What if...?

[MagisterCultuum]

The big problem with the electoral college is not the system as outlined in the constitution, but the way that is has more recently evolved to be implemented. There is nothing in the constitution that says that all of a state's electors should be awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes. It would be better for them to allocated proportionally.

It does not seem at all right to me for the ballots to list the presidential candidates when what voters are actually choosing are delegates to the electoral college. If we are to choose presidents indirectly, the ballots ought to let us choose the actual electors. The delegates should run their own campaigns, stating not only their first choice but also other acceptable candidates and what qualities make them preferable. They could then negotiate and compromise in order to select a candidate who should be more acceptable to the population.

As it has not been amended out of the Constitution, Antilogic, clearly it is still the preferred way of handling the election, else it would have been changed. It is not hard to amend the Constitution if you have support for your change.

It is not hard to amend the Constitution if you have support for your change among congressman and state legislators. Going from having widespread support among the general populace to widespread support among those whose voices actually matter is much more difficult. Elected politicians have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. This is especially true for those from smaller states, but also true for members of major parties who want their party to remain dominant.

There are many things which few individuals actually prefer in and themselves, but which remain the same because of the difficulty associated with changing the status quo. People don't like them, but they dislike the costs associated with taking the risk of trying to change them.

Or electoral system does not allow voters to express their views on specific issues all that well. We can only choose to give support to a candidate who represents a bundle of positions on various issues. Most of us do not agree with the candidates we end up supporting on every issue, and on some issues both major parties agree with each other but not with the majority of the population. A large majority may want to get rid of the electoral college, yet few would consider this their most important issue or change their vote because of it.

 

[lovett]

That would have presidents thrown out all the time.

No you wouldn't. Your president would simply be a member of the largest party in the House. He or she would be thrown out no more often than that changes (which is, admittedly, a little more often than occur presidential elections). Consequently, you'd greatly reduce the capacity for deadlock in the American system; you wouldn't have divided government and legislation could pass with much greater ease.

As another poster noted, this would turn the American system into a parliamentary system. Most parliamentary systems have fairly stable premiers.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Legislatiopn could get passes with much greater ease.

That's why its a horiffic suggestion.

 

[Souron]

It is already much easier to get a law on the books then take it off. That's why we have so many tax breaks and subsidies, some with little support.

 

[Cutlass]

No you wouldn't. Your president would simply be a member of the largest party in the House. He or she would be thrown out no more often than that changes (which is, admittedly, a little more often than occur presidential elections). Consequently, you'd greatly reduce the capacity for deadlock in the American system; you wouldn't have divided government and legislation could pass with much greater ease.

As another poster noted, this would turn the American system into a parliamentary system. Most parliamentary systems have fairly stable premiers.

The point is that the House frequently changes every 2 years. And even more often changes in the midterm elections. So you would have a new president every 2 years.

 

[Traitorfish]

Is that bad? It only seems like a problem for a presidential system, and, as Lovett said, this would basically mean reforming the US into a parliamentary system.

 

[Cutlass]

And what does that gain? No system design matters in the face of bad people running the system. Parliamentarian systems have the advantage that the leader can get things done. But that means bad things as well as good. With only a few notable exceptions, and we are in one of them now which makes it seem more "normal" the American system has usually had more consensus and compromise rather than radical extremes.

 

[Hygro]

And what does that gain? No system design matters in the face of bad people running the system. Parliamentarian systems have the advantage that the leader can get things done. But that means bad things as well as good. With only a few notable exceptions, and we are in one of them now which makes it seem more "normal" the American system has usually had more consensus and compromise rather than radical extremes.

Parliamentarian systems are usually more representative of the people, which have a track record of being more in line with your preferred policies.

 

[Cutlass]

Parliamentarian systems are usually more representative of the people, which have a track record of being more in line with your preferred policies.

Maybe. But they can also go to crazy extremes much more quickly.

 

[Traitorfish]

So is the structure of the system important or isn't it? You seem to be arguing both positions at once.

 

[Cutlass]

Up to a point. But you cannot structure away having bad people running the system. Or, I should say, no structure is proof against bad people fraking up the system. That said, some systems are easier to frak up then others. The American system does frak up. But it takes work to make that happen.

 

[Traitorfish]

To what extent is that because it's a presidential system, rather than simply because it has such a loose party-system?

 

[Cutlass]

The presidential system, and don't forget the components of a 2 house legislature and independent judiciary, is really a "don't do things until the consensus is really strong" system. Which, while I think it could have done better at any number of things, has generally not done terribly all that often. Compared to where the UK, EU, and Japan are right now, even as fraked up as the US is at the moment it doesn't look so bad.

 

[Traitorfish]

Are the UK and Japan the only parliamentary systems in the world? Is the US the only presidential system? I don't think you're appropriately controlling for external factors, here.

 

[Cutlass]

Everything is different in some ways :shrug: It's not like there's actually enough apples to apples comparisons out there that you could do real statistical models on it.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's either possible to hammer together something like a comparative analysis of presidential and parliamentarian systems, or making generalised claims even about broad tendencies within either is impossible. So which is it?

 

[Cutlass]

Both

 

[Traitorfish]

That's probably true, yes.

 

[caketastydelish]

Let me say something first just to make it clear:

I am not in any way a Mitt Romney fan

That said, I am not sure that making the election decided by the popular vote would necessarily be smart. Even though the popular vote is more fair than the electoral vote, in the real world, it could make things very hard.

Remember the 2000 bush/gore election? When they had to recount the votes in Florida? Imagine if they had to do that for every single state. It would have taken forever, and it would have been a mess.

The point I'm making is no voting system is perfect. Electoral college isn't the most fair thing but it has less problems otherwise than the popular vote.

 

[Hygro]

Let me say something first just to make it clear:

I am not in any way a Mitt Romney fan

That said, I am not sure that making the election decided by the popular vote would necessarily be smart. Even though the popular vote is more fair than the electoral vote, in the real world, it could make things very hard.

Remember the 2000 bush/gore election? When they had to recount the votes in Florida? Imagine if they had to do that for every single state. It would have taken forever, and it would have been a mess.

The point I'm making is no voting system is perfect. Electoral college isn't the most fair thing but it has less problems otherwise than the popular vote.

Huh? How would a popular vote make the Florida thing worse? It would have resulted in a clean Gore win.