Time to change the electoral system?

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
I've got boucoup problems with the state of American politics right now, but none of them are the mere existence of the electoral college. That's like blaming your shoes for where you walked.

This concluding argument doesn't make sense to me: the problems you list in your preceding paragraph exist only *because* of the electoral college.
 

Shackleford

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Posts
1,264
Media
54
Likes
6,949
Points
543
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
This concluding argument doesn't make sense to me: the problems you list in your preceding paragraph exist only *because* of the electoral college.

Nah, those problems would exist regardless. The system itself is not the cause. The cause is the ever-decaying character of the people trying to work it. States & municipalities don't have electoral colleges, but as mentioned earlier, they certainly have gerrymandering.

As I said in my previous post, a direct popular vote system would just give rise to new & different issues. There will never be a singular "right way" for large numbers of people stretching from one side of a continent to the other to make a collective decision without some of them feeling unfairly treated.
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,440
Media
2
Likes
10,513
Points
208
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
With an EVA - Equal Vote Amendment - to the US Constitution replacing the electoral college with the popular vote of the people.

Such an amendment would require instructions for dealing with a plurality of popular vote. For example if no candidate gets more than 50% of the popular vote a run-off election between the two candidates with the most votes would decide the winner OR the amendment could specify a plural winner if at least one candidate obtains (say) at least 45% of the vote.

I'd prefer a simple majority in a run-off election between the two candidates with the most votes.
 
D

deleted37010

Guest
i wonder if our two party system is ready to accept any of these changes?
 

phonehome

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
3,896
Media
0
Likes
4,277
Points
343
Gender
Male
I have always felt that if any federal office holder ever sued in Federal court over the issue that the result would be a find that "run off elections" are not constitutional under a number of provisions and/or omissions in the constitution.
 

wallyj84

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 23, 2008
Posts
7,050
Media
0
Likes
3,993
Points
333
Location
United States
I support the lector all college.

It helps give a voice to smaller states that would be ignored otherwise. I think there might be room for reform, like making it not winner take all, but the basic idea is sound.

I think a much bigger issue is the gerrymandering that goes on across the country.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Nah, those problems would exist regardless. The system itself is not the cause. The cause is the ever-decaying character of the people trying to work it. States & municipalities don't have electoral colleges, but as mentioned earlier, they certainly have gerrymandering.

You didn't mention gerrymandering in the post I responded to. Instead, you listed two contrasting problems: states where the winner was a foregone conclusion, so that candidates had no incentive to compromise in order to woo new voters; and undecided swing states, which play a disproportionately decisive role in the election results. Both of these problems are directly related to the winner-take-all electoral college voting rules of most states, and would cease to be an issue if the winner were decided by popular vote.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,173
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
If the USA didn't have an electoral college system the candidates would campaign in a different way. Trump more or less ignored California. Probably even a small effort there would have got him a lot of additional votes. I'm not convinced a changed system would have much effect on the result.
Trump would have gotten very few if any more votes if he campaigned in California. He may even have lost votes. His unpopularity in California cannot be underestimated. California has a Democratic governor and democrats hold supermajorities in both houses of congress.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ozwestcoastboy

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I know this is a nice debate topic, but from a practical perspective it is meaningless. The process of the US Presidential election cannot be changed, at this time, or anytime in the foreseeable future.

The Electoral College was a compromise balancing the desire of one faction in the Constitutional Congress to have the President elected by the Congress and other faction that wanted the President selected by direct popular vote.

One side felt that more populous areas and states would have too much influence. The other felt that it would create power brokering and a President beholden onto politicians, instead of answerable to the people. The compromise was a two tiered system where the people would vote for a slate of electors that would vote for President.

To change that means (1) addressing the underlying conflict; and (2) opening up the process of amendments in an extremely divisive atmosphere.

Changing the Constitution requires either (A) a Constitution Amendment passed by Congress (by 2/3rds) and ratified by 2/3rds of the states; or; (B) a meeting of a Constitutional Convention.

You'll never get 2/3rds of the states to agree that they should lose power in the election. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine... would NEVER ratify an amendment that reduced their voting power by 67%-75%. In fact, finding These states would have to give up power to places like California. Even states like Tennessee, Kansas, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia would have a tough time giving more power to California. And, all of that is premised on getting super majorities in both house of Congress to agree to a power shift.

So, the only other way to accomplish the goal, a Constitutional Convention. That's not going to happen for the same reasons AND because the prospects of opening all other messes up to Constitutional politics would be M.A.D. Imagine pro-lifers allowing a debate on abortions? Or, gun advocates allowing the Second Amendment to be open to repeal? Or, libertarians allowing the debate on scope of the commerce clause? Or, religious leaders allowing debate on the true meaning of the "establishment"/"free exercise" clauses? Or, even the congressional members wanting a debate on the scope of executive authority? To open all of these debates up, at once, in such a divisive environment is just unrealistic.

Now, I have to wonder, is the debate being raised because the presidential system is flawed or because the person raising the issue believes result is flawed? Would they have felt the same way if Trump had lost? Would they be considering the issue if Clinton won?

Lastly, none of this addresses the underlying issues raised that caused the original compromise... Why should places like LA, NYC, DC, Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, Jacksonville... heavy urban centers have overwhelming power over rural Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, etc... In a direct election system, campaigning would be directed to the heavy urban centers and the rural areas would be more or less ignored. Why would a candidate spend $500,000 to canvas Iowa, when they can get 50x more coverage and potential votes by one rally in Philadelphia or Los Angeles? Why spend two weeks travelling around Nebraska (1.8million people), when they can reach 2.1million people in Houston and not lose so much time?

Until we can answer the compromise between Urban and Rural, we don't solve the problem.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Lastly, none of this addresses the underlying issues raised that caused the original compromise... Why should places like LA, NYC, DC, Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, Jacksonville... heavy urban centers have overwhelming power over rural Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, etc...

Because they have more fuckin' people?
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Because they have more fuckin' people?

Agreed. But does that make their vote more important that someone from a rural town?
If candidates are going to pay attention to their voices and ignore rural towns, a natural effect of such a change, then the people in rural America will not support the system, AND, farm areas won't get the equal attention under the law/government.
 

Klingsor

Worshipped Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Posts
10,888
Media
4
Likes
11,642
Points
293
Location
Champaign (Illinois, United States)
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Agreed. But does that make their vote more important that someone from a rural town?

No, it makes their vote exactly equal to someone from a rural town.

It's the current system where the vote of someone from Wyoming, say, counts three and a half times as much as the vote of someone from California.

If candidates are going to pay attention to their voices and ignore rural towns, a natural effect of such a change, then the people in rural America will not support the system, AND, farm areas won't get the equal attention under the law/government.

It's the unavoidable problem of the majority outweighing the minority. But again, if you're serious about addressing that issue, you need to advocate on behalf of *other* minorities as well. The votes of African Americans, Jews, LGBT people, etc., etc., etc., should also count three and half times as much as the votes of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants. Otherwise the professed concern about the disenfranchised minority rings false.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennF

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Agreed. But does that make their vote more important that someone from a rural town?
If candidates are going to pay attention to their voices and ignore rural towns, a natural effect of such a change, then the people in rural America will not support the system, AND, farm areas won't get the equal attention under the law/government.

going by popular vote, they would have the same importance, not more. It'd be 1 vote per person instead of 1.1 for the rural folks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennF and Klingsor

TexanStar

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Posts
10,496
Media
0
Likes
14,978
Points
183
Location
Fort Worth (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I know this is a nice debate topic, but from a practical perspective it is meaningless. The process of the US Presidential election cannot be changed, at this time, or anytime in the foreseeable future.

The Electoral College was a compromise balancing the desire of one faction in the Constitutional Congress to have the President elected by the Congress and other faction that wanted the President selected by direct popular vote.

One side felt that more populous areas and states would have too much influence. The other felt that it would create power brokering and a President beholden onto politicians, instead of answerable to the people. The compromise was a two tiered system where the people would vote for a slate of electors that would vote for President.

To change that means (1) addressing the underlying conflict; and (2) opening up the process of amendments in an extremely divisive atmosphere.

Changing the Constitution requires either (A) a Constitution Amendment passed by Congress (by 2/3rds) and ratified by 2/3rds of the states; or; (B) a meeting of a Constitutional Convention.

You'll never get 2/3rds of the states to agree that they should lose power in the election. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine... would NEVER ratify an amendment that reduced their voting power by 67%-75%. In fact, finding These states would have to give up power to places like California. Even states like Tennessee, Kansas, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia would have a tough time giving more power to California. And, all of that is premised on getting super majorities in both house of Congress to agree to a power shift.

So, the only other way to accomplish the goal, a Constitutional Convention. That's not going to happen for the same reasons AND because the prospects of opening all other messes up to Constitutional politics would be M.A.D. Imagine pro-lifers allowing a debate on abortions? Or, gun advocates allowing the Second Amendment to be open to repeal? Or, libertarians allowing the debate on scope of the commerce clause? Or, religious leaders allowing debate on the true meaning of the "establishment"/"free exercise" clauses? Or, even the congressional members wanting a debate on the scope of executive authority? To open all of these debates up, at once, in such a divisive environment is just unrealistic.

Now, I have to wonder, is the debate being raised because the presidential system is flawed or because the person raising the issue believes result is flawed? Would they have felt the same way if Trump had lost? Would they be considering the issue if Clinton won?

Lastly, none of this addresses the underlying issues raised that caused the original compromise... Why should places like LA, NYC, DC, Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, Jacksonville... heavy urban centers have overwhelming power over rural Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, etc... In a direct election system, campaigning would be directed to the heavy urban centers and the rural areas would be more or less ignored. Why would a candidate spend $500,000 to canvas Iowa, when they can get 50x more coverage and potential votes by one rally in Philadelphia or Los Angeles? Why spend two weeks travelling around Nebraska (1.8million people), when they can reach 2.1million people in Houston and not lose so much time?

Until we can answer the compromise between Urban and Rural, we don't solve the problem.

It does not require a change to the constitution.

It would still require consent from the swing states that they are currently unwilling to provide and I don't see that changing in the near future, so for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennF

ozwestcoastboy

LPSG Legend
Joined
May 28, 2004
Posts
28,392
Media
0
Likes
454,639
Points
768
Location
Perth (Western Australia, Australia)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I know this is a nice debate topic, but from a practical perspective it is meaningless. The process of the US Presidential election cannot be changed, at this time, or anytime in the foreseeable future.

The Electoral College was a compromise balancing the desire of one faction in the Constitutional Congress to have the President elected by the Congress and other faction that wanted the President selected by direct popular vote.

One side felt that more populous areas and states would have too much influence. The other felt that it would create power brokering and a President beholden onto politicians, instead of answerable to the people. The compromise was a two tiered system where the people would vote for a slate of electors that would vote for President.

To change that means (1) addressing the underlying conflict; and (2) opening up the process of amendments in an extremely divisive atmosphere.

Changing the Constitution requires either (A) a Constitution Amendment passed by Congress (by 2/3rds) and ratified by 2/3rds of the states; or; (B) a meeting of a Constitutional Convention.

You'll never get 2/3rds of the states to agree that they should lose power in the election. States like Wyoming, Idaho, Delaware, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine... would NEVER ratify an amendment that reduced their voting power by 67%-75%. In fact, finding These states would have to give up power to places like California. Even states like Tennessee, Kansas, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia would have a tough time giving more power to California. And, all of that is premised on getting super majorities in both house of Congress to agree to a power shift.

So, the only other way to accomplish the goal, a Constitutional Convention. That's not going to happen for the same reasons AND because the prospects of opening all other messes up to Constitutional politics would be M.A.D. Imagine pro-lifers allowing a debate on abortions? Or, gun advocates allowing the Second Amendment to be open to repeal? Or, libertarians allowing the debate on scope of the commerce clause? Or, religious leaders allowing debate on the true meaning of the "establishment"/"free exercise" clauses? Or, even the congressional members wanting a debate on the scope of executive authority? To open all of these debates up, at once, in such a divisive environment is just unrealistic.

Now, I have to wonder, is the debate being raised because the presidential system is flawed or because the person raising the issue believes result is flawed? Would they have felt the same way if Trump had lost? Would they be considering the issue if Clinton won?

Lastly, none of this addresses the underlying issues raised that caused the original compromise... Why should places like LA, NYC, DC, Chicago, San Antonio, Dallas, Jacksonville... heavy urban centers have overwhelming power over rural Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, etc... In a direct election system, campaigning would be directed to the heavy urban centers and the rural areas would be more or less ignored. Why would a candidate spend $500,000 to canvas Iowa, when they can get 50x more coverage and potential votes by one rally in Philadelphia or Los Angeles? Why spend two weeks travelling around Nebraska (1.8million people), when they can reach 2.1million people in Houston and not lose so much time?

Until we can answer the compromise between Urban and Rural, we don't solve the problem.
While I'm not a US citizen I feel your post is spot on. Actually, I don't 'feel', I know it is. Here in Australia, we very sensibly have a Westminster system with COMPULSORY VOTING. However, our upper house (the Senate) was intended as a "States' house" with an equal number of senators being elected from each state. It remains so. However, like the US Senate and UK Lords, our Senate has become totally party political, with senators foremostly representing party alignments rather than particular state interests. While I feel the US Electoral College system is a dinosaur, I'm not sure how best to reform it if, indeed, reform is possible . . .
 
  • Like
Reactions: KennF

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Let me state, so you don't continue to blast me... I don't disagree with the sentiment. There are problems with the system, but I do disagree that switching to a direct voting system solves the problems. It merely replaces them with a different set of problems.

So, my practical side kicks in and says, since if cannot practically happen, why re-litigate this result.



Now, onto each of your arguments...
So until any change is made, the country is held hostage by the rural vote.
I didn't create it. And, I don't see rural America really holding the rest of the country hostage. If it did, then banks and big business exist. The problems in today's election stem, heavily, from a consolidation of power (too few members of congress), gerrymandering, a lack of willingness to compromise (somehow the term compromise became synonymous with capitulation), and, a severe attack on access to voting.

No, it makes their vote exactly equal to someone from a rural town.

It's the current system where the vote of someone from Wyoming, say, counts three and a half times as much as the vote of someone from California.
No. It would make the voice in rural America worthless. I agree that an individual New Hampshire vote has more sway than a individual Texas vote. You're absolutely correct. That was the compromise.

going by popular vote, they would have the same importance, not more. It'd be 1 vote per person instead of 1.1 for the rural folks.
No, that isn't true. And, I will point out that the Constitution never says 1person-1vote. That doctrine is a Supreme Court doctrine to help balance out of the problems with the Connecticut Compromise and the Equal Protection Clause. It applied that within each state the votes are supposed to be balanced. The Constitution never said that voters are equal across the states.

In fact, it empowered to Congress to balance out Congressional/Senatorial elections, and Congress has NEVER opted to make votes equal across state lines. Congress has allowed the States to decide much of that for themselves. Congress has been self-restraining in this respect.

It does not require a change to the constitution.

It would still require consent from the swing states that they are currently unwilling to provide and I don't see that changing in the near future, so for all intents and purposes, it's the same thing.
You are correct, there are some 50-100 proposals at the State level to push States to select their electors based on national popular results. However, they run into the same practical problems.

What would happen to the state legislators/governors from Ohio, if they passed a law that said, voters voice didn't matter, and that only the national result matter? Do you think that voters in Florida would be happy if the state said, "Sorry Floridians, all the voters in California voted in favor of a different candidate, thus your votes don't matter."

And, look at the net effect... candidates would listen to those voices in NY, California, Texas... and whole regions would be left with no voice in President.


Our system isn't perfect. Our system has flaws and imbalances.

But I still ask... would we be having this debate if Hillary Clinton won? Or would only the Trumpeteers be doing that?
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
While I'm not a US citizen I feel your post is spot on. Actually, I don't 'feel', I know it is. Here in Australia, we very sensibly have a Westminster system with COMPULSORY VOTING. However, our upper house (the Senate) was intended as a "States' house" with an equal number of senators being elected from each state. It remains so. However, like the US Senate and UK Lords, our Senate has become totally party political, with senators foremostly representing party alignments rather than particular state interests. While I feel the US Electoral College system is a dinosaur, I'm not sure how best to reform it if, indeed, reform is possible . . .

While compulsory is one thing, I would even accept that people are allowed to take off of work without consequences in order to vote.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,173
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
But I still ask... would we be having this debate if Hillary Clinton won? Or would only the Trumpeteers be doing that?
No we wouldn't. She won the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes. There was no disagreement between the Electoral College and the popular vote.