Colorado To Vote on Electoral College Plan

First! by genrader · 2004-09-13 00:00 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Gore in the White House, wow, that's as scary as Bush being in the White House.

National Level by shaka999 · 2004-09-13 00:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Colodrado is a clear Rebublican state. In 2000 Bush got 51% to Gore's 43%. In 1996 Dole won by a slim margin. Because of this the bill won't pass.

A bill like this could only pass in truely contested states. In a state, like Colorado, where one party dominates its against their best interest to let this go through.

Personally, as a swing voter in CO, I love the idea. It makes me feel like my vote would count just a little more but I see no chance in it actually passing.

Also, I think any state with such a system may be doing itself harm. It makes the state much less of a battle ground during an election and may marginalize the number of "election promisses" are granted to a state.

--
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-

Re:National Level by salesgeek · 2004-09-13 00:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

Colodrado is a clear Rebublican state. In 2000 Bush got 51% to Gore's 43%. In 1996 Dole won by a slim margin. Because of this the bill won't pass.

Actually, who controls the statehouse and the state legislature matters. This is exactly the kind of thing that states try to do when the presidential vote breaks opposite of local and state elections. It's tremedously shortsited and marginalizes the value of Colorado to candidates. Why do I care if I get 4 delegates and the opposition gets 5? Even in a close election... one elector isn't going to make that much difference.

It basically makes Colorado's vote totally and completely meaningless. Because candidates don't care how you vote, it will dilute the value of your vote and would have a dramatic effect long term on the number of pork barrel projects (read military and overengineered highway) that make it back to your state.

--
-- $G
Re:National Level by Golias · 2004-09-13 00:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

In different polls, I've seen CO being called as a close victory for each of them.

However, this bill pretty much means that both candidates could safely ignore Colorado entirely.

I mean, it's very unlikely for one or the other to get less than about 45% in this election, so the "winner" is only going to pick up 1 vote more than the "loser", meaning that the state flat-out doesn't matter anymore, in terms of electoral-vote importance.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:National Level by tdemark · 2004-09-13 01:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is it too much to ask of our technology/math skills to award electorial votes in proportion to the popular vote?

It's amazing how the general populous has no problem with the idea of the Electoral College in other forms.

For example, let's say you have two baseball teams playing a "best of seven" series.

The games end up with the following scores:
Game Team A Team B 1 4 6 2 16 3 3 10 0 4 2 3 5 2 5 6 12 0 7 9 10
Who should be considered the "winner" of the series? Everybody will say "Team B". When asked "why?", they will say they won four games. "Even though Team A scored twice as many runs, you think that Team B should be the winner?" "Yes, those are the rules of the game".

But, as soon as you substitute "states" for "games" and "votes" for "runs" people have a hard time understanding why the EC works.

BTW, the results above are for the 1960 World Series in which the Pirates beat the Yankees in 7 games, but only scored 27 runs versus the Yanks 55. Incidentally, the 1960 also had the winner (JFK) lose the popular vote (to Nixon), but win the EC.

One of the major benefits of the EC is to make sure that the candidate is selected by a "geographic" majority, not a simple majority. I am not sure, but I can only imagine that the Framers wanted to protect, say, the North, from deciding alone who the President would be. The EC guarantees that the selected candidate have support across a large portion of the Union, not just in one area.

- Tony
Re:National Level by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 01:14 · Score: 0

That should have said: ...but I can only imagine that one of the reasons the Framers...

I didn't want to imply that is was the only reason.
Re:National Level by KilobyteKnight · 2004-09-13 01:14 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why do I care if I get 4 delegates and the opposition gets 5? Even in a close election... one elector isn't going to make that much difference.

But it can. What it will do is make the candidate pay attention to the state even if it is not a toss up state. As an example, look at NY right now. Do you think Bush is going to even try and campaign there? It was an early write off for him. NY is going to vote Democrat. Do you think Kerry is going to pay any attention to NY? Why would he? He's going to win it. He's going to focus efforts in contested states.

The effect of splitting the electors is to make every state contested, and force the candidates to pay attention to all of them.

There's one thing I'd like to see done differently from the plan mentioned. Instead of a porportional system, I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for. The 2 additional electors would go to the person who wins the popular vote for the entire state independant of congressional districts. This would localize the election even more, and it's similar to how the House and Senate are elected.

--
When will Windows be ready for the desktop?
Re:National Level by Jahf · 2004-09-13 01:46 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yeah, it has been real close here, but lately I think we've been swinging with the national polls which means that Bush is in the lead again.

As for not mattering, that might be true if Colorado were the only state that had this happening, but other states have begun talking about it. It may take awhile but if we do manage to kill the "all or nothing" aspect of the electoral system then the candidates have to act like -national- candidates and be solid on their issues.

My biggest problem with Kerry more than most Dems as well as the GOP in general is that they seem willing to ignore states they will surely win or lose and go to the contested states and say whatever is needed to swing votes even if it is contrary to something they said elsewhere.

Colorado is interesting because while we do have a slight GOP majority, the liberals are VERY liberal. It is similar to California in polarity.

But ... people are missing the biggest improvement that this system would receive is that it allows more than 2 parties into the mix. Ralph Nader gets 10% of the vote in California? Then Ralph Nader gets an elector on their way to DC. Not a win, but at LEAST it is a start. A Libertarian gets 15% of Colorado (not too far fetched)? They get an elector. It is no longer "Ralph Nader got some votes but they aren't recognized realistically".

Have a true multi-party system is the only way people like myself (Libertarian Left) are going to see their issues addressed. Otherwise we have to continually try and choose between the lesser of two evils (which is VERY hard this year for some).

Let's make it about issues again and give people who don't fall into one of the two big parties at least a small chance.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:National Level by Jahf · 2004-09-13 01:56 · Score: 1

Interesting footnote from an article on NPR a couple months back ... when the people behind this movement contacted the Democratic party, they showed no significant interest. Apparently they feel that Colorado has begun to shift enough to the left that the Democrats want to be able to "win em all" or not win at all just like the Republicans. Until very recently it looked like Kerry v. Bush was taking Colorado seriously as contested. I think we've since swung to a majority for Bush with the national polls as the attention has faded and we're not getting many of the campaign ad dollars (doesn't matter to me, I TiVo for TV and read online for politics :)

I think it's kind of ridiculous, like playing a game of poker with votes, but that's ok since I think both parties have gotten kind of ridiculous anyway.

The real winners if the states would move to a proportional electoral system would be the 3rd party candidates. They won't get into office MUCH quicker, but it would help them to get enough visibility and to get real recognition instead of simply stealing votes from their closest ideological counterparts.

So in all honesty, I would expect GOP -and- Democratic opposition to this. The question is whether the grassroots will take hold and force the issue.

If only one or two states have such a system, perhaps they do marginalize themselves (is that really so bad though since at least such a state knows it is getting it's votes listened to? it's not like we would MISS the political stumping). However if a number of states do this it means the candidates can't ignore 35 states and focus on 15. I think California, NY and Florida would be the best states to do this to. Opposing parties have had their votes ignored in the millions for years because of the current system. No wonder there are so many disenfranchised voters in the largest voting blocks ... many are right to think their vote won't affect the outcome.

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:National Level by bonkedproducer · 2004-09-13 02:14 · Score: 1

Apples and Oranges... Since when is an election a game? And in the example you give, the fact that it is games won and lost prevents a bad showing at one game by the more successful team from destroying a chance to win the series.

--
Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence in society - M. Twain
Re:National Level by Kierthos · 2004-09-13 02:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, it doesn't make it meaningless. Under the current plan, in most states, it doesn't matter whether you beat your opponent(s) for President by 1% or 20%, as long as you beat them. It's a winner take all situation, which means if you know you're going to win that state AND it's not worth that many electoral votes, you tend to stay out of it to focus on "swing states".

Now, under this proposed plan, it matter how much you beat your opponents by. Instead of trying to get a bare 1% over your opponent, you want as many votes as possible. Thus, you have to appeal to as many voters as possible and get them to vote. You'd see greater drives for voter registration, an attempt to acquire and retain the voters interest, and possibly actually talking about issues instead of hyping whatever factoid your campaign staff has determined would get you that 1% over the other guys.

Here's another example. In the 2000 Presidential election, California, which is worth a whopping 55 electoral votes, went to Gore. Out of 10,530,073 votes cast, Gore got 5,861,203 of them, which worked out to 55.66%. Bush got 4,567,429 votes, or 43.37%. Under the current rules, Gore got all the electoral votes, which means that those 4.5 million people might as well not have voted at all. Under a proportional system, Gore would have gotten 31 electoral votes, and Bush would have gotten 24.

It's a fairer system for making votes count. It also means that it is possible (although, inarguably still not likely) to vote for a third party candidate and not "throw your vote away".

Kierthos

--
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Re:National Level by PainKilleR-CE · 2004-09-13 02:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Like many other situations (true line-item-vetos, for instance), neither party wants to change the current situation for fear the other party will benefit (or worse yet, those evil 3rd parties).

California is a good example, though, because Nader, for instance, could've gained as many as 2 electoral votes there, and Bush could've gained 20-something quite easily, while Gore would've come up with just 28 or 29, instead of 54. That's the sort of thing that could actually make a big difference.

Additionally, the only reason Bush is even paying attention to California at all is because his father was the last Republican to carry the state (but not in the re-election) in a Presidential race, and Arnold took over as governor. The polls certainly aren't showing him doing any better there now than he did four years ago. So, when both candidates normally ignore such a large state simply because state-wide elections tend to go to the democrats (look at its house members vs. senate members), splitting the votes would either not change the situation or would improve it, as the split in the votes can make a very big difference in the national election.

10 million people voted in California in 2000. There are more people eligible to vote in the surrounding county of any one of the three largest cities in the state. Of course, when over 4 million people in California voted for Bush, and weren't counted in the electoral college that ultimately decided the election, it's easy to see why so many people that are eligible to vote in that state simply don't.

--
-PainKilleR-[CE]
Re:National Level by sadler121 · 2004-09-13 02:51 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Colodrado is a clear Rebublican state.

My friend, you have never lived in Utah, only until then can you claim CO is a Republician state. Juzt by the mere fact that Dole barely took CO is indicitive of how bi-partisen CO really is.

Proportional representation is the way to go if we are to keep the electorial college, (which IMO, keeping the Electoral college is still going to be the best way to maintain the states power over the Federal goverment, though the Republicians, ala Lincoln can also be blamed for the start of the decline of States rights).

Proportional representation still will not help Utah though. People who have the singled minded view that, along with "the only true church", there is really, "the only true political party". It makes it harder for those Mormons who actually are Democrats to even remain active in a Church where the majority of the population are blind sheep who can't think for themselves.
Re:National Level by crmartin · 2004-09-13 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

No, it changes what some of the contested states are, but since electors are allocated proportionally to the population it makes New York and California and Florida the big prizes. States like Utah -- reliably Republican -- end up being unimportant to Democrats, because they can, at the margin, hope for only one EC vote gained or lost; New York or California become more important to either side, because a relatively small change in votes there can mean a larger number of EC votes at the margin.

Read up on the EC: it was designed from the first to serve as a balance for the smaller states against the bigger ones. This is the same reason states get two Senate seats, but proportional numbers of House seats.

Oh, by the way, it doesn't really change the amount of available pork -- that's driven more by the Congressional seats. People forget the President doesn't actually have a helluva lot of control over spending.
Re:National Level by Kick+the+Donkey · 2004-09-13 03:09 · Score: 1

"One of the major benefits of the EC is to make sure that the candidate is selected by a "geographic" majority, not a simple majority."
Using this system makes some's vote count more, based upon geography. Its stupid, and antiquated. If you wanted to ensure a geographic majority, just give one state, one vote. But then, people in Texas and California would likely complain that their votes count less than some one in Alaska and North Dakota.
Why should the geographic precision be limited to a whole state? I like the idea of a congressional distict type of precision...

--
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
Re:National Level by tdemark · 2004-09-13 03:46 · Score: 1

Apples and Oranges... Since when is an election a game?

That's not the comparison that's important. Both the "game" and the "election" have rules laid on how the winner is determined.

The determination is fairly similar - the team with the most "votes" (runs) wins the "state" (game). When you win a majority of "states", you've won the contest. The team with the most number of "votes" is not necessarily the winner.

The statement I made is that many people think we need to get rid of the EC because it is a strange way of doing things, when, in fact, it should not be so strange to them after all.
Re:National Level by syrinx · 2004-09-13 03:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

Since when is an election a game?

How isn't it a game?

And in the example you give, the fact that it is games won and lost prevents a bad showing at one game by the more successful team from destroying a chance to win the series. ...ta-da! And the fact that it is electoral votes prevents a bad showing in NYC and LA from destroying a chance to win the election.

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Re:National Level by GuanoBoy · 2004-09-13 04:34 · Score: 1

Colodrado is a clear Rebublican state...A bill like this could only pass in truely contested states. In a state, like Colorado, where one party dominates its against their best interest to let this go through.

I agree with you that this is a mostly Republican state, but how many of those Republicans are going to vote this year is less clear. From what I've seen, there are quite a few fed-up Republicans actively working on the Kerry campaign, at least in the Denver metro area. They include the people you'd expect to be and vote Republican: bankers, real estate professionals, etc. Plus, CO has a lot of refugees from California. Travel down the highway and for every pro-Bush/Cheney bumper sticker, you see 10 anti-Bush stickers.
I, too, am a vehemently independent voter and I embrace the idea of proportional electoral votes. I even signed the petition. But, I only think it's effective if all states distribute electoral votes proportionally.

--
WWW
Re:National Level by bug506 · 2004-09-13 05:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for.

This is how the electoral college votes are determined in Maine (since 1972) and Nebraska (since 1996). However, neither state has split its electoral votes yet.

http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/reform.htm#Congr essionalDistrict

If this plan was used in other states (like California), I'm sure it would lead to splits in the electoral college vote.

The main problem with this approach is that it will make political gerrymandering even more prevalent than it is today. The party in power has even more incentive than it does today to carve out districts that favor that party, be it California Democrats or Texas Republicans. (One solution to this problem would be to use independent commissions to determine the electoral map based on population and not political considerations.)
Re:National Level by Unordained · 2004-09-13 06:50 · Score: 2, Informative

I live down in south-western colorado; a majority of the people in this county are registered republicans, yet from talking to them, they really seem to be more democrat-leaning. I've yet to figure out how this works -- perhaps there are just one or two issues that take it all in their minds?

Regardless of whether or not our voting system attracts presidential candidates to "care" about our state (it's lip-service everywhere, I don't think we're missing out on much), do we expect people to say "I want the way I vote to possibly count less if I'm on the winning side"? If the republicans have the voting majority, they'll want to get the biggest bang out of it, which means keeping the all/nothing system. (The same would be true of democrats, I'm pretty sure. We're all power-hungry.)

For senate/congress -- if we're going to have everyone campaigning on party platforms, how 'bout we just all select the party platforms we like best (with an oz-style system so the votes to rare entries can still count for something) and then later elect people to fill those positions? 35% republican? Fine, republicans get 35% of the available seats, and you get to pick which candidates you want for those. Greens get 5%? That's fine, they may just get one seat, but at least they get one. Yes, it's two-phase, and yes, I'm sure some of us will hate it. But it'd be nice for the little guys to get a little say, as opposed to no say at all.

For president -- even if our state is proportional, our president isn't. Once elected, the fact that a president won by a margin of 1% doesn't seem to phase him; he'll continue to act as if they're the leaders of the whole country, representing the values of half of us. Our proportional vote would still be swaying a winner-takes-all at the national level. Every four years or so we bounce back and forth, hoping to equalize the various extreme measures taken. Nobody seems willing to say "yes, I was elected by people who mostly believe X, but on the whole, the people I work for believe Y -- so I'll do Y." Once you're elected, you're working for all of your constituents, not just those who voted for you. I don't see any good way to enforce this, but maybe we could try to convince them it's only ethical. (And yes, nobody who does this, they'll be called "whiners" and told they'll get another chance when the next election comes around.)
Re:National Level by Golias · 2004-09-13 08:10 · Score: 1

For senate/congress -- if we're going to have everyone campaigning on party platforms, how 'bout we just all select the party platforms we like best (with an oz-style system so the votes to rare entries can still count for something) and then later elect people to fill those positions? 35% republican? Fine, republicans get 35% of the available seats, and you get to pick which candidates you want for those. Greens get 5%? That's fine, they may just get one seat, but at least they get one. Yes, it's two-phase, and yes, I'm sure some of us will hate it. But it'd be nice for the little guys to get a little say, as opposed to no say at all.

The problem with that is, our current system is fairly good at drumming the real scoundrels out of office. As much as we all loathe attack ads, and as much as such attacks lead one to despair that Twain was right about good people in Congress being the exception, the truth is that a lot of people have been thrown out on their ear by the voters over the years, where a "party platform election" could slightly insulate these people from personal criticism.

I'm afriad that your idea would probably lead to more harmonious elections at the cost of a more corrupt government.

--
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Re:National Level by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 09:28 · Score: 0

JFK didn't lose the popular vote. He won it by 118K.

1960 U.S. Presidential Election Results:
John F. Kennedy (Democrat) 34,226,731 (303 electoral votes)
Richard M. Nixon (Republican) 34,108,157 (219 electoral votes)

Nixon had 27 states vs Kennedy's 23. But JFK's states had more EC votes.
Re:National Level by Jahf · 2004-09-13 10:05 · Score: 1

I live down in south-western colorado; a majority of the people in this county are registered republicans, yet from talking to them, they really seem to be more democrat-leaning. I've yet to figure out how this works -- perhaps there are just one or two issues that take it all in their minds?

Same phenomenon as what causes so many Southen voters to claim to be "conservative Democrats" (think Zell Miller). I lived in Alabama / Tennessee for over a decade and never figured that out. They would vote Republican but hated to call themselves that. It is an ingrained tradition that is just now changing.

In the case of the South it traces back to the Republicans being the party of A. Lincoln and the Democrats supporting the secessionist movement.

In the case of Colorado I am guessing the tendency towards Democrat has to do with 2 primary issues. 1) is the area being so entrenched in agriculture, which the Republicans generally do not favor (tariffs and subsidies are not favored by the GOP despite the spin they try to put on this in agricultural areas) and 2) a Western U.S. mentality towards protection of privacy (something the Democrats favor more than Republicans).

As to why Coloradans have been supporters of Republicans traditionally, I'm not sure. It may also trace back to the Civil War era since so many Western states and territories backed the North. I know that Republicans used to address Western and Mid-Western issues better than they do now, but it seems to me the only issue they win on (which is a BIG one) is the "family values" platform.

Honestly, many of the Western and MidWestern states might vote Libertarian if there was enough knowledge about it and there was a chance of it working on a national level (at least where I live Lib is becoming viable, though still up-hill, against Dem and Rep).

--
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Re:National Level by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 10:27 · Score: 1, Interesting

That is exactly the point. Now even Republicans will try to garner votes in a blue state like California which means the Democrats cannot take the state for granted.The fact that now Republicans can take a share of the electoral college in California (or Democrats in Texas) will make the parties try harder for every vote in every state and extend their margin of victory rather than simply concentrating on the swing states.
Re:National Level by Teogue · 2004-09-13 10:28 · Score: 1

Welcome to the world of compramise. It defined every aspect of politics from the inception of our country until some fuzzy point in the recent past. See also "The Great Compramise," "The Missouri Compramise," etc., etc.,

What ever happened to the good ole days when electors were the ones who decided these matters and us commoners toiled away obliviously?

--
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
Re:National Level by An+Onerous+Coward · 2004-09-13 10:35 · Score: 1

I'm not sure why this constitutes "shortsightedness". On the one hand, if the state is hotly contested, then being able to deliver its nine votes as a single block gives Colorado a bit of leverage. On the other hand, if the state is strongly tilted--say 70/30 towards GWB--then there is no reason for John Kerry to suck up to it. Under the new system, both candidates would have to keep some pressure on the state in order to keep the ratio (and hence the number of electoral votes they received) from shifting in the opponent's direction.

I'm no longer persuaded by the old arguments for the electoral college. In fact, I think its best feature is that it kept the insanity of Florida from spreading nationwide back in 2000. But as long as people respect the outcome, I don't see it as being too bad a system.

--
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Re:National Level by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 10:39 · Score: 0

But you forget that all states do not have equal electoral college votes. Its like saying winning game 2 is as good as winning 2 games and a game 3 win counts for only half a game.This means that you will put all your effort into winning game 2 and hardly bother about game3.
Re:National Level by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 10:46 · Score: 0

So Nixon got screwed even after winning majority of the states which means that population is a more important consideration than geography.With the proportional system this consideration will become even more fairer. Ultimately, its what majority of Americans want, not what majority of American territorial area (with maybe a lesser population)wants.
Re:National Level by Caseyscrib · 2004-09-13 10:56 · Score: 1

Let's make it about issues again and give people who don't fall into one of the two big parties at least a small chance.
Now you're just being irrational.
Re:National Level by tc · 2004-09-13 12:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

But doesn't the system disenfranchise a large number of voters?

Suppose I'm a Democrat and I live in Texas, or I'm a Republican and I live in New York. In either case, my vote is worthless, and my voice isn't heard.

It seems to me that the fairest system is just to go to a straight popular vote. One person, one vote. Why should the value of my vote vary depending on what state I live in?
Re:National Level by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-13 12:40 · Score: 1

But we are not a democracy, we are a Federal Republic of which the sates are members. As a member a state has the right to determine how its electors are selected. States can maintain a reasonable amount of autonomy this way..

--
Re:National Level by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-13 12:44 · Score: 1

Its stupid, and antiquated.
Yes because instead of recounting several counties or a state we could have had to suffer a national recall in 2000.. great Idea..

--
Re:National Level by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2004-09-13 13:10 · Score: 1

Currently, Kerry leads in Colorado, as does Ken Salazar, the democratic canidate for Senate opposed by Pete Coors.

It's not over yet. I'd know - I'm working on Salazar's campaign.
Re:National Level by crmartin · 2004-09-13 13:54 · Score: 3, Informative

Well, that's why it's called a "compromise". Historically, the reason was that New York and Virginia had so many votes that all the other colonies wouldn't join the Constitution unless there was a counterbalance. No election scheme can avoid "disenfranchising*" some number of voters -- at worst, (0.5000 x population) -1.

Here and now, we have the problem that the entire state of Colorado has only half the population of New York City. (I used to work in the WTC -- and that one building had ten times the population of my home town.)

Without the counterbalance, New York and California could vote to move everyone out of Colorado and turn it into a buffalo preserve and we couldn't do anything about it.

There's another reason that we kind of forget having had the aberrant case of a near-perfect split last election: by having a "thresholding" effect, it's much less common for a presidential election to be really close. It is, I believe, a theorem that no election scheme can completely avoid the problems we had last time, but the chances that an election will come down to a couple of thousand disputed votes in three or four counties is damn near zero. Imagine if every election had to be settled by the Supreme Court or the House.

* quotation marks because you've hit a pet peeve: losing an election isn't the same as being "disenfranchised". To be disenfranchised is to be deprived of the right to vote -- not being deprived of having the guy you want, win.
Re:National Level by Thing+1 · 2004-09-13 15:24 · Score: 0

No, it doesn't make it meaningless. Under the current plan, in most states, it doesn't matter whether you beat your opponent(s) for President by 1% or 20%, as long as you beat them. It's a winner take all situation [...]

I like where you're going with this, taking Colorado one step further: instead of just one president winning the entire 4 year term, perhaps it should be divided up among the various candidates in proportion to the amount of votes they won! I would subscribe to that newsletter...

--
I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
Re:National Level by some+guy+I+know · 2004-09-13 17:23 · Score: 1

I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for.
The problem with that is that it would make it more likely that Congress and the Presidency would be under the control of the same party.
That's always a bad thing.

--
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
Re:National Level by siriuskase · 2004-09-13 18:20 · Score: 1

So the guy that won 60% of the vote will work for 6 days, then the other guy will come in for 4 days, then the first guy will come back for 6, yeah, I like that idea, especially during a week long summit meeting.

--
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Re:National Level by siriuskase · 2004-09-13 18:30 · Score: 1

A bill like this could only pass in truely contested states. In a state, like Colorado, where one party dominates its against their best interest to let this go through.
That is the problem with most election reforms, it requires someone to give up some of their power to make things more fair for someone else. It works best for Colorado if other states quickly follow suit. If they don't, Colorado risks being made a fool.
It will be even harder to get reforms through that give fair representation to people who are best represented by so-called third parties and independents. Election reform is an issue that puts the Democrats and the Republicans together against the rest.

--
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Re:National Level by chaoaretasty · 2004-09-13 22:49 · Score: 1

Except that if one party decides to ignore that state, the other one can go in and campaign without being too challenged, thus swinging the vote and getting several extra votes, thus both parties would need to campaign to keep the status quo.

Because proportion would matter, an extra two EC votes in one state is just as important as two EC votes in another. You would have to campaign in your seats to try and increase you percentage, your oponent's so decrease his lead and in the swing states to get as many of them as you can, As opposed to the current situation where a strong state is basically ignored.
Re:National Level by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 03:59 · Score: 1

It basically makes Colorado's vote totally and completely meaningless.

Wrong.

What it does is says to candidates:

"If Colorado is a swing state, pay less attention to it. If Colorado is not a swing state, pay more attention to it."

Now, I admit that Colorado is, in the current election, a swing state, which means that candidates are likely to pay less attention to it -- but in 2008, if Colorado is going to vote 70% Republican, it means that both sides *still* have interest in campaigning and doing things for the state, because they can still win votes in the state.

If states like Texas, California, and New York (which all currently vote firmly Republican or Democrat) did this, it would mean that they would recieve *more* attention from candidates, rather than simply be ignored.

--
May we never see th
Re:National Level by nine-times · 2004-09-14 05:53 · Score: 2, Interesting

The effect of splitting the electors is to make every state contested, and force the candidates to pay attention to all of them.
Not necessarily. If it made a difference, it would probably only change which states were considered "toss up states". Politicians would campaign based on which states had the most electors up for grabs. In other words, they would focus on areas with lot's of "swing districts" instead of focusing on "swing states".
There's one thing I'd like to see done differently from the plan mentioned. Instead of a porportional system, I'd like to see a system where the candidate gets each elector based on which congressional districts they win the popular vote for. The 2 additional electors would go to the person who wins the popular vote for the entire state independant of congressional districts. This would localize the election even more, and it's similar to how the House and Senate are elected.
Well, that's up to the states. I think the best system is the one we have, which is that state legistlatures choose the method of electing electors. I don't want any cohesive federal plan. Let your state pick what will maximize their importance in the election.
Re:National Level by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-15 01:39 · Score: 0

Here here! While we're at it, there are some other cohesive federal plans I don't care for, like sending troops to Iraq. Would it be OK to let the states decide whether they want to participate or not?
Re:National Level by cruff · 2004-09-15 07:09 · Score: 1

Without the counterbalance, New York and California could vote to move everyone out of Colorado and turn it into a buffalo preserve and we couldn't do anything about it.

Well, we have quite a lot of guns out here that would help us say otherwise.
Re:National Level by crmartin · 2004-09-15 07:53 · Score: 1

You know, I was going to make a 2nd Amendment argument about this, and thought to forebear.

But you're right.
Re:National Level by salesgeek · 2004-09-15 09:20 · Score: 1

"If Colorado is a swing state, pay less attention to it. If Colorado is not a swing state, pay more attention to it."

Is being a "swing state" the basis for having a voice or is being a state with voters in it the basis for having a voice? The idea here is to amplify the will of the state (of say Ohio or Colorado). Winner takes all is a fantastic way to ensure that say, Florida's will was heard loud and clear. We really don't have national elections in the US. The only federal jobs you get to directly vote for are Senators and US Reps.

--
-- $G
Re:National Level by Lord+Kano · 2004-09-15 16:49 · Score: 1

You raise a valid point. For example, it's widely known that somewhere around 90% of black people vote Democrat. Democrats know that they have 90% of that block in the bag so they don't need to work to get it. Republicans know that at best they will get 10$ of that block, so it is against the Republican self-interest to squander too many resources trying to get those votes.

Latinos and Hispanics are a minority group that is very similar in size to black people, but Democrats and Republicans alike are trying to get their votes. Why? Because the Latinos split their votes.

What's the result of this? Racial profiling, no one in congress even mentions it anymore. Immigration policy reform, everyone in congress talks about it, but they pretend that most of the illegal aliens aren't coming through our southern border because they don't want to risk losing latino votes.

I'm undecided as to what I think about splitting electoral votes. Who's fault is it that Bush can ignore New York and California? Who's fault is it that Kerry can forget about Texas, Idaho and Vermont?

I'd say it's the fault of the people who have made themselves irrelavent by standing so strongly behind one party.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Re:National Level by siriuskase · 2004-09-21 10:22 · Score: 1

They ougta make a law! All political districts must be convex polygons with less than 10 vertices. But, that still leaves a little room for the creative gerrymanderer.

--
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
Re:National Level by jfengel · 2004-09-22 08:15 · Score: 1

You're referring to the winner-take-all system within each state. That's actually up to the states. If you were in Maine or Nevada, they send electors to the electoral college proportionately to the number of votes each gets.

That's still not quite one-man-one-vote, which is certainly the simplest to understand and the most clearly fair. As a sibling post to this points out, there are reasons to increase the electoral power of some states, as a compromise. There are other reasons as well: it tends to limit the effect of recounts, for one thing.

I'm not particularly standing up for the electoral college at this point; with a closely divided country it seems clearly unfair. But the Republicans in New York and the Democrats in Texas have only other New Yorkers and Texans to blame for the winner-take-all policy you're complaining about. They could change it at any time (and Colorado is thinking of doing just that.)

Not far enough... by CommanderData · 2004-09-13 00:18 · Score: 1, Interesting

Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing? Just let each individual vote count. Say a few buddies and I go out and vote for Kerry but we're in a state that heavily backs Bush. Our votes are basically thrown away in a sea of Bush supporters, because the electoral college votes will go to Bush.

If the so called "popular vote" was the only thing that mattered those votes cast by my buddies and I would count for something.

Even better would be some alternative voting systems. With one of these systems in place you could rank your preference of candidates, or place multiple votes. Your vote for Ross Perot, Ralph Nader or Candidate X would not be "thrown away" as they say, for example you could vote for both Kerry and Nader if you wished.

--
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.

Re:Not far enough... by tdemark · 2004-09-13 00:41 · Score: 1

Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing?

If you honestly believe this would be better, then you have NO IDEA what the electoral college does.

Basically, the EC adds a geographic element to the election to ensure that there is general support across the country for the candidate.

This way, the candidate can't just focus on one area to get enough votes - ignoring the will of the people in the other areas.

For example, let's say I run for President. If elected, I promise to abolish all taxes for the residents of CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, and PA. I will pay for this by raising taxes in the other states. By promising something to the most populous states, I can swing the vote and win by only catering to their needs. Not very fair to the other states, is it?

Now, this does happen somewhat now with the big states, but, since a candidate cannot win based on the big states alone, they can't just ignore the rest of the country.

- Tony
Re:Not far enough... by CommanderData · 2004-09-13 01:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not sure I buy that argument. If you take your example and add 5 more states to it: Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina you can make the same statement about the electoral college. OK, presidential candidate X makes outlandish claims to 11 states (no taxes, free beer, etc) to get their vote. He can win the election with 271 votes from the electoral college (The total value of the states you mention plus mine). Not very fair to the other 39 states is it?

I know we're both guilty of simplifying things, but I still feel change is needed.

--
Urge to post... fading... fading... RISING!... fading... fading... gone.
Re:Not far enough... by moofdaddy · 2004-09-13 02:39 · Score: 1

You think money is a problem in politics now, just try getting rid of the electoral college and see what that gets you.

As it stands now most of the money spent in a campaign goes towards various ad buys in targeted areas. If you got rid of the electoral college, then as you said, every vote would count. Which means rather then targeting just the battle ground states they'd have to run the full 50 which will make it virtually impossible for a third party candiate to really compete on a national level.

In an ideal world I think a direct vote system would probably be a better option. However when you throw in the realities of the world in which we live, the electoral college is really the only answer.

--
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Re:Not far enough... by tdemark · 2004-09-13 03:52 · Score: 1

If you take your example and add 5 more states to it: Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, New Jersey, and North Carolina you can make the same statement about the electoral college.

Except, in the case of the EC, at least 271 of the electorate would also have to agree to this knowingly outlandish plan for the candidate to be elected.

The EC puts in one more check-and-balance in the system to ensure something like this shouldn't happen.

- Tony
Re:Not far enough... by pudge · 2004-09-13 04:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing?

Not hard in one sense: just amend the Constitution. The problem is that you need three fourths of states to ratify that change, and more than 1/4 of the states benefit from the existing system.

There are many arguments against a popular vote, but for me, the most compelling is that the President is not supposed to be the leader of the people of the United States of America, but the leader of the United States of America. I know that many people don't see any difference between those two things, but there used to be, and I think it's a distinction worth supporting.

I think we have gone too far. I think there should be no votes for electors. I think electors should be chosen by state legislatures, like they used to be. This would put the focus of elections where it really belongs: on the state governments. You would think a hell of a lot more about who you were voting for in the state Senate and House races if those were the people selecting your electoral votes.
Re:Not far enough... by LordNimon · 2004-09-13 11:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

Which means rather then targeting just the battle ground states they'd have to run the full 50 which will make it virtually impossible for a third party candiate to really compete on a national level.
How can things get worse for third-party candidates? Right now, no third-party candidate has a chance of even getting one electoral college vote. If we had a voting system that more closely mirrored the popular vote (either by eliminating the EC or making each state's EC vote match the popular vote), then third-party candidates would at least get something.

--
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
Re:Not far enough... by TrentL · 2004-09-14 04:06 · Score: 1

There are many arguments against a popular vote, but for me, the most compelling is that the President is not supposed to be the leader of the people of the United States of America, but the leader of the United States of America.

But with the electoral college, the President acts like the leader of the United States of Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Also, it encourages people like Bush to make stupid-ass comments such as "What would you expect from a senator from Massachusetts?", without feeling like he is alienating potential voters.
Re:Not far enough... by nine-times · 2004-09-14 04:11 · Score: 1

Say a few buddies and I go out and vote for Kerry but we're in a state that heavily backs Bush. Our votes are basically thrown away in a sea of Bush supporters, because the electoral college votes will go to Bush.
Ok, how hard can it really be to just do away with the whole electoral college thing?
Not hard,really. Just not a good idea. The end result would be the politicians spending the campaign (as well as their elected terms) kissing up to a couple of highly populated areas, even if it means screwing over the rest of the country. Only New York, LA, and a couple other cities would have their interests taken into account. That's why the electoral college exits- not because there was any technical difficulty with having a popular vote (I once had someone "inform" me that the reason for the electoral college was that, back in the 1790's, they didn't have the technology to count all the votes. Pretty funny stuff).
The setup of the United States government is filled with checks and balances and comprimises to try to make sure everyone is represented and nobody has too much power, and the electoral college is a very important example of that. I would say, in fact, part of the reason why our government is in such a shoddy state right now is because people have succeeded in making our country "more democratic", which amounts to the removing of destroying much of the stops against corruption that were built into the constitution. Having Presidents and Senators elected by popular vote, for example.
Whenever you have a system that involves voting, in a certain sense anyhow, the people on the losing side always have their votes "thrown away" in a sea of the opposing votes.
Re:Not far enough... by pudge · 2004-09-14 04:16 · Score: 1

But with the electoral college, the President acts like the leader of the United States of Ohio, Missouri, Florida, and Pennsylvania.

Only because the people are voting for the electors directly. That's part of why I want the legislatures to go back to selecting them.
Re:Not far enough... by PetWolverine · 2004-09-14 05:24 · Score: 1

In most states, the electoral college members are legally bound to vote the way they're expected to.

--
I found the meaning of life the other day, but I had write-only access.
Re:Not far enough... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-14 05:32 · Score: 0

How can things get worse for third-party candidates? Right now, no third-party candidate has a chance of even getting one electoral college vote

This is total Bunk, a third party candidate could pull out a state or two but to the third party candidate the most important thing is to get enough votes for federal election funding the next time around. Perot almost won Alaska in 1992 Sure he was off by 20,000 votes, but it's not like it's IMPOSSSIBLE for a 3rd party candidate to win. Say Hillary Clinton somehow got into the election today, you don't think she would jack enough votes from Kerry to win a state or two? A four way race such as 2000 would do it too, but the third party candidates need more mass appeal than Buchanan and Nader.

. If we had a voting system that more closely mirrored the popular vote (either by eliminating the EC or making each state's EC vote match the popular vote), then third-party candidates would at least get something.

True, but it makes no difference in the long run.
Re:Not far enough... by lewi · 2004-09-14 18:14 · Score: 1

Many people forget that the people do not elect the president but that states elect the president. Once the people of a state agree on who they want for president, that is who the state votes for.
If you're suggesting that the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed and the election of senators be done by state representatives then I'm all for that since local politics would matter more.
Federal government was intended to manage the States not the people, but people were to be represented by the House as a counterbalance. If we get rid of the electoral college then we are one step closer to the federal government representing people and not states.
I fear the day when the federal government is finally able to completely nullify the purpose of states.
Re:Not far enough... by pudge · 2004-09-14 18:26 · Score: 1

If you're suggesting that the Seventeenth Amendment be repealed and the election of senators be done by state representatives then I'm all for that since local politics would matter more.

Not specifically, I was referring to electors, but I wouldn't mind that, either. Zell Miller proposed it ...

a Battleground State by dpilot · 2004-09-13 00:30 · Score: 3, Funny

Maybe making electors proportional to popular votes while remove Colorado from being a battleground state.

Maybe that would be a Good Thing for Coloradoans.

From what I hear, when you're a battleground state, you get two things:
1: Bribes, otherwise known as federally funded stuff.
2: Visits from politicians, ad nauseam.

From a practical point of view (1) is good and (2) is bad. From a theoretical/ethical point of view, (1) is bad and (2) is good. You weigh your reasons and take your pick.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:a Battleground State by shaka999 · 2004-09-13 01:36 · Score: 1

"1: Bribes, otherwise known as federally funded stuff"

Also called pork. Seeing as this is how many things get funded it isn't in Colorado's best interest to be ignored. Its a corrupt system but its how things work today.

--
One should not theorize before one has data. -Sherlock Holmes-

I like this a lot by Apreche · 2004-09-13 00:31 · Score: 1

There is only one reason in my eyes for keeping the electoral college around. That reason is that on paper, the elctoral college is supposed to prevent fads and trends of the people messing up and selecting someone incompetent to be president. Like in California.

Because sending electors proportional to the vote of a state does not diminish this quality of the electora college I think this is a great idea. It makes votes matter a lot more than they currently do while making it so the leader of the country represents the people more.

--
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!

Re:I like this a lot by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 04:40 · Score: 0

I didn't know California had a President...
Re:I like this a lot by Clay201 · 2004-09-13 07:31 · Score: 1

"the electoral college is supposed to prevent fads and trends of the people..."

In other words, we want the results of the vote to reflect the will of the majority, except that we don't.

Clay

I'm not clever enough to come up with a signature line. Sorry.
Re:I like this a lot by britneys+9th+husband · 2004-09-13 19:12 · Score: 2, Insightful

the elctoral college is supposed to prevent fads and trends of the people messing up and selecting someone incompetent to be president. Like in California.

Oh yes. Thanks to the Electoral College, there's no way we could ever send some incompetent B movie actor to the White House. Or some trailer trash from the South that hits on anything that moves. Or some spoiled bratty rich kid whose only accomplishments are waiting for his daddy to get him out of trouble, dodging the draft, and trading away Sammy Sosa.

--
Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508

The electoral college = good for democracy? by 3-State+Bit · 2004-09-13 00:43 · Score: 3, Informative

Why is the electoral college good for democracy?

This article (Discover, Nov 1996 [coral cache]) suggests that the mathematics governing elections favors YOUR vote in an electoral college system.

Whatever your political slant, I am sure you would like YOUR vote to be more favored.

Imagine the electoral college as what happens if you're a "swing" voter in your family, your family contributing all its votes with its internal winner to your town's election, in which it is a "swing" voter in your small town, your town being a swing voter in the county election, your county being an important vote in the state election. In this case you weild extreme power. You are more likely to be in "this case" under the electoral college than in a pure vote.

There's nothing partisan in the way in which this empowers YOUR vote - rather, all that happens is that there is a more causative effect between YOUR political idea and what actually HAPPENS. It's rather like playing both sides against each other, with those who are actually making a decision having a huge return on their investment in making that decision. In other words, your decision about how you are going to vote = larger effect on what happens in the election.

I have not reviewed the mathematics myself, but this is how I understand the situation.

Comments from anyone who has reviewed the issue?

How has Natapoff's work held up over the past few years?

Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by cgenman · 2004-09-13 01:53 · Score: 1

Sorry, I'm running a little late this morning, so I don't have time to read the whole thing.

While interesting, Natapoff seems to be suggesting that the maximum effect per vote can be drawn if districting is drawn extremely carefully across all boundaries. Of course, that maximum effect per vote seems to mean how much that vote can swing the election one way or another, or how much a person can lose the popular vote and still win the election. And those district boundaries have to be drawn up in a completely artificial and evenly-contested fashion, though studies have shown that in real-life districts have grown almost totally homogenous.

I've lived in two different states in the past four elections. Because neither of which were contested, neither candidate spent a single penny of their advertising dollars there. Arguably, the only candidate in recent memory who spent any money in my state was Ross Perot, and that was because he bought national airtime. There have been no corner debates, because the supporters of the minority candidate knew that the states were lost causes. Nobody's arguing or debating anything with anyone. 3rd party candidates are the only ones talking, and that's how they're getting a whopping 2%. The electoral college is ensuring that the value of my vote is minimized to the point where nobody really wants it.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 03:23 · Score: 0

perhaps a good way to think about it is that in a direct election, a 48 to 53 split among three hundred million Americans on election day is absolutely decisive in favor of the 53 candidate....but if under the electoral college system the 53 canditate can still lose, this very leeway is "empowering" 5 percent of the voters into exactly the situation they would find themselves in if the split had been 50-50 under a direct election.

The trick is to give this "power" out in a fair, ie nonpartisan way. As long as both camps are equally vociferous about the fairness, the balance that will be struck should be a fair compromise...

In a direct election I'd sooner have every one of my votes between A and B take place under conditions such that but for my vote the candidates are nose to nose 50-50, than have half my votes land me among a 54% winning majority and half my votes land me among a 46% losing minority.

p.s.
ironically as I post the fortune at the bottom of this page reads "One big pile is better than two little piles. -- Arlo Guthrie". Maybe I had recheck my maths...
Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by abb3w · 2004-09-13 03:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

The trick is to give this "power" out in a fair, ie nonpartisan way. As long as both camps are equally vociferous about the fairness, the balance that will be struck should be a fair compromise...
Not if the two camps are equally vociferous, but unequally dedicated, to the efforts at fairness.
And lest anyone think I refer to the present, I suggest you review the history of Gerrymandering.

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:45 · Score: 0

The Electoral College prevents the President from being chosen only by big city folk. If we used the popular vote, then the vote of the little guy in the country is tossed out the window. The values of city folk and country folk are wildly different. So, though you may think it unfair, I believe the E.C. balances things out so big city doesn't make the decisions for everybody else. I would guess that if you took the whole country and determined how many people live in big cities and how many people live in rural areas, there would be more people in rural than in city areas when combined.
Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by bmetzler · 2004-09-13 05:54 · Score: 1

I've lived in two different states in the past four elections. Because neither of which were contested, neither candidate spent a single penny of their advertising dollars there. Arguably, the only candidate in recent memory who spent any money in my state was Ross Perot, and that was because he bought national airtime. There have been no corner debates, because the supporters of the minority candidate knew that the states were lost causes. Nobody's arguing or debating anything with anyone. 3rd party candidates are the only ones talking, and that's how they're getting a whopping 2%. The electoral college is ensuring that the value of my vote is minimized to the point where nobody really wants it.
It's not really that complicated. Get more then 50% of your state to vote for your candidate. Just get a close margin of likely voters in your state to vote for your candidate, and the candidates will be there. We did that in Minnesota and for the first time in 32 years my party has a chance to win the state.

If your vote doesn't "count" it is because most of the state chose not to vote for your candidate. You really can't blame that on the electoral college.
-Brent
Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 08:16 · Score: 0

I think this is an excellent point. We have to respect the vote of country folk. But the electoral college is an unnecessarily cumbersome process to achieve this aim. To simplify, we should simply give additional votes to pet animals and livestock. I suggest:

Chicken = 0.2 vote

Yellow lab named "Scooter" = 0.5 vote

Cow = 0.75 vote

Horse = 1 vote

Pet bear = 2 votes

And just to make sure Utah doesn't feel left out...

Child brides in excess of 1 = 0.6 vote.

P.S - the country is about 75% urban, 25% rural, as of the 1990 census. I know this because I looked it up ON THE INTERNET.

http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpo p0 090.txt
Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by mrgreen4242 · 2004-09-13 08:17 · Score: 1

What about a hybrid system of sorts. I suggest that having half of a states electoral votes (rounded up, I s'pose) go to teh candidate who wins the majority vote. The remaining votes are then split up between the candidates based on percentages.
The advantage here is that winning the majority is still important, as you will garner MOST of the electoral votes. However, it will encourage campaigning in places that may have been previously looked at as a loss. For example, if you were pretty certain that your opponents was going to get 70% of the vote in state X, then you may well just let him have it (Texas could be a good example in this years election). However, if you could get a say, 10% more votes there by spending some extra time, you would earn yourself 2 more electoral votes, which is almost like winning Montana. :)
Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by cgenman · 2004-09-13 18:11 · Score: 1

>If your vote doesn't "count" it is because most of the state chose not to vote for your candidate. You really can't blame that on the electoral college.

Actually, my vote doesn't count precicely because most of the people in my state choose to vote for my candidate. Whether or not I vote for the candidate is essentially negated by the flood of other people who are voting for the candidate... We're sending the same number of representatives to the electoral college either way.

--
The ______ Agenda
Re:The electoral college = good for democracy? by bmetzler · 2004-09-14 01:08 · Score: 1

Actually, my vote doesn't count precicely because most of the people in my state choose to vote for my candidate. Whether or not I vote for the candidate is essentially negated by the flood of other people who are voting for the candidate... We're sending the same number of representatives to the electoral college either way.
Well, then your vote helps ensure that your candidates electoral votes are counted. And your is also counted in the popular vote, which, as we saw in the last election is very important, because if people don't vote because their state vote their way anyways, it skews the popular vote and makes things look funny. :)
-Brent

Statistical aspects of Electoral College by dpilot · 2004-09-13 00:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'd sure like to hear a statistician weigh in on the Electoral College. Maybe after this post I'll hit google on it.

One aspect of the Electoral College is that it lumps things. That can be good, because in 2000 there were a few close states, but Florida was the Shining Star. The recounts could be confined to Florida. (no further comment)

Without the lumping effect (go ahead and come up with a better word than "lumping") of the Electoral College, it's possible to throw things into a nationwide recount. Given that we didn't even really recount Florida, we're that much less likely to do a national recount. In other words, direct election by popular majority could have the likely unintended result of encouraging fraud.

Splitting electoral votes could cut both ways, depending on how it's done. One way would be by proportion of population. Another way would be by Congressional district, using winner-take-all for the extra 2 votes. There would then need to be a formula for those 2 votes - popular majority, or majority of districts. Given the recent bouts of Gerrymandering by both parties, it would be possible (perhaps not likely) for all but one of the Congressional districts to go for one candidate, and the popular vote to go for the other.

Part of the Electoral College is that it attempts to avoid "Tyranny of the Majority," where a slim majority can get it's way on all issues while ignoring the needs/wants of a large minority. That's part of the reason a small state like Vermont, with fewer people in the whole state than in many cities, gets 3 electoral votes. But arguably, the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College magnifies the "Tyranny of the Majority" problem. Splitting electoral votes decreases it, at the expense of needing an apportionment formula. IMHO, whatever splitting scheme were used, the two extra votes should be kept to the popular vote, specifically to keep control of them out of the smoke-filled back rooms.

--
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.

Re:Statistical aspects of Electoral College by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-14 16:00 · Score: 0

About lumping and fraud:

Lots of areas in this country are 75% R or 75% D.

With a single nationwide popular vote, the D machine in Chicago would gin up enough "graveyard votes" to swing the whole country, not just the state of Illinois. Same with an R machine in Texas.

With the lumping effect and the winnder-take-all nature of the EC, the only states where it's worthwhile to commit vote fraud are the states where both major parties are strong: at least 48% each. If both major parties are strong, then they both have resources to defend against the fraud of the other side. They both have observers, and lawyers, and news media, and judges on their side. Whereas if one side is a lot stronger than the other in a state, they don't need to cheat in that state, because they're going to win in the fair count anyways.

Ignorance is no excuse! by jbarr · 2004-09-13 00:51 · Score: 1

"For years, few paid much attention to the Electoral College. But in the close election of 2000, every vote counted in the battle between Republican George Bush and Democrat Al Gore."

Give me a break! Ignorance is absolutely no excuse. If the process is a truely bad process, then it needs to be addressed and changed, but just because the general public never took the time to actually understand how their country operates is no reason to blindly scrap a long-standing, proven system. No, it is not perfect, but there will NEVER be ANY perfect system that will be agreed upon by all parties.

--
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!

Here go my mod points. by kfx · 2004-09-13 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

This is a very "Bad Idea(TM)".

Firstly, it defeats the entire purpose of the electoral system--which was carefully designed by the founders to ensure that the majority (large states) could not trample the opinions of the minority (small states). The thought is the same as the dual nature of the House/Senate.

To essentially reduce the state battle to a purely popular vote will make campaigning in that state useless--as very few voters are truly undecided, the most you will gain is one EV, since the rest will vote along party lines no matter what.

If ALL states were to adopt a pure popular vote system, thus effectively eliminating the EV system for all intents and purposes, we would be in precisely the situation the founders worked to prevent--candidates need only garner the votes of people in a few large population centers, and the votes of those in less sparesly populated areas become completely irrelevant.

For those who argue about voting power, division of the vote into progressively smaller arenas in actuality increases your voting power. In a close election, if the tally were tied in a state, one vote in one district could switch the outcome of the election. Whereas a non-EV system would require a NATIONAL TIE for one vote to make the difference.

The point being, voting power grows in direct proportion to the likeliness of a tie. The more you divide the election arena, the more likely your one vote will break a tie and directly affect the election's outcome.

This is exactly the sort of system the founders indended, and if we are getting near-ties then it is working correctly!

Re:Here go my mod points. by DisKurzion · 2004-09-13 01:57 · Score: 1

MOD PARENT UP!!

Seriously, this person has worded the neccessity of the electoral college almost perfectly. (and I without mod points).

The electoral college prevents the big states (new york, california, and florida) from determining the agenda for the whole nation (and judging from current events...would you really want them to?.

Thank you Mr.kfx...for enlightening the masses
Re:Here go my mod points. by menscher · 2004-09-13 02:02 · Score: 1

Want to clarify something that you're saying:
Yes, taking a raw percentage of the overall vote is a Bad Idea. It makes campaigning unimportant, since overall it's not likely to be a close race.
Taking each congressional district, however might be a Good Idea. It makes campaigning more important, because each district has a greater chance of being close. Of course, then each district controls only a single EV, so you need to consider whether it's worth it.
This paper should be required reading of anyone even thinking about changing our voting system.
Re:Here go my mod points. by roystgnr · 2004-09-13 05:07 · Score: 1

The point being, voting power grows in direct proportion to the likeliness of a tie. The more you divide the election arena, the more likely your one vote will break a tie and directly affect the election's outcome.

No, the more you divide the election arena, the more likely that one vote in a swing state will break a tie and directly affect the election's outcome. That's wonderful for Pennsylvania and Florida, but I live in Texas. Thus, despite the fact that this is an incredibly close election where every vote should count, my vote has essentially no chance whatsoever of influencing the result. The Kerry voters here are just pissing into the wind, and the Bush voters are just adding "bonus points" to his popular vote score without actually increasing the chance of him winning.

Voting power is a zero-sum game. You can't give more of it to one person without taking some of it away from someone else. Obviously the fairest thing to do is to pick a president from the popular vote rather than trying to balance out your resdistributions of power (e.g. clustering voters into winner-take-all states gives an unfair advantage to larger states, but giving more electors relative to the population of smaller states gives some back). Since there's a good chance that Bush may win the popular vote but lose the electoral college, perhaps we'll see some willingness to fix the system after both parties have been recently bitten by it.

We'll need that willingness, because the system will have to be fixed from the top down. If only a few states switch away from winner-take-all electors, those states just abdicate 90% of their voting power, which only makes the system even less fair. It's a prisoner's dilemma situation, and since trying to get 50 states to cooperate voluntarily against their own short-term interests would be like herding cats, it'll probably take a constitutional amendment to fix.
Re:Here go my mod points. by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:40 · Score: 0

"I live in Texas" ... "Obviously the fairest thing to do is to pick a president from the popular vote"

Did you understand the initial post? If the elections we're based on popular vote, they wouldn't even need to bother setting up polling sites except for NY, Chicago, LA and a few other cites. I don't think TX or any midwestern state would have anything to do with electing a president. A popular vote would 'break' the system in favor of urban vs. rural.
Re:Here go my mod points. by rhakka · 2004-09-13 07:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm so tired of this arguement.

First off, if 90% of our country lived in two states, they should have more of a say in what we do. Our forefathers had to entice small states to join the union. We don't have to deal with that now, and having a 'rural tyranny' instead of an 'urban tyranny' is not an improvement.

Secondly, the whole idea of the electoral college does one thing and one thing only; it focused candidate attention on where they can pick up electoral votes, instead of what matters to the country as a whole. How strange both candidates are ballhooing about issues related to floridian retirement communities, eh? Joe blow in texas isn't being heard at all this time around.

Third, the whole large vs small state thing cannot be fixed without giving rural states undue power relative to their representative populations anymore. 3 million votes or 4 electoral college votes don't really matter to Maine as far as how much attention we'll receive in a national election... unless of course, we become a true swing state and the election is close enough for 4 electoral votes to matter.

The political climate our founding fathers had to deal with has changed. We don't need a carrot to keep small states in the union. The c continuing disenfranchisement of huge swathes of our voting populace... evident very strongly in the fact that half of our country doesn't even bother to vote anymore because it really doesn't matter at all.... is not worth the trade off.
Re:Here go my mod points. by dR.fuZZo · 2004-09-13 11:17 · Score: 1

You talk about the strength of a vote. I'm a liberal living in Nebraska. My vote for President will have no chance of helping Kerry win because there's no way Nebraska is going to give its electoral votes to anyone other than a Republican in the foreseeable future. If we divided up our electoral votes proportionally, or just had a direct election, my vote could actually mean something.

You say if it was a direct election politicians would only focus on big population centers? So, wait, they wouldn't come to Nebraska? Just like they're not doing now since they know we're going to vote Republican? On the contrary, right now the presidential candidates are focusing on the so called "swing states" rather than the "red" and "blue" states. If it was a direct election, they'd probably be campaigning further afield.

The biggest problem I see with a direct election is the opportunity for fraud goes up ... but, again, that's only because there are so many more votes that actually count for something! Nobody would have a reason to, for example, try to cheat to give Bush more votes in Nebraska this year...

--
-- dR.fuZZo
Re:Here go my mod points. by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 03:44 · Score: 1

Bullshit. The current system weights extra-heavily each vote of a rural voter. If you want to do so (as is being proposed in Colorado) you can continue to overweight the value of votes in rural states. The weighting to "save rural states from urban tyranny" has nothing to do with the electoral college/popular vote issue, and is not even up for question in Colorado.

The proposed system will tend to decrease candidate interest in Colorado if Colorado is the only vote to do this.

If many states adopt this, it will mean that candidates will stop ignoring all states except swing states. Generally, I'd say that this is a good thing (and unless you live in Pennsylvania or Florida or similar, you probably agree).

--
May we never see th
Re:Here go my mod points. by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 03:48 · Score: 1

The electoral college prevents the big states (new york, california, and florida) from determining the agenda for the whole nation (and judging from current events...would you really want them to?.

Don't forget Texas.

You're wrong here -- the weighting of each non-populous-state voter's vote to be more important than each populous-state voter's vote is what reduces NY, CA, FL, etc's influence. This can be done perfectly well without winner-take all (or, for that matter, the electoral college).

--
May we never see th
Re:Here go my mod points. by Anspen · 2004-09-14 06:01 · Score: 1

Firstly, it defeats the entire purpose of the electoral system--which was carefully designed by the founders to ensure that the majority (large states) could not trample the opinions of the minority (small states).
That's what the senate is for.
To essentially reduce the state battle to a purely popular vote will make campaigning in that state useless--as very few voters are truly undecided, the most you will gain is one EV, since the rest will vote along party lines no matter what.
That's a somewhat curious statement. According to this almost all campaigning is useless since most people will vote along party lines. I'd say that it would actually make campaigning more competitive. Candidates might have less incentive to sop to a specific state (say bio diesel subsidies in Iowa) and more to specific groups.
For those who argue about voting power, division of the vote into progressively smaller arenas in actuality increases your voting power. In a close election, if the tally were tied in a state, one vote in one district could switch the outcome of the election. Whereas a non-EV system would require a NATIONAL TIE for one vote to make the difference. The point being, voting power grows in direct proportion to the likeliness of a tie. The more you divide the election arena, the more likely your one vote will break a tie and directly affect the election's outcome.
Erm... that isn't a good thing. Yes, if you voted in Florida in 2000, your vote had much more power. But it was so at the expense of a lot of votes in other "safe" states, like NY or TX.
Re:Here go my mod points. by tsg · 2004-09-15 07:22 · Score: 1

We don't have to deal with that now, and having a 'rural tyranny' instead of an 'urban tyranny' is not an improvement.

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that the concerns of rural communities are necessarily in direct conflict with those in urban communities. They are not. In many cases both can be addressed without adversely impacting either party. That more people live in urban communities does not make the concerns of rural communities less important. In fact, most people in urban communities aren't directly affected one way or the other by what happens in rural communities.

Secondly, the whole idea of the electoral college does one thing and one thing only; it focused candidate attention on where they can pick up electoral votes, instead of what matters to the country as a whole.

The country as a whole is best served by its elected officials addressing the most issues the people are concerned with and not the one issue that concerns the most people. In a simple majority popular vote, the candidates need only address the one or two issues that concern the majority of the people and can completely ignore the issues of the minority that, most likely, the majority don't care one way or the other about. That more people live in New York does not mean the issues concerning Idaho don't need to be addressed. The electoral college, in all but the biggest blowouts, forces the candidates to address the issues in most states in order to be elected.

The electoral college system is not perfect and there are arguments that state boundaries, or geographic boundaries in general, are not representative of the issues concerning the citizens, it is vastly superior to a popular vote where only the biggest issues get any attention.

--
People's desire to believe they are right is much stronger than their desire to be right.

This would eliminate swing states by Im+A+Wack+Job · 2004-09-13 01:08 · Score: 1

The Electoral College is a long dead institution. Its need is dubious at best. Even as a firm democrat I'd love it if my home state Massachusetts eliminated the winner take all system. Republicans in my state should get their vote counted toward the presidential race too. This would remove the stupid situation we are in now where 4 or 5 states are key to the election. While this makes campaigning easier it removes the will of people from the system. This one is a no brainer, anyone who is against it is against democracy. The people should elect our leaders not a 200-year-old system based on lines in the sand. I for one hope this takes off in every state.

--
-Ed I don't eat meat, but I'd go hunting with a paintball gun.

Re:This would eliminate swing states by Procrastin8er · 2004-09-13 02:20 · Score: 0

I disagree with your opinion. Doing away with the Electorial College totally in favor of popular vote, would simply shift power in favor of the few states with the highest populations. So instead of the current 4 to 5 battle ground states, you would have New York and California with their large urban population in complete control.

I think we need to change the all or nothing portion of the system, but we cannot do away with it entirely.

Just my opinion.

--
Slashdot - Where the slash is most definitely to the left.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Spleenl3oy · 2004-09-13 03:56 · Score: 1

First of all we are NOT a DEMOCRACY. We are a republic, and yes I am against democracy, just as the founding fathers were. Go read the federalist papers and see just what the founding fathers invisioned. http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Thunderstruck · 2004-09-13 04:03 · Score: 1

This reasoning frightens me. There are two ways to look at this:

1. I vote in my state, along with everyone else. We pick the candidate that best suits our state's interests. I really don't care what party anyone belongs to.

2. I vote for my party along with everyone else. We pick the candidate that best suits our party's interests. I really don't care what state anyone is a citizen of.

Option 1 seems far more reasonable than option two, because your state has real authority - it can even make laws that Washington DC cannot. Political parties come and go, and have no real authority at all. Better to align with the real groupings, even if they're based on "lines in the sand" than to align with ephemeral political parties. This way, the Electoral system lets my state act as a unit if it desires, and this is a good thing.

(Of course I'm also in favor of actually letting the Electors make up their own minds after the election. I don't have the resources to really analyze presidential candidates, but well staffed and financed Electors could.)

--
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Im+A+Wack+Job · 2004-09-13 05:39 · Score: 1

We should be a democracy; we are trying to make Iraq one because it's the "right" way to run a country right? We should hold ourselves to the same standards. The founding fathers didn't intend for women or black people to vote either. They do now. All I'm asking is that all votes actually count toward the destiny of our country, even women and black people just like the founding fathers didn't intend. They were not right about everything, no human being ever will be. We can evolve our ways of thinking.

--
-Ed I don't eat meat, but I'd go hunting with a paintball gun.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Im+A+Wack+Job · 2004-09-13 05:51 · Score: 1

"1. I vote in my state, along with everyone else. We pick the candidate that best suits our state's interests. I really don't care what party anyone belongs to." Again lines in the sand, we shouldn't vote for people on our side of the line and not worry about everyone else. We should vote for the person who will best help the country. "I vote for my party along with everyone else. We pick the candidate that best suits our party's interests. I really don't care what state anyone is a citizen of." Assumes democracy requires parties to function. 2nd tier candidates like Nader would have a much easier time moving our democracy forward if we had a popular vote instead of the current system. "...because your state has real authority" Is that why Bush is trying to create a constitutional ban on gay marriage to respect Massachusetts's authority to make laws? "...and this is a good thing." Why? "Of course I'm also in favor of actually letting the Electors make up their own minds after the election." Why again? Do you not trust the people? "...but well staffed and financed Electors could" Why vote, we could just hire professional voters who spend all day researching it?

--
-Ed I don't eat meat, but I'd go hunting with a paintball gun.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Thunderstruck · 2004-09-13 08:25 · Score: 1

1. The whole system is designed to take advantage of competing interests of states. Voters therefore should be considering their own interests above the citizens of other states.

2. You are correct, parties are not required for the nation to operate, and if electors did their jobs then nationwide campaigns wouldn't force their use either.

3. Your state gets an equal vote with every other state regarding a constitutional amendment. Again the real authority lies with the States. Just because the present administration disagrees with the notion of State authority on one point does not change this.

4. Of course I don't trust the people, not any more than I would trust a dictator. To avoid rule by the one and rule by the mob at the same time we hire professional voters, they're called Senators, Representatives, and Electors. The Electoral College just has a really lousy budget.

--
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Detritus · 2004-09-14 02:38 · Score: 1

We don't want a pure democracy in Iraq. That would be a disaster. Ask the Kurds and the Sunnis if they want everything decided by majority vote. If the political system doesn't take everyone's interests into account, it will prepare the ground for civil war.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Im+A+Wack+Job · 2004-09-14 02:52 · Score: 1

Oh, I didn't know that. Could you post where you learned what kind of democracy we want to build in Iraq? I didn't realize we had a plan layed out. (Not being sarcastic I really want to know) Another aspect to consider about the Iraqi democracy is we'll need to be able to control it. Long term we can't have "free" Iraq joining OPEC or swiching the currency they sell oil with into Euro's to try to get ahead. We need to be sure that all of the money and resources we spent on them pays back long term. We are the nicest imperial power ever, we do give the people a right to vote and dissent.

--
-Ed I don't eat meat, but I'd go hunting with a paintball gun.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 03:38 · Score: 1

I think we need to change the all or nothing portion of the system, but we cannot do away with it entirely.

Which is exactly what is being proposed in Colorado.

--
May we never see th
Re:This would eliminate swing states by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-14 08:31 · Score: 1

Actually this is exactly! what they are doing in colorado. They are handing out EC voted based only on the percent of the population received. If you think anyone would care at all about CO after this I want some of what your smoking..
Lets say that I am losing 42-50, right now I would not fight because I will get nothing. But under the CO system I am going to get 4/9 EV's. If I lose by one vote I get 4/9 EV's and even if I lose 40-50 I get 4/9 ES's... Same goes for if I am winning, only if I gain 6% more will I pick up an extra EV.
ME and NB have it right EC all or nothing by district! and two for the winner of the state. This way if I am down 44-50 (or up 50-44) I might see one or two *districts* I can fight for. If this goes by CO is worth at most! 2 ev's. Lets also consider what havoc this could render on the EV system in NY in 2000 Bush would have won 11, Kerry 19.. oops NY has 31 Electors but enough voted for differing 3rd parties to take up an EV but not enough voted for any one for them to get it...
It also gives a third party a real chance to not only be a focatro (like Perot in 92, or Nader in 2000) but also to actuall take home an EV or two..
Breaking the EV up by district, good idea (Not perfect but nothing is)... Doing % of the vote stupid. Congress is where % of the vote matters..

--
Re:This would eliminate swing states by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-14 08:36 · Score: 1

But all vote do count twords, law makers are elected by % of the vote. THe the presidant is not the president of the people but the president of the states. He represents the Federal Republic. But any of his powers are held in check by the peoples represenatives (congress and in recent times the senate)..

--
Re:This would eliminate swing states by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 11:21 · Score: 1

They are handing out EC voted based only on the percent of the population received.

True, but the total number of EC votes is still not a direct representation of population.

All this means is that if Colorado is a swing state (just about tied), politicians will be less interested in it under the proposed system, and if it is not a swing state (say it's voting heavily for one candidate) it will get more interest. So you'll have candidates campaign in all the swing states -- and Colorado. On the other hand, you'll never have candidates as interested in Colorado as any *other* swing states.

--
May we never see th
Re:This would eliminate swing states by guyo26 · 2004-09-14 13:02 · Score: 1

I love how people assume that we want to control them. I know, maybe cheney could go over and be an "advisor" to them, thus starting a cheney-iraq connection just like the famous bush-saudi arabia connection.

Yeah, that all makes sense.

Make sure you take the tinfoil hat off when it rains, it tends to draw lightening.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Im+A+Wack+Job · 2004-09-14 14:07 · Score: 1

I love how people think the milkshake song isn't about oral sex. Some people can't connect the dots (or refuse to).

I'm sure we are in Iraq because we really want to help the people form a democracy. Once that's built we won't profit at all we'll just quietly pull out, and add Iraq to the nations we've freed. We are really just being nice.

Of course we want to control them, they'll get cultural freedom (women's rights, etc...) we get all the industries and control of the government officials through bribes. We never enter wars to "help the world". That's just what we tell our population to make them feel good about bombing poor people.

If we were really interested in being the world's police I'd suggest we look at our history and ask ourselves why we replaced a democracy in Iran for instance. Or sold Saddam chemical weapons, or countless other instances where we have helped Evil Dictators who have WMD and hurt their own people. It wasn't until Saddam stopped serving our interests that we invaded him.

--
-Ed I don't eat meat, but I'd go hunting with a paintball gun.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-15 05:54 · Score: 1

True, but the total number of EC votes is still not a direct representation of population.
In CO yes it is nine votes divided up among the % of the population. The only way someone might take interest in CO is if its a real blowout (and even then it has to be close to dropping a vote). If youre beating me 60-45 (A huge blowout) There is little reason for you or I to try it out. You need to gain 7 points to pick up *1* EV, I need to lose 4.1 points to lose *1* EV. No state in the nation is this weak a pull.

--
Re:This would eliminate swing states by guyo26 · 2004-09-15 09:37 · Score: 1

sorry for the delay, I had to go cash my check from Japan, Germany, and Italy. You know, the Axis of Evil that we fought in WWII. Yeach, obviously we stayed there and took control of their new infant governments and societies.

Yeah, or something like that.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Im+A+Wack+Job · 2004-09-15 12:24 · Score: 1

We didn't begin implementing the strategy of privatizing states to control them until recently. We were arguably a better people back then. The world had just recovered from the horrors of the war and the public would not allow wholesale conquest. Bring our boys home and all.

Thankfully almost everyone alive during those conflicts is now dead. The public mind has turned the events into notes on paper, a reality we could never see again. This leaves the door open to all sorts of affronts to humanity for our own benefit. Riding the coat tales of our grandparents good deeds.

I for one hope I'm wrong but there has been a disturbing pattern of American involvement militarily in the last 40 years.

--
-Ed I don't eat meat, but I'd go hunting with a paintball gun.
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-15 23:02 · Score: 0

You dumbass, the milkshake song is about boobs. Have you not seen the video?
Re:This would eliminate swing states by Im+A+Wack+Job · 2004-09-16 01:19 · Score: 1

LOL I am a dumbass! We'll I guess I've been wrong about all of this the whole time! You've convinced me :)

--
-Ed I don't eat meat, but I'd go hunting with a paintball gun.

How about... by jbarr · 2004-09-13 01:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

I would REALLY like to see an enforcable nation-wide election-related media blackout during the voting period. I'm getting really tired of the media projecting or proclaiming a winner based on either exit polls or 3% of voting returns. And they present return information from the East coast prior to the closing of voting on the West coast. How fair is that? OK, I don't know if anyone has actually studied if return infromation really influences voters on election day, but it doesn't seem right.

Oh, and I really don't buy the "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the Press" arguments--the process of electing a national leader is a serious process that should not be compromised by partisan media.

--
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!

Re:How about... by rthille · 2004-09-13 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Living on the west coast, I agree with the annoyance that the press is predicting the outcome before I've left the house that morning to vote :-)
However, I'll side with the freedom of the press anyday. After all, on the day before, press coverage of the fact that canidate A is 10 points ahead in the hugely flawed poll has a slight chance of of influencing a vote on the next day, so we need to move that blackout back further...
Freedom is (to me) more important than anything else. Freedom is more important than safety and more important than convenience. If people are not voting because of what the press tells them, then they are probably 'too stupid to vote(TM)'

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:How about... by waa · 2004-09-13 03:03 · Score: 1

"I would REALLY like to see an enforcable nation-wide election-related media blackout during the voting period. I'm getting really tired of the media projecting or proclaiming a winner based on either exit polls or 3% of voting returns. And they present return information from the East coast prior to the closing of voting on the West coast. How fair is that? OK, I don't know if anyone has actually studied if return infromation really influences voters on election day, but it doesn't seem right."

I tend to agree with you on this (and I am on the East Coast) Something has always bothered me about this process whereby people in the west are told how things are going before they even get to the polls.
I was looking for a recent study (I think I read it on slashdot.. yeah, I admit it, I sometimes do read the linked articles. :) I couldn't locate it, but here is a story I did find.
It asks the question: Does a ban on announcing the results of exit polls before the entire electorate has voted interfere with the freedom of information of the electorate?
For those to lazy to read a short article, here is the author's conclusion:
--[snip]-- Publishing the results of exit polls while elections are still in progress is neither illegal nor unconstitutional. It is, however, not in the best public interest. There are times and situations when the public interest is best served by voluntary, cooperative restraint; this is one of them.

--[snip]--
I feel that the media should show a modicum of self-control and self-impose such a ban. Yeah, I know...:-/
It is like a circus of babbling morons on election night. I don't think they realize how much harm they are doing to the election process, and even if they DO realize, I am sure that their ratings are much more important... Sigh...

--
Windows is not the answer.
Windows is the question.
The answer is "NO."
Re:How about... by jbarr · 2004-09-13 03:13 · Score: 3, Interesting

I guess my real frustration is that "news" has somehow shifted from "reporting" to "marketing and editorializing" forsaking the accuracy and reliability of what's being reported. I too put freedom above all else in this country, but I believe that with freedom comes responsibility, and I believe that the news media is not being responsible. And the problem is that there is really no way to enforce responsibility.

I still stand by the statement, "Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do."

--
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
Re:How about... by Blakey+Rat · 2004-09-13 04:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Simple solution:

Voting opens at 10:00 AM in EST
Voting opens at 6:00 AM in PST
And I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.

Then when the day is getting near, the election closes exactly 12 hours after it started.

It opens at the exact same moment in the entire US, and closes at the exact same moment in the entire US, and there's no way the press can be blamed for calling the election. (Sure, they'll call it around noonish, but people in PST have an even chance to be in the exit poll that way.)

Of course, this is a very easy and simple change that could make elections in the US a dozen times better, and therefore nobody would actually implement it...

--
Comment of the year
Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:09 · Score: 0

I do buy the First Amendment argument. In fact, I'd love an online system that auto-tallied everyone's votes as we went along, that way I wouldn't be dependent on exit polling to tell us how things are going.

The problem here is not information or the lack thereof. The main problem here is voter participation-- if everyone were going to the polls it would definitely change the flavor of predicting the outcome. The other big problem is discordant poll open and close times. If the polls were only available for certain hours that were set according to UTC, then no state could effectively be called any sooner than any other.
Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 05:44 · Score: 0

"Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it right to do."

Or to put it another way, "Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial." (1 Cor 10:23)
Re:How about... by cpeterso · 2004-09-13 09:17 · Score: 1

I really don't buy the "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the Press" arguments--the process of electing a national leader is a serious process that should not be compromised by partisan media.

Better to have NO media observation or inquiry for something so important? Wouldn't that make election rigging or fraud much easier?

There is no such thing as non-partisan media. Better to have multiple, partisan voices than to have Big Brother's Ministry of Truth as the sole source of election news! This is EXACTLY why we have Freedom of the Press. If someone on the West Coast does not bother to vote because of something Fox News told them, then they are stupid.

--
cpeterso
Re:How about... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-14 16:17 · Score: 0

I would REALLY like to see an enforcable nation-wide election-related media blackout during the voting period.

So would Diebold.

Exit polls and a free press are one of the feedback mechanisms that protect against vote corruption. When a candidate gets 52% in an exit poll (with +- 3% error), but then gets only 48% of the votes, it's time to sue for a recount.

As far as the Freedom of the Press argument goes, I have to disagree with you. The more serious that something is, the more I want lots and lots of press coverage.

Oh, yeah -- part of democracy is accepting that your neighbor has the right to vote ANY WAY THEY WANT, including the right to be a sheep and base their vote on how other people are voting. If you think about this long enough, you'll either (a) want to control them somehow or (b) come to really trust and love your fellow man or (c) decide that democracy's not all that great for some things.
Re:How about... by rthille · 2004-09-20 03:58 · Score: 1

Yeah, because all those people in Alaska and Hawaii really don't matter, and letting them vote at 3am, or not letting NY vote until 1pm won't disinfranchise anyone...

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/

Why Amendment 36 is a stupendously bad idea by Yeechang+Lee · 2004-09-13 01:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

Colorado's proposed Amendment 36 intends to divvy up the state's nine EC votes proportional to the popular vote. In other words, each 11.1% wins you an additional EC vote.

In practice, this will mean that in most cases only one, or perhaps two, EC vote will be up for grabs, because few elections see the winner win (assuming a two-person race) more than 55.6% of the voting electorate, and fewer still with 66.7%. The losing side will be almost certain to win at least three and quite likely four EC votes, no matter what happens.

This, of course, will mean that Colorado will immediately become the least-interesting state of the Union to Presidential candidates. There's a good reason why an organization formed to oppose
the referendum calls itself "Coloradans Against A Really Stupid Idea."

The ex post facto nature of the amendment also guarantees a lawsuit, especially if the national election is close.

The irony is that although Democrats are behind Amendment 36 in hopes of giving Senator Kerry a guaranteed four or, at the least, three EC votes, it's entirely possible that the move could backfire. Bush won Colorado in 2000, but this year the state is a tossup . It's entirely possible that Kerry could lose because he won Colorado outright but didn't get all its EC votes.

Re:Why Amendment 36 is a stupendously bad idea by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 01:54 · Score: 0

It is a stupendously bad idea to be spared from endless uninformitive ads and false promises from candidates who come to town every few weeks costing you money in police forces so that a large minority of your voters can be enfranchised?

To think that being a state with a lot of electoral votes up for grabs really has much impact on the election of a single person is to give too much credit to the importance of the president in making individual policy. The real breadwinners are states with close senate and congressional district races, people who really have to win a vote not on ideology, but on 'what have you done for me lately'.

Also, there is a fundamental issue of fairness. Is it right that some places get extra attention merely because their electorate is closely divided? This is often more of a function of the ratio of urban to rural voters that exist in an arbitrarily defined region. If they split a state like Pennsylvania down the middle north/south, you would get two very different places with very different voting habits. So why is it that they get all of this attention just because the lines that comprise the state happen to have a diverse population, when other, more homogenous places are ignored?

If all states used a similar solution to re-enfranchize minority voting populations in their states, the classification of what places are 'in play' would be very different and the rhetoric would change accordingly. Whether this is an improvement or not is unknowable.
Re:Why Amendment 36 is a stupendously bad idea by gmhowell · 2004-09-13 05:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

This, of course, will mean that Colorado will immediately become the least-interesting state of the Union to Presidential candidates

You are incorrect in this statement, but only by manner of being incomplete. It will be the least interesting state to the Democratic and Republican party candidates. To the third parties, this suddenly becomes the MOST interesting state. It's the only realistic way to get electoral votes.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Why Amendment 36 is a stupendously bad idea by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-14 08:44 · Score: 1

No to 3rd Parties ME or NB would become more interesting because there you only have to win 1 district to win a vote (which if CO was going to do I would be fine with), but in CO you have to win 11.1% of the vote across the whole state in my lifetime ony Perot has managed that outside of the two parties.

--
Re:Why Amendment 36 is a stupendously bad idea by gmhowell · 2004-09-14 09:04 · Score: 1

Oh, I see. Makes sense. OTOH, if a state like CA would do it, you would need, what, 3% of the vote? Easily doable.

--
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Re:Why Amendment 36 is a stupendously bad idea by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-15 05:56 · Score: 1

Yes (Give 55 EV's its slightly under 2%), but OTOH in a sate like CA it becomes easy for an EV to get lost (if two parties each get 1% (say libertarians, and socialist) neither has crossed the threshold to get an EV bu together they assure one is "lost"

--

Maine Has this kind of thing by rhakka · 2004-09-13 01:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

and I thought the same thing, that good, at least it's more fair to us the voters, but now the candidates really won't give a shit any more.

However, that isn't the case. Instead they focus on the districts that are in question, which may exist where the state as a whole's stance may be more sure one way or another.

Districts that are not in question are no better or worse off than they were before.

Re:Maine Has this kind of thing by pudge · 2004-09-13 04:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

However, that isn't the case. Instead they focus on the districts that are in question, which may exist where the state as a whole's stance may be more sure one way or another.

Maine is different in two important ways. First, it's system is different than Colorado's proposal, in that the winner of each district wins that vote, and the statewide winner gets the other two, so you are fighting not for the one additional vote likely in Colorado, but 2 or 3 additional votes. Second, Maine is much smaller.

Where would you send your ad dollars? A small state -- meaning much less expense -- to attempt to get 2-3 more votes, or a large state -- meaning much more expense -- to attempt to get 1 more vote? This will drive ad dollars away from Colorado, and even Maine would become more attractive by comparison.
Re:Maine Has this kind of thing by rhakka · 2004-09-13 04:54 · Score: 2, Informative

That's not entirely true. Statewide it's not likely that maine will go republican in this election, at least AFAIK southern maine is strongly liberal and has a much larger population than northern maine.

I don't believe we are actually a battleground STATE. We simply have a battleground district, our more northern half could go either way, with its one vote and one vote only.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's how I'm seeing it.
Re:Maine Has this kind of thing by pudge · 2004-09-13 05:53 · Score: 1

Statewide it's not likely that maine will go republican in this election, at least AFAIK southern maine is strongly liberal and has a much larger population than northern maine.

How does this argue against what I said? My point is that Colorado's situation is different than Maine's in key ways that hurts Colorado, compared to Maine. This was in response to someone using Maine as an example of why Colorado's system might not hurt Colorado.
Re:Maine Has this kind of thing by rhakka · 2004-09-13 06:14 · Score: 1

You compared risk and reward in your example. I was pointing out that the "battleground" in Maine was not really for 3 votes, but more for just one in the contested district. As that district is split and the other is most assuredly not split, the statewide majority is fairly certain at this time.

In any case, more to your point, think of it this way. If colorado were a "split" opinion state, both candidates would campaign there in order to get all the votes in a winner-take-all contest. If colorado is NOT split, the candidates have no impetus to go there in a winner take all situation as the outcome is already pretty certain.

However they still have impetus to go for a few votes with a split-vote arrangement, no matter whether the state is evenly split or not. They always stand a chance to increase their own share of the electoral pie there by at least a few votes, even if they know the state is 70-30 against them.

The ONLY difference really is that if colorado is a "battleground" state and is evenly split in public opinion, it won't get as much attention as it would in a winner-take-all contest as the candidates don't have the promise of a fat payout for a swing of a few percentage points. In any other circumstance, it should receive more attention than it would otherwise, by using a proportional allotment situation, because a swing of a few percentage points can actually create benefit for any candidate.
Re:Maine Has this kind of thing by pudge · 2004-09-13 06:50 · Score: 1

As that district is split and the other is most assuredly not split, the statewide majority is fairly certain at this time.

I am not speaking to one particular election. Maine went to the GOP in 76, 84, and 88.

However they still have impetus to go for a few votes with a split-vote arrangement, no matter whether the state is evenly split or not.

Not if only one electoral vote is up for grabs, no. The investment is too high for the potential return.
Re:Maine Has this kind of thing by rhakka · 2004-09-13 07:22 · Score: 1

Compared to a large, swing, winner take all state yes.

That however is no different than it is now; colorado would still be completely ignored compared to those states unless it too were evenly split. However if a candidate had a chance to grab a vote or two or three more, it would get *some* attention.

In short, basically, if your state is hardcore one way or the other it would be better off *right now* doing proportional representation in terms of the attention it would receive. If the state as a whole are split it's better off keeping the allotment going in one chunk.

You're also forgetting this election could very well be decided by one electoral vote.

You can speak of general elections all you want but I don't see the point you are trying to make. Maine is not a split state. It has rarely gone republican, as you've illustrated, and It will most definitely not go republican this time. The only activity here is whether or not the republicans get one vote from one district in maine. It hasn't gotten us much attention, but it's gotten us more than we usually get.
Re:Maine Has this kind of thing by pudge · 2004-09-13 09:08 · Score: 1

You're also forgetting this election could very well be decided by one electoral vote.

No, I am not. But if you can spend $10m in Pennsylvania to get 21 votes or $10m in Colorado to get one, you choose PA.

It has rarely gone republican, as you've illustrated

No, I illustrated it went GOP 3 of the last 7 elections.

It hasn't gotten us much attention, but it's gotten us more than we usually get.

Because it doesn't cost anything. Maine is a small state, and even assuming only one vote is up for grabs, the investment is small. Colorado is a much bigger state and to get that one additional vote would cost a lot more money.

The Opposition by Spunk · 2004-09-13 02:18 · Score: 1

A group opposed to this plan has a wonderful name: "Coloradans Against a Really Stupid Idea"

Tee hee.

Expect legal challenges by Fencepost · 2004-09-13 02:19 · Score: 1

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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Expect this to be challenged in court and to make it to the Supreme Court if it turns out that Colorado's electoral votes are going to be key in this election. The problem is "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" - does a state constitution that allows voter initiatives effectively make every voter in the state a member of the state's legislature? If not, then it could convincingly be argued that there's no authority for a voter initiative to change the electoral vote distribution directly.

--
fencepost
just a little off

Re:Expect legal challenges by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 02:38 · Score: 0

Bottom line is if a popular election was held NY and California would decide the president every year. Californians have a disease they haven't named yet that affects their ability to think straight and New Yorkers are filled with special interest groups that lie to get votes. Thank GOD for the electoral college!
Re:Expect legal challenges by moofdaddy · 2004-09-13 02:49 · Score: 1

if i am not mistaken, maine is already set up in a proportional system and they havn't been sued.

--
Be better in bed. Wikiafterdark!
Re:Expect legal challenges by pudge · 2004-09-13 04:47 · Score: 1

does a state constitution that allows voter initiatives effectively make every voter in the state a member of the state's legislature?

No, but the initiative process was approved of by the state legislature, which is good enough. That is, the state legislature granted the voters the power to do it.

The real legal challenge here will be whether changing the rules after the fact is legal. They can make this change for next election, but my guess is not for this one, which is what they are trying to do.
Re:Expect legal challenges by pudge · 2004-09-13 04:52 · Score: 1

This is only an interesting reply if Maine's proportional system was the result of a voter initiative instead of direct action by the state legislature. But no, Maine's state legislature made the change, in 1969. So your reply is not interesting. :-)
Re:Expect legal challenges by Fencepost · 2004-09-13 06:44 · Score: 1

the initiative process was approved of by the state legislature, which is good enough.
That, I think, is what would end up in court.
The first question would be where the authority to make constitutional changes originated. If it was in the original constitution (not written by the legislature of the state) and the legislature doesn't have to be involved, then it may be a moot point - the Federal Constitution overrides the state one.
The second question would be whether, if it has done so, the state legislature is allowed to delegate authority in that way as far as the electoral college is concerned - it's not clear, and I guarantee it'd be argued all the way to the Supreme Court.

--
fencepost
just a little off
Re:Expect legal challenges by pudge · 2004-09-13 07:00 · Score: 1

That, I think, is what would end up in court.

Courts allow power to be proxied out like this all the time (witness regulatory powers granted to e.g. the FCC). I really think this is a boring question. What if the state legislature authors the initiative? Then is it Constitutional for the people to vote on it? And if so -- as I think it clearly is -- how is this different from the state legislature opening it up more and allowing other people to write it? The power still belongs to the state legislature.

It does expose problems with the initiative process, but that's a matter for the states to contend with. I suppose one could make the argument that the legislatures don't have the right to proxy this power out to the people, but I think that's a silly argument, and I could just as easily counter with the argument that the federal government doesn't strictly define state legislatures, and that the initiative process is a de facto broadening of the legislative function to the voters. I wouldn't want to make that argument, but I swear I will I have to! :-)
Re:Expect legal challenges by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-14 08:48 · Score: 1

ME is not proportional is winner take all by Congressional district (so is NB)

--

Proportional voting by crmartin · 2004-09-13 02:46 · Score: 1

In a word, yes, it is too much to ask. The Electoral College was part of the series of compromises that closed the deal on the Constitution in 1787. It was one of the ways that the Constitution balances the interests of small states against big states.

It would be particularly stupid for us in Colorado to do it unilaterally, since the effect would be to make Colorado the least important state in the electoral college.

(If it's not intuitive why, think about the two cases: a very big margin, and a very tight margin. With a big nationwide margin, like Nixon vs McGovern, the EC would be a tiny bit tighter than it was -- McGovern would have gotten a small part of the EC votes of a relatively small state -- but the outcome would be the same. With a tight election, the effective probable gain from winning Colorado would be close to a single vote.)

Re:Proportional voting by ragnar · 2004-09-17 01:22 · Score: 1

When is the last time you heard someone declare themselves a citizen of their state or volunteer for their state militia? Times have changed and it doesn't take 60 days for a delegate to deliver the vote from California to DC. The notion of state rights is so arcane that I can't believe people still argue for it anymore.

--
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Re:Proportional voting by crmartin · 2004-09-17 01:58 · Score: 1

Your ignorance doesn't constitute an argument.
Re:Proportional voting by ragnar · 2004-09-17 02:28 · Score: 1

You out of date belief doesn't constitute an argument. Are you a citizen of your state?

FYI, I have put a fair amount of study into what the founders meant by the electoral college. It was the right decision at the time, but nearly everyone feels the mental dissonance in modern times. It feels like a wagon wheel on a modern car. Some reform is in order.

--
-- Solaris Central - http://w
Re:Proportional voting by crmartin · 2004-09-17 03:19 · Score: 1

If you think states rights are no longer an issue, who is it, do you suppose, who will be filing suit over Yucca Flats? Who ordered the National Guard into service to handle security and cleanup post-hurricaine in Alabama. Why have Governors elected by the states, or separate state legislatures.

It may be your opinion that such things are outmoded, but I would bet that lots of people, and in particular most of us in "flyover" states, would prefer to maintain that bulwark against the tyranny of the absolute majority.

This system already in place... by l4m3z0r · 2004-09-13 02:51 · Score: 1

There are two states that currently have proportional electoral voting: Maine and Nebraska. They seem to be doing fine, I believe rallys are still held in those states despite some of the FUD thats uttered here about how if colorado does this it will be ignored by candidates. Those states do however become a little less important, since they cannot block the other candidate from getting the votes by getting 51%. I think it would make some sense to have smalls states do winner take all and the big states do proportional voting. This way we depreciate the value of the huger high population states and increase the value of the smaller states. Then again I'm for CT having equal say with CA about who should become president. I guess notions of state government importance have gone the way of the dodo however.

I'm from Connecticut first, America second.

Re:This system already in place... by Thunderstruck · 2004-09-13 04:28 · Score: 1

The Dodo ain't dead. Actually I agree that state governments are considerably more important than that Washington DC.

I'm not the only one, the Supreme Court of the United States has observed the same thing in fairly recent cases like "Morrison" and "Lopez". These are cases where the court found that while a state my pass a given law, the Federal Government lacked any authority to do so.

--
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Re:This system already in place... by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-13 13:24 · Score: 1

ME an NB do not have proportinal electoral votes. THe give ont electors by congressional districts not by percent of the vote. If you win ME 1st congressional district by one vote you get 1 elector, if you win it by 1 Million you get 1 vote. If you win the state by one vote you get 2 more, ...

--

This would destroy Colorado's influence. by solman · 2004-09-13 02:56 · Score: 1

Instead of controlling 9 electoral votes each election, candidates would only be competing over 1 or 2 electoral votes in each election. Republicans would be guaranteed to get 4, and democrats would be guaranteed to get 3 or 4. The result would be that nobody would campaign there.

Re:This would destroy Colorado's influence. by immagain · 2004-09-13 17:43 · Score: 1

The result would be that nobody would campaign there.

What about Badnarik? Nader? Any of the other third-parties? I promise you that these guys would be all over Colorado. They might just snag an electoral vote or two. If Badnarik snagged an Electoral Vote it might be the Libertarian party's first, and it would certainly draw attention to their cause. The big parties are only moderately interested in us now, who cares if they spend less time campaigning here. If every state was this way, do you think they'd just stop campaigning? Do you think the candidates would visit California if it divided it's EVs proporitionally? You bet your ass they would.

I take serious offense at the slur in the opposition's charter, but I agree that the implementation is flawed (and I've come to expect ad hominem attacks in today's political climate). I think this is a very good idea, but the law shouldn't be written to affect the same election in which the bill is adopted. I intend to vote in favor of this bill, and atleast if Colorado fucks the election like Florida did, they can't possibly elect all of those responsible to the US House like Florida did, (Ms. Katherine Harris? Do they pay you well?).

--
Power is given only to him who dares to stoop and take it -- Dostoevsky

Exactly!!! by gtwreck · 2004-09-13 03:22 · Score: 1

I don't have any mod points today, or I'd mod this up. The Electoral System, whatever it's weaknesses, is one of the mechanisms that gives small states like Colorado an actual voice in national elections.

If this system didn't exist, as many people have pointed out above, a persons vote in a populous state has a much bigger impact.

GTWreck

Re:Exactly!!! by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 03:34 · Score: 1

If this system didn't exist, as many people have pointed out above, a persons vote in a populous state has a much bigger impact.

You're misunderstanding what the story is about.

This isn't about eliminating the electoral college at a national level -- it's about insituting it, using instead of winner-take-all, for the state.

This does give a better map of what the people in the state actually feel. If two states use this system, it does *not* make any person's vote weaker based on the population of the state (though, just because winner-take-all provides more votes for a given candidate, it's possible that Colorado would see less campaigning than states that do not use this system).

Frankly, I'd like all states to use this setup. There's little reason not to do so, as long as everyone does it

--
May we never see th

Logical extension by Croatian+Sensation · 2004-09-13 03:47 · Score: 1

If the idea of divying up states based on the percentage of votes is a great idea, why not just do away with the electoral college and simply tally all the votes nationally?

Oh, but then we run into the problem of whether or not we allow a candidate with a plurality to become president. Or do we have an instant runoff system? Maybe the logical extreme would be to have the citizenry vote on every proposed bill.

Remember folks, you live in a republic. Not in a democracy.

--
Just cuz you ain't paranoid, doesn't mean they're not after you.

Possibly compare another model? by abb3w · 2004-09-13 03:51 · Score: 1

I believe Maine has a system that splits the electoral distribution by districts. The positions corresponding to the house of representatives are determined based on the vote count in those districts; those corresponding to the senate as determined based on the state count at large-- just like the senate seats. This avoids a "pure" popular vote; it's still possible to "sweep" a three-representative 9999999 voter state with only 5000001 votes-- but not very likely.

Of course, since I'm living in a Liberal-Weiner district of a Right-Wing-Nutjob state, and am myself a Libertarian-Flavored-Loonie, I'm a little biased here. =)

--
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.

Nothing new by daevt · 2004-09-13 03:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

If Colorado were to pass such a bill, it would be the third state to award electoral votes this way.

Re:Nothing new by niall2 · 2004-09-13 04:39 · Score: 1

Nope. It would be the first. The others, Maine and Nebraska, divide up in a winner take all based on the voters district. This is why Nebraska went all for Bush in 2000.

--
Today is a gift. Save the receipt.

duh by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-13 04:23 · Score: 1

You probably weren't that scared during the 1990s, when Gore spent 8 years in the White House as Vice President.

--

--
make install -not war

national lampoon by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-13 04:26 · Score: 1

51% and a "slim margin" are "clear"? Put down the Newspeak dictionary, where "election promises" are defined as "kept". Eventually your doublethink may subside, so you won't "love the idea" as a voter, while thinking that it would harm your state.

--

--
make install -not war

Uh by pudge · 2004-09-13 04:28 · Score: 1

Is it too much to ask of our technology/math skills to award electorial votes in proportion to the popular vote?

The two are completely unrelated.

Also, it is very likely this initiative, if passed, would be illegal to apply to the current election. But don't worry: the Democrats are simultaneously supporting the initiative, and preparing a legal attack to subvert it, should Kerry win the state's popular vote.

Current Trends by Thunderstruck · 2004-09-13 04:32 · Score: 1

I see one major problem with the observations forwarded by most opponents of this proposal. That is, they assume that because there is a 52/43 Republican advantage in Colorado it will always be that way. They assume other states will not change to a similar system, and they assume that we'll always have this notion that the Electors we choose are "locked in" on a particular candidate. None of these assumptions are terribly sound.

(Yes, 52+43=95)

--
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.

The House always decides. by rabidlamb · 2004-09-13 04:35 · Score: 0

If Colorado passes this measure, and more states follow, then it will become nearly impossible for any candidate to get the required 270 EC votes to win the election. Therefore the House of Representatives will almost always decide who the president should be. It sounds to me like a system like that would make everyone's vote meaningless save congressmen/women. James Taranto in his August 25th edition of Best of the Web Today put it best:

Will Colorado Flunk College?

ASPEN, Colo.--As long as we're visiting the Centennial State, we thought we'd write something about the initiative that will appear on the November ballot to change the way Colorado allocates its electoral votes. The Colorado Electoral College Reform Initiative would allocate the state's 9 electoral votes proportionately to each candidate's popular vote, and it would be retroactive to the 2004 election. Currently the candidate who wins a plurality of the popular vote gets all of the state's electors, as is the case in 47 other states and the District of Columbia. (Maine and Nebraska allocate 2 electoral votes to the statewide winner and the remaining votes by congressional district, though neither has had a split since adopting this method.)
The initiative is a transparent effort to help John Kerry, who is expected to lose Colorado. If it had been in effect in 2000, Al Gore would have picked up 3 of the state's 8 electoral votes (one has been added since, thanks to reapportionment). This would have shifted the overall electoral vote from 271-266 in Bush's favor to 270-268 in Gore's. (One Gore elector from the District of Columbia abstained but said she would have cast her vote for Gore if it had been decisive.) If Kerry took 3 or 4 of Colorado's electors this year, that could make the difference in a close election.
But Coloradans would have to be pretty stupid to approve this measure, for the result would be to diminish the state's power in electing a president. To see why, consider this: In postwar elections, the Democrats have never received less than 31.1% of the Colorado vote (Jimmy Carter's total in 1980). The Republicans' worst showing was George H.W. Bush's 35.9% in 1992. If we take this as each party's floor, Democrats would have a lock on 2 of Colorado's electoral votes and Republicans on 3 of them, leaving a maximum of 4 electoral votes in play in any given election--the number of electoral votes such small states as Hawaii, Idaho and New Hampshire have. And winning all 4 of those votes (for a 7-2 GOP advantage or a 6-3 Democratic one) would require a blowout victory in the state.
The Bush campaign is concerned enough about Colorado that it has been airing campaign ads here, something we never see back home in solidly Democratic New York. It's unlikely that either candidate would bother to campaign in a state where at most 4, and more realistically only 1 or 2, electoral votes are at stake.
What would happen if every state adopted the proposed Colorado system? For one thing, "swing" states would be a thing of the past; the difference between carrying Iowa and losing it by a small plurality would be 1 electoral vote (4-3 vs. 3-4) rather than 7. This would benefit large states at the expense of small ones. It's a lot easier to shift, say, 3.2% of the vote in New York (which has 31 electoral votes) than 25% in New Hampshire (4).
It would also increase the importance of third parties, thereby possibly pushing the major parties to extremes. No third-party candidate has carried a state since George Wallace in 1968, but under a proportional system for choosing electors, several would have won electoral votes.
We ran the numbers for the 2000 election, and it turns out that if all states followed the proposed Colorado system, Ralph Nader would have garnered 6 electoral votes (2 from California and 1 each from Massachusetts, Ohio, New York and Texas). Gore w

--
Common sense isn't.

Re:The House always decides. by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 03:29 · Score: 1

I think this is a *good* idea when universalized, though I agree that it might decrease how much candidates will pander to a state (on the off chance that it happens to be a swing state) at the expense of other states.

Your premise, that this is not a good thing for Colorado, is probably true.

However, it is probably a good thing for the system as a whole.

I really thought that you had some interesting political insight -- then I took a look at your blog and realized that you were just probably concerned that Kerry not win the election. You pointed out that drug law is probably not a good way to win voters, but then proceeded to bash Kerry for "looking French".

--
May we never see th
Re:The House always decides. by rabidlamb · 2004-09-14 07:21 · Score: 0

I haven't blamed Bush for anything. I'm scared of what might happen to the country if sKerry is elected. His health plan is socialist crap that will limit the citizens' medical choices and steal more money from the people who've earned it. His views on defense are weak and he favors U.N. control of our military. I've never said that I agree with Bush or the Republican Party Platform 100%, and I'll say now that I do not. But I believe that in this time Bush is best for the country because sKerry's ideas on dealing w/ Terror by preparing for an attack, and on the economy by raising taxes on business will harm this country, whereas Bush's policies on these subjects will, and are protecting and strengthening the country.

And when I referred to sKerry as "French looking," I meant that he will look to France for permission to protect this country as he's said he would do when he said that he believed that the US should not act without the permission of the UN. It's when I refer to him as a Poodle that I mean that he's 1. French 2. Has the same hair cut, 3. Is a rich woman's pet, and 4. Won't protect you!

--
Common sense isn't.
Re:The House always decides. by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 11:34 · Score: 1

His health plan is socialist crap that will limit the citizens' medical choices and steal more money from the people who've earned it.

To be blunt, I'd say that both candidates' health plans are pretty socialist in nature -- neither wants to eliminate subsidized health care

His views on defense are weak and he favors U.N. control of our military.

[shrug] *I*'m not particularly a fan of offense -- I like a more traditional, Revolutionary-War-esque policy, where we don't try to constantly militarily intervene in conflicts around the globe. Saying that you won't wage war when faced with a UN condemnation is hardly UN control of the military. If Iraq had used such a policy, they'd still be the richest Middle Eastern nation.

Won't protect you!

This sort of statement frightens me. I have a friend, an ex-Soviet, to whom I spoke about Putin's recent statements. Putin is ex-KGB, and his response to the school hostage situation is that "we need a stronger party". It seemed to me like things were simply falling back to Soviet days -- I would have thought that this sort of thing would alarm the Russian people, and I mentioned so to my friend. He described the Soviet mindset, the reason people are willing to be exploited -- they want a strong figure, a father figure, someone who can "protect" them, and they don't mind giving up civil rights to do so. The tsars had a lot of flaws, but they were strong leaders. Lenin was a strong leader. Stalin had plenty of flaws, but he was still a strong leader. Gorbochev and Yeltsin have been comparatively weak leaders, not someone that people can look at and feel safe. That's the sort of mindset that concerns me, a sort of 1984ish feeling that I see the US sliding toward somewhat. "Give extensive police power to me and I'll take care of you" is just something with implications that I worry greatly about.

--
May we never see th
Re:The House always decides. by rabidlamb · 2004-09-14 15:36 · Score: 0

I'll first apologize for the tone of my last post, if it was at all harsh. When I replied I, obviously, thought you were talking directly to me when you wrote "Don't blame Bush...", then soon after realized it was your signature. /. really doesn't do a good job of differentiating... in any case. I will cede certain points to you. I agree that Bush's health care plan isn't a lot better, but I do think it is, in fact, better in that it offers people more choices (i.e. Health Savings Accounts) instead of less. But I'm with you in that I believe (as I think you were implying) that health care should be left alone by Government as it's not their job to provide me with it, and it should be left to the free market to set the prices.

In theory I also agree that our meddling in wars in which we aren't directly involved is not the best policy. But we do have to protect our interests. I think that we've certainly made mistakes in this regard, not least of which was supporting Saddam against Iran, but I also think we've been justified just as often (i.e. Milosevic). Plus, I'm not saying that the U.N. shouldn't be involved either, but it's hard to get support or even consideration when a country with veto power (France) says publicly that they'll veto anything we put forth on Iraq. Attitudes and statements like those render the UN useless in that situation and at that point it's time to decide on our own what to do. I'm just glad we had a leader in place who was willing to do just that.

I also agree that when dealing with nations that an offensive stance may not be the best. However, we're not dealing with a direct threat from a nation, it's from a vast disjointed, though very persistent, network of psychos. And when dealing with such a threat that can and will strike in any way, at any time, and at anyone, then I think it's important that we do go on the offensive, because if not then we'll be mourning deaths more often than capturing terrorists.

I don't agree, however, that strong leadership = freedom quashing fascism. In fact, I believe that it's only through strong and principled leadership that such things can be avoided. The main difference I see between Kerry and Bush is that Bush has principals and will stick with them, whereas Kerry seems to base all his positions on focus groups or something similar. How else could his taking all sides of every issue be explained? Though I do not agree with all of Bush's policies, I do respect the fact that he stands by what he says.

--
Common sense isn't.

We are not a democracy! by Nagatzhul · 2004-09-13 04:47 · Score: 1

This country is not a democracy and never has been. If you think it is, you have really missed the boat. Democracies, by their very nature, can't survive because they don't take human nature into account.

We need to retain the electoral college. If we don't then New York and California combine are going to outvote the rest of the country. At that point, we will be as screwed as a nation as those two states.

I doubt this would work on a Federal level any ways. The presidential election is a federal one, the rules that govern it are on a federal level. The state can't make a law that governs that process as it does not have the power to do so.

--
"All I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power." - Ashleigh Brilliant

Re:We are not a democracy! by 0x0d0a · 2004-09-14 03:22 · Score: 1

You can have state-weighted voting power and still not need the electoral college, you know.

--
May we never see th

This is Gerrymandering in its purest form by niall2 · 2004-09-13 04:52 · Score: 1

This is the worst kind of Gerrymandering I have seen. You get to vote and then try to vote in how your vote will be counted? And all because it could have won the election for you in 2000. Please. As others have pointed out its not even the legal way of doing this, as the legislature has to determine how the vote will be counted as outlined in the Constitution. To allow this to work would require an amendment to the constitution, and that wont happen between now and November.

Has anyone run the numbers to see how this would have changed the 2000 election? Remember even the electoral college vote is not distributed purely by population. Everyone gets 3, so states like Wyoming and Hawaii have more than they would if it were purely done by population.

No this is just another land mine for a repeat of the 2000 battle for the white house. I think were just getting tired of the lack of a media circus here in Colorado now that the Bryant case is over.

--
Today is a gift. Save the receipt.

Gore Gore Gore, It's all about Gore by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 06:17 · Score: 0

Really that election is OVER!

Now we need to change the Electoral College, all because Gore Lost. Here's what Colorado will get if the moron's win this one:

State Electoral Votes Voters
Calif 54 15,000,0000
Col0 9 3,000,0000

As a national candidate, I get more total Voters
IF I LOSE Calif, THAN IF I WIN *ALL* OF COLO.

With the Electoral College, I don't get any of those votes, unless I win the State. So as a national candidate, I cannot ignore any State

Incidentally, if Calif had split it's Electorial Votes similar to this Colorado Mad Plan, GORE WOULD HAVE CLEARLY LOST THE ELECTION.

This change dis-empowers states. by Greg@RageNet · 2004-09-13 08:15 · Score: 1

Each state chose or changed to an all-or-nothing electorial college system to increase the power of the state as compared to other states. If the difference for a canidate between getting 51% and 49% of the popular vote in a state is vast, the difference between one additional electorial vote, or ALL the electorial votes in a given state, then the canidate is more likely to focus more attention in that state and support policies more beneficial to that state.

-- Greg

--
Slashdot, would a spell-checker for posting be too much to ask? It's not rocket science!

If the Electoral College were eliminated ... by c.ecker · 2004-09-13 08:38 · Score: 1

... we'd need to have potential voters pass a little IQ test prior to voting. Nothing difficult, something along the lines of 1) What is your name? 1) What is your quest? 3) What is your favorite color? You see, as a rule, voters are stupid. Intellegent voters are the exception rather than the rule. The Electoral College is designed to avoid having New York and California run the entire nation to suit their purposes, and it does a good job of that. It's the reason we don't need an IQ test for voters now ...

--
My affinity for hyperbole knows no bounds ...

Gore IS in the White House! by telstar · 2004-09-13 09:11 · Score: 0, Offtopic

"If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Gore would have earned enough electoral votes to go to the White House."

It
looks like Gore has been spending plenty of time at the OTHER White House.

Rational Election Reform by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-13 09:50 · Score: 1

Election districts are entirely products of gerrymandering: majority parties design district boundaries to dilute their opponents, while empowering their own candidates, to perpetuate their power. These districts should not be designed by unaccountable politicians. They are simple demographic/geographic entities, and should be designed by simple universal rules to ensure the sampling methods of our ballots are accurate models of the people.

Each state should be mapped as an area cartogram, made up of smaller area cartograms of unit 30,000 people. The smallest state should get two Representatives, and every other state should get representatives in that proportion, rounding to the nearest district count. Each Representative district should include their proportional areas of the cartogram units, centered on the highest population density units. That would produce a House of 1000 Representatives, compared to today's 435. But that number was assigned a century ago, in 1911, when the population was only 92M; only 1/3 of today's 280M. Some other changes to modernize the representation model, like remote voting and binding teleconferences, would keep that new scale more manageable than the old one.

Putting these representation districts in the hands of dull statisticians and cartographers, and out of the hands of unaccountable politicians, will go a long way towards increasing the power of the people, especially in the House which most directly represents us. Until then, lobbyists, corporations, parties and sponsors will be disproportionately represented, at our expense.

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Rational Election Reform by octaviuz · 2004-09-13 12:57 · Score: 1

I'd actually propose that each census we simply divide the total population by that of the smallest state in the union, that makes a House of only 568 members. I'd further reccomend that we ditch the districts and move to a system of proportional representation (preferably the Single Transferable Vote). Absent that, your plan to let the cartographers draw the lines is far superior to the present chaos.

Another point, the Supreme Court's requirement of exactly equal population is actually quite counterproductive, I'd prefer if those drawing the lines had more leeway (say 5%) and were required to take into consideration other factors such as communities of interest and political subdivisions.
Re:Rational Election Reform by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-13 13:58 · Score: 1

The problem with direct multiples of the smallest "state" is that we let Washington, DC control the granularity of the count, because it's the smallest unit. Giving Montana, at 902,000 people, the same representation in the House as DC at 572,000 seems inequitable, while assigning a Representative to each of the Constitution's minimum districts of 30,000 means almost 10,000 Representatives for 280M Americans. 1,000 Representatives seems completely manageable, while proportions on 3 districts to the smallest state, scaled up, means 1,500 Representatives, which I doubt the Congress could handle in any rapid scaling, even across the 8 years required for each current Representative to face reelection in a new district.

The 1,000 Representatives would be much harder to organize in lockstep with a single party, or even two - even now, at 435, one (VT) has become independent, and another (LA) has switched from Democrat to Republican. Even in the Senate, one has switched to independent (VT), while another (GA) is a Republican in Democrat clothing, while yet another (AZ) would switch from Republican if doing so wouldn't squander his career of favors with one party in a duopoly. Enough seats would be available that some Greens, some Libertarians, and probably some even more radical (representing eg. Idaho mountaintops, Berkeley headshops, Louisiana bayous, and Detroit ghettos) Representatives would have a good chance.

The current model was built in 1911 (enforced starting 1913), when the country was smaller, simpler, and more easily underrepresented. The demographic paradigm then was "non-/white", with "non" getting little representation. Since then, we've become much more complex, ungovernable, and communicative. If we split every district in half in each of the next 3 Congressional elections (starting in 2006), we'd get 145 new Representatives in each cycle. In 2002, we got 12 new Representatives and lost 10, without anyone even noticing. The change would be only about 6x that, which is manageable, but offers significant change (especially considering that we got no Congressional scale change in 94 years, while the country scaled up over 3x). If America gets to 300M by 2010, we'll have to add another 80 Representatives; we won't know the count until 2012, but that would let us redistrict for the 2014 election. After the "redistricting decade" is up, we'll be caught up enough that we'll have to add representatives at about 12% every 10 years, which is about 3 every election.

What we need is a model both more precise, to account for the heterogeneity of American geography, and more accurate, to account fo the large numbers of people being represented by small numbers of people. And of course, we must learn from the gerrymandering that runs 200 years from Elbridge Gerry to Tom DeLay. The most important change is to follow simple, universal rules, not open to "interpretation" by those perpetuating their power. Such rules were impractical to apply before computers were invented in our sprawling, populous country, but that kind of homegrown problem was the impetus for those inventions. It's time the mechanics of government caught up with that of industry, within the scope of the Constitution, to preserve its spirit of our democratic republic.

--
--
make install -not war

Re:Ignorance is no excuse! by An+Onerous+Coward · 2004-09-13 10:15 · Score: 1

No, it is not perfect, but there will NEVER be ANY perfect system that will be agreed upon by all parties.

It's true!

--

You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

Scared of Gore? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-13 17:18 · Score: 0

No, we were too busy being scared of Bill Cliton. ("Cliton" is not a typo.)

Re:Scared of Gore? by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-14 03:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Scared of what, exactly? That somewhere, someone was having more fun than you?

--
--
make install -not war
Re:Scared of Gore? by Doc+Ruby · 2004-09-15 14:52 · Score: 1

Aha - scared of nothing, it seems. Your fears that I'm having more fun than you are well founded. And with your boy Bush flushed out of the White House, the fun will gush like in the good old days.

--
--
make install -not war

Of all the idiotic ideas. by Harik · 2004-09-13 17:49 · Score: 1

Way to "progressivly" make your state redundant. Don't expect ANY federal help, any campeigning, anything. Why? Because you've reduced your state from nine points to one, two at the most. Shit, time would be better spent in Rhode Island. At least it wouldn't take so long to get to a real state that really counts.

The whole point of the electoral college is to make lower-population states have a say in the federal government. Or do we REALLY want california and New York to make all the rules? I know I voted with my feet to get out of the latter hellhole.

Damage Control by Detritus · 2004-09-14 02:46 · Score: 1

One of the advantages of the current system is that it limits the effects of election fraud. Even if there is widespread election fraud in New York, it isn't going to affect the electoral results in other states. In a national popular vote, every stuffed ballot box has the potential to change the result.

--
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat

"Advantage for small states" is a myth by LuisaO · 2004-09-14 06:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

In fact, most of the least populous states will never receive a visit or serious attention from the major party candidates because so many of those states are solidly R or D. In Idaho, I can't recall any visits from pres candidates because we're already chalked up in the "R" column by both parties. And Ohio will likely receive more attention than every Western state combined this year. A popular vote would increase the chance of voters in small states having their voices heard. I found a good op-ed by the leader of ReclaimDemocracy.org -- a nonpartisan pro-democracy group that appears to have first advanced this idea as a legislative bill in some states a few years back (the Denver Post mangled the formatting): http://63.147.65.175/opinion/guest0315.htm

Re:"Advantage for small states" is a myth by N3WBI3 · 2004-09-14 09:40 · Score: 1

And Ohio will likely receive more attention than every Western state combined this year.
Yes Ohio, a much smaller state than CA. Here is the real issue its no about states, but the size of the cities within them. I guarentee you that if we did a popular vote ID would still get zero attention. CO might (Denver), IL might (Chi), Heck even MN might (MSP), CA would (LA/SF), The north east would get attention (NYC, BOS, DC, PHIL). TX would SA, HOU)..
Basically all the money and favors would be spent in the cities..

--

Allocate by congressional district by Skjellifetti · 2004-09-14 08:34 · Score: 1

Colorado Republicans are worried that Kerry might win Colorado, so this is designed to help Bush.

I'd like to see a modest change to the EC. The winner within a Congressional District in a state gets the EV for that House seat. The winner of the entire state gets 2 EVs for the Senate seats. This forces the presidential race to be a little more local in the bigger states and forces both sides to campaign in states where they have significant minorities even though they are likely to lose across the entire state. It would probably hurt the Dems overall since the Repubs control Congress. The Dems would lose places like Orange Co, CA, and upstate NY, but pickup EVs in places like Cleveland, OH or Atlanta, GA.

--
FreeSpeech.org

Hypothetical by telstar · 2004-09-14 11:16 · Score: 1

"If the proposal had been in place four years ago, Gore would have earned enough electoral votes to go to the White House."

If Mickey Mouse had been the Republican candidate, Gore might have won too! The fact is, these weren't the rules ... so why reshape the rules to fit your desired outcome ... or play the hypothetical?

Line-item vetoes by Chmcginn · 2004-09-14 11:41 · Score: 1

Like many other situations (true line-item-vetos, for instance), neither party wants to change the current situation for fear the other party will benefit

Of course, that's some of the reason. But myself, and some of us (like the Supreme Court ) oppose it because it unconstitutionally puts more power in the hand of one person, something we should all be extremely wary of, regardless of how nice they seem today.

--
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?

Opponents to the EC voting system say... by ericrolph · 2004-09-14 12:36 · Score: 1

Wikipedia says

...opponents argue, the Electoral College is based on a flawed assumption of monolithic voting patterns based on local interests which does not bear any relationship to the actual voting process. Supporters would argue that this is mitigated by the fact that states can decide to award their electoral votes proportionately, rather than as winner-take-all, despite the fact that few currently choose to do so.

Opponents also argue that the Electoral College tends to favor a two-party system. Even when a third-party candidate receives a significant number of popular votes, he may not receive a majority in any state and may not garner even a single electoral vote, as was the case of Ross Perot in the 1992 elections.

Yet another problem with the electoral college is what would result if no candidate won a majority of electoral votes, basically an election which fails to elect. In several elections of the Twentieth century, 1912, 1948, 1960, and 1968, third party candidates won electoral votes. It is certainly within the realm of possibility in a three-way race no candidate would reach the magic 270 number. If no candidate hit 270, the election would go to the House, where, under special election rules, each state delegation would have one vote, no matter its size. If the House election tied, or if enough delegations split evenly, there would be no winner at all.

Why this might be a good thing by Teancum · 2004-09-14 14:23 · Score: 1

I've read many posts arguing that this is an awful proposal in so far as it will negate the influence of Colorado on the national scene.

I would argue that instead it would make it exactly the opposite. Colorado would always be a battle ground state, where even getting an extra 10% of the vote is useful, even if the candidate is significantly behind in the polls. Any candidate who would ignore Colorado after this ammendment were passed would be buried in Colorado.

Where this really helps is with 3rd party candidates, as has been remarked about earlier. Going off of the 2000 popular vote totals, I put them into a spreadsheet and calculated what the electorial vote totals should have been in Bush vs. Gore had all of the states used such a proportial voting system. Here are the final results:

Bush 263 electorial votes
Gore 262 electorial votes
Nader 13 electorial votes
Buchanan 0 electorial votes

This would have put Ralph Nader into a really interesting position politically that the USA normally has never had to deal with in the past. That is a 3rd party that is able to significantly modify elections. It would also be interesting to see what the constitutionality would be if in the time between November and January when the electorial votes were cast if Nader could throw his support to Gore (hypothetically in this case) to keep this from going to the U.S. House of Representatives. Certainly Democrats would have been "forced" to deal with the Green Party and perhaps have to adopt some of its platforms. I wish I had the popular vote totals for 1992, as H. Ross Perot was an even larger influence on the popular vote than even Nader was in 2000.

These vote totals also show that yes, small states have a big influence (dispite the more total votes to Gore) even under such a system, but not quite as much as it would seem from the rural oligarchy opponents would have you believe.

One very interesting state was Alaska, where the votes for Bush would have only guarenteed a single electorial vote, and tie-breaking procedures would have been required for the other two votes, in part due to votes for Nader. Nader would have still needed more votes than Gore to get one of those electorial votes, but that is interesting in itself, where a major party is directly challenged by a 3rd Party.

This is a clear-cut case of where such a proportional system would have huge implications on the national scene. BTW, Nader would have recieved one electorial vote from Colorado if this proportional system were in place during the 2000 election. Far from a thrown away vote, it would have been a deciding factor for determing who would be President of the USA. It would have been Bush 4, Gore 3, and Nader 1 (Colorado had 8 electorial votes in 2000). Nader would have had 2 electorial votes from California.

Such a system like this, which can be implemented independently by the various state legislatures, really would have a profound impact on the American republic politically. The substantial increase in power by 3rd parties through such a system is perhaps the #1 reason why a system like this would not get widespread adoption, although individual states doing something like this certainly would see a huge increase in 3rd party campaigning. With that perhaps a real debate regarding policies and ideas for our country as well, and that by itself could also be a huge political draw as well for at least the first states that would adopt such a system.

Since I can find these stats, Utah in 1992 is even more interesting for the presidential election and five electorial votes. Electorial votes would have been devided like this:

Bush (Sr.): 2 electorial votes
Clinton: 1 electorial vote
Perot: 2 electorial votes

Perot would have been a major political force in 1992. Another example of how this election would have a huge impact ad such a situation occured.

stating the obvious.... by Uberbah · 2004-09-14 19:09 · Score: 1

So instead of the current 4 to 5 battle ground states, you would have New York and California with their large urban population in complete control.

But candidates ALREADY spend all their time in the biggest states! Your complaining about something what wouldn't change one iota.

Re:stating the obvious.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-15 13:38 · Score: 0

I am saying that it would get worse, instead of 5 battles grounds there would be 2.

That's heading in the wrong direction.
Re:stating the obvious.... by Uberbah · 2004-09-16 19:00 · Score: 1

But those two states don't come remotely close to have a majority of the population - yes it would come down to NY and CA, but also other high population states like Texas and Florida. Sort of how it is right now.

Actually, more so than states, they'd go for the largest media markets, which would mean the eastern seaboard, the southwest, and everyone else would be forgotten.

Obvious Reply: by strike2867 · 2004-09-15 04:23 · Score: 0

If all states split the Electoral Vote, Gore would have clearly won.

--

Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile

Good idea, once the larger states implement it by mre5565 · 2004-09-20 12:46 · Score: 1

This is a much much better idea than simply having a nationwide popular vote for the presidency, because this proposal, unlike pure popular vote proposals, allocate two electoral votes per state, thus giving small states some leverage over larger states as the framers of the constitution intended it.

But the timing and ordering is questionable.

The people behind this measure are from larger solidly Democratic states like California and New York. They certainly don't want this plan their states. Imagine if California and Colorado passed this measure immediately. Then Colorado, being a toss up state, would give 4 or 5 votes to Kerry, and 5 or 4 or Bush. California, with 55 votes, even if 60% went to Kerry, would leave a very sizeable number to Bush, and he'd easily be re-elected.

Thus if this idea is applied to the smaller states without the larger states first doing it, then it will effectively dilute the power the framers wanted the smaller states to have.

Pity that the plan's wording doesn't state: "to be implemented once all states with more electoral votes have as well".

Slashdot Mirror

Colorado To Vote on Electoral College Plan

198 comments