decided by the number of people who vote for each candidate, not the number of Electoral College votes they get.

 

[Greadius]

I agree, the Electoral College is antiquated. Its original intent to have the informed 'elite' agree in concensus on the president ended after George Washington's term. Its been 206 years since the system worked as intended, and has resulted in three presidents who recieved less popular support than their opponents...
Yet for some reason, nobody will move on it. What is the compelling arguement to keep the electoral college again?

 

[EdwardTking]

I was not impressed with the outcome of the last US election.

260 million people disenfranchised.

It was decided by supreme court LAWYERS!

They decided on a hereditary Presidency.

[And to think the US make fun of us Brits as monarchists!]


There should be Zimbabwean observers at next US election.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
It was decided by supreme court LAWYERS!

They decided on a hereditary Presidency.

Fundemental misunderstanding on what went wrong, and how the results were decided. Any idiot with an (R) behind their name would have had the same treatment with the same results.
If the vote totals were reversed Al Gore would be president (with the same vote totals W had).

Originally posted by EdwardTking
There should be Zimbabwean observers at next US election.

I agree. Maybe that way they can learn what a fair election looks like

 

[amadeus]

Just my understanding, but:

626,932 in Alaska, 3 electoral votes. 208,977 people per electoral vote.

18,976,457 in New York, 33 electoral votes. 575,044 people per electoral vote.

It seems like the electoral college is to give some leverage to the smaller states with smaller populations. Kinda throws the idea off on having candidates visit California, Texas, and New York, doesn't it?

 

[TubaGuy]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Just my understanding, but:

626,932 in Alaska, 3 electoral votes. 208,977 people per electoral vote.

18,976,457 in New York, 33 electoral votes. 575,044 people per electoral vote.

It seems like the electoral college is to give some leverage to the smaller states with smaller populations. Kinda throws the idea off on having candidates visit California, Texas, and New York, doesn't it?

They almost have to this to get canidates to the smaller states, If Alaska gave you 1 electoral vote and New York gave you 33 where would you go?

 

[amadeus]

To all fifty of them. Most coastal cities are generally more liberal than parts of the Midwest, etc, so if I was running, it really wouldn't matter. I'd lose NY and CA, pick up Texas, Florida, most of the Midwest...and so on

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
It seems like the electoral college is to give some leverage to the smaller states with smaller populations. Kinda throws the idea off on having candidates visit California, Texas, and New York, doesn't it?

Actually, they focus on the big states... I believe you only need to win 10 states to get 270 electoral votes.

The small states are marginalized... they may need to win over less voters per state, but they need to win over a heck of a lot more states to make up for the population differences.

 

[MrPresident]

I agree. Maybe that way they can learn what a fair election looks like

Are you talking about the Zimbabweans or the Americans?

A simple fact about the 2000 election, the guy that won got less votes than the other guy. It is that simple. In a Democracy this should never happen. It is also that simple.

I thought the originial reason for the electoral college was because it took so long to get all the votes from around the country.

 

[ainwood]

On a tangent, it is possible for someone playing tennis to win the match, having won less games than their opponent. It is about winning the "important games".

Obviously, the way the system works is a slap in the face to the "all men created equal" doctrine.

I guess the one saving grace is that the individual senators and congressmen don't have to vote along partisan lines.


Incidentally, NZs government system is even more screwy. Proportional representation means that you have lots of little parties forming coalitions to rule. We have elected MPs and 'list' MPs to make up the numbers so that the propportion of MPs from each party match the proportion of the votes that party got.

Unfortunately, these "List MPs", who have been elected by the party, (NOT the people), are free to defect to other parties, and take their votes with them. This HAS happened.

 

[MrPresident]

On a tangent, it is possible for someone playing tennis to win the match, having won less games than their opponent. It is about winning the "important games".

How can you compare a democracy with a game of tennis? Where is the connection? You might as well say, is it possible for someone to throw less darts but get a higher score? A Democracy should not be about winning "important games" it should be about winning the most votes. One vote should have the same value as every other vote.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
There should be Zimbabwean observers at next US election.

Didn't Putin actually offer Russian observers?

Originally posted by MrPresident
How can you compare a democracy with a game of tennis? Where is the connection? You might as well say, is it possible for someone to throw less darts but get a higher score? A Democracy should not be about winning "important games" it should be about winning the most votes. One vote should have the same value as every other vote.

Nothing more to add there.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Democracy should not be about winning "important games" it should be about winning the most votes. One vote should have the same value as every other vote.

..... which is exactly the point I'm making. I was just drawing an analogy. Read the next line.

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by MrPresident
A simple fact about the 2000 election, the guy that won got less wons than the other guy. It is that simple. In a Democracy this should never happen. It is also that simple.

Edit that. Its a powerful statement with a slight error

You're absolutely right... most of the time... the U.S. presidential elections are designed in such a way that the winner will be carried in by a super-majority MOST of the time. MOST presidential elections have been 'electoral' landslides, which is always nice on paper.
This was the example of a system designed for 13 frontier colonies trying to function for the most advanced democracy. We're still operating under a 213 year old Democracy and STILL don't have all the kinks worked out.
However, as far as the majority thing... you're wrong. In order to get a Constitutional Amendment, it needs support of 75% of the states, and 2/3rds of the House & Senate. Same with over-riding and presidential veto (2/3rds anyway). That is the paradox of super-majorities (which are usually where presidential elections go). A veto over-ride can get 64/100 votes and fail, while having a clear majority. Is that undemocratic?

Originally posted by MrPresident
I thought the originial reason for the electoral college was because it took so long to get all the votes from around the country.

Since they didn't know who would be in the college after the votes were counted, and they had to travel from their district, I don't see any reason why it would go slower or faster.

 

[Switch625]

So far, Greadius is the closest to the truth. The rest of you are way off base.

There is something that you MUST understand about the United States. Each state is SOVEREIGN. Despite the fact that the central government can excercise some control over what happens in the states (moreso than the authors of the Constitution ever intended), each state is sovereign. The voters of one state can not, I repeat: CAN NOT, directly vote on anything that affects another state. This is fine, until you get to the presidential election. Then, we have a paradox. The solution was the electoral college. Understand, that the presidential election is not a single election. By the very nature of the Union, it can't be. It is fifty one (each state, plus the District of Columbia) separate elections. Each state elects representatives that meet later to vote for the president. The only thing I don't like about the electoral college, is that there is no federal rule that binds the electors to vote for their candidate. Most states have laws that binds the electors, but not all.

One thing that many MANY people forget:

The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by MrPresident
A simple fact about the 2000 election, the guy that won got less votes than the other guy. It is that simple. In a Democracy this should never happen. It is also that simple.

You, like many people here at civfanatics, have oversimplified the 2000 election. Under the electoral college system, the numbers of the popular vote are irrelevant. That is because they are an inaccurate measure of the will of the voting age public. Due to the winner take all nature of electoral votes in almost every state, the voter turnout under the electoral system is different than it would be under a straight one person, one vote election. The 2000 election displays perfectly the flaws of the electoral college system and why that system must be changed. The biggest problem is that many Americans and most foreigners refuse to admit Bush's election was legitimate because no one in the media wants to talk about the issues I raised.

 

[ainwood]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
Due to the winner take all nature of electoral votes in almost every state, the voter turnout under the electoral system is different than it would be under a straight one person, one vote election.

A very good point. Statisticians and psychologists could have a field-day getting their respective heads around that!

 

[MrPresident]

the voter turnout under the electoral system is different than it would be under a straight one person, one vote election.

This is under the what if.... section of history. I know that voter turnout would be different under a different system. However that takes attention away from reality and what actually happened. The important thing is that the guy that won got less votes than the guy that lost.

The United States is not a democracy. It is a republic.

America is not a democracy?? Thats news to me. People still vote for their representatives don't they? That's a Democracy isn't it? I thought that the United States is a Democracy and a republic.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by MrPresident
This is under the what if.... section of history. I know that voter turnout would be different under a different system. However that takes attention away from reality and what actually happened. The important thing is that the guy that won got less votes than the guy that lost.

Wrong, the guy that won the election got more votes. The only votes that are relevant under the electoral college system are the electoral college votes. Bush had more than Gore and he won. Any discussion of the popular vote in the context of the "fairly" elected president under an electoral college process is irrelevant. Where it is relevant is in discussions about whether the electoral college system is the correct system for us.

 

[knowltok2]

Okay. To cut to the chase a bit.

1. Let's not rehash the past. Not the reasons the electoral college was disigned the way it was, or the results of the 2000 election.

2. Instead, let's look at a new system and try to decide if it would truely be better than the old.

*New System*: All US citizens get one vote, and the candidate with the most votes wins.


Start there and let us know either why it won't work, or how it needs to be modified to fit certain extreme examples (All bases should be covered).