Slashdot Mirror
Proposal to Update the Electoral College
A Stanford Professor has put down an idea (and also co-wrote a 620-page book for those who are that interested) on how to update the often criticized Electoral College system for presidential elections. Under the proposed system participating states would form a compact to throw all Electoral College votes behind the winner of the national popular vote regardless of which candidate won in any individual state. This proposed system would also make it much easier to bring the system up to date since it would not require a constitutional amendment to change or disband the Electoral College.
Currently... only those states with Diebold machines are subject to having their electoral votes given to a candidate that won because of vote fraud/fixing.
Those of us in states that still use machines that allow for verifiable recounts don't want to have our electoral tally tainted by some neighboring right-wing Diebold-controlled state.
Going to a national popular vote would INCREASE the ability of Diebold to throw close elections toward the candidate of their choice.
Sorry... if the red states are rigged to stay red, at least they only affect the electoral votes in those states. Get the Diebold machines out of enough states totalling 270 electoral votes, and we have a chance to overthrow the right-wing coup of our government that began in 2000.
States like MA that have consistantly voted Democrat since, forever, would probably not join anything like this. Other states that always vote Republican would probably do the same. The only states where their people would feel they have something to gain would be those that are consistantly "too close to call". Otherwise, it's betting too much state power on something that could only have a downside.
I agree, the only way to fix the electoral college is a constitutional amendment.
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
this system could possibly yield better voter turnout...if someone who wanted to vote republican lives in a traditionally "blue" state, they might not have voted knowing their vote wouldn't matter. if everyone's vote counted the same in the entire country, however, that person would be more likely to go to the polls.
What about those of us living in 'blue' states, who want to vote 'green'? Our votes already don't matter. Something drastic needs to happen before any of these current shenanighans are going to end.
Personally, I think voting should be MANDATORY for all citizens, but I don't think that will happen either.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
One thing this proposal totally misses is the fact that the U.S. Constitution specifically set up the opportunity to disproportionally represent voters in smaller states over those in larger states, so that a Presidential candidate would have to appeal to voters of those smaller states like Wyoming, Hawaii, and Delaware in addition to major voting hubs like New York, Texas, Florida, and California.
There is no way a state compact could ever be made that would ignore this issue.
Of the various electorial vote distribution systems that have been proposed, I like Colorado's idea (that was voted down) as the best of the bunch, although the Nebraska & Maine system of having each congressional district determine their own "vote" does seem at least as an alternative. The current "winner takes all" approach that most of the other states use is really the source of some of the current problems.
Colorado actually proposed proportional electorial votes based on percentages of votes cast. That would mean states doing this would still get attention even if there was a huge percentage of voters in that state voting for one candidate, but one candidate could still just collect a few thousand more votes in order to get one more electorial vote from that state. Interestingly enough, Al Gore would have won in 2000 had this system been used in most states, and it is the democrats who don't want it changed.
It should be noted that the Bush campaign comittee specifically targeted the smaller states for electorial votes and it was a part of their strategy to win these "neglected by the Democrats" parts of the USA in order to win the presidential election. This strategy was specifically encouraged by design by the framers of the U.S. Constitution.
That means that we have intentionally crafted a system in which each state gets a certain minimum representation, both in Congress and in selecting a president.
Even if nobody lived in them?
Surely it is more reasonable to deal out political power by the number of people who vote, instead of by artificial divisions of state? Why should living in a heavily populated state with a disproportionately small electoral college count mean that your voice matter less?
People deserve voices more than abstract lines in the sand do.
This strategy of the state going for the popular vote is very interesting, and I guess in a way it would work, but it doesn't fix the problem of misrepresentation. In fact, it would undoubtedly make it worse. The state would represent itself poorly if the majority of its votes were for one candidate, but the national popular vote forced them to vote for the other candidate. That's not fixing the electoral college problem; if you're going to use this system why even use the electoral college? I realize it's a possible workaround, but senators/representatives would never let this agreement happen in their own states.
What I think would be fair is a system that allows the electoral vote of an entire state be split. If a state counted as 7 votes, it would be allowed 3 to one candidate and 4 to another. This allows a much more proportional representation. There's absolutely no reason why votes should count more in Ohio/Florida than any other state. This method also allows independent candidates to actually have a chance. It's unfortunate that nothing like this will ever be passed in legislation today because of our stagnant political system full of selfish scum.
Eh. There are advantages to the current system (which constantly get ignored by those who think that a pure popular vote is the One True Way (tm)).
What you have to ask is "what do I want from the federal government?" As in, what's their job? What are they supposed to do? Are they supposed to be a true federal government, setting down laws for the people, framing their society based on their wishes? Or are they supposed to be a confederacy, letting smaller, more local governments frame society, and just setting up the rules for how those governments interact with each other?
The Electoral College's current approach is appropriate for the second - a popular vote is more appropriate for the first. I'm personally of the opinion that the United States federal government is intended to be more like the second approach - what with the delegation of duties downward to the states, and then to counties, etc.
Honestly, I don't get the "reform the electoral college" crap all the time. The solution is simple: 1) increase the size of the House of Representatives, and then 2) citizens from each state should whine and complain if they don't like the way their electors are forced to vote (or better yet, move to a state that does it in the way that you want it to).
1) doesn't require actions from the states, either. Just a resolution from the House. Easy as pie.
I can't remember if the Constitution specifically required Senators to be selected by the state governments, but it took a constitutional amendment to force (permit?) direct election.
Senators can still be temporarily replaced by the state government, with the next general election selecting the person to serve out the rest of the term. Representatives have to be replaced by special elections.
This was an important point after 9/11. Had a loaded plane hit the Capitol while Congress was in session, you might have had a situation where only a small fraction of the House survived and could not be replaced for several months. Yet government has to continue, and a quorum is determined by the number of sitting representatives. So you could have national laws passed by literally a few dozen people. It's not hard to imagine that situation leading to disaster in the wake of a successful attack.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
All third parties represent the interests of far more people than actually vote for them. People don't vote for third party candidates because they think their votes don't matter. The sad part is that they're right.
ResidntGeek
What makes you think the voters that are already at the polls are educated or informed? There is a reason polls are conducted during working hours in the US. The politicians know that the vast majority of people voting are senior citizens. Let's see, we rely on people who are generally uninformed or misinformed, have little remaining intellectual capacity, and generally refuse to alter their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence. That sounds just like our political system, doesn't it?
Actually, proposals for mandatory voting aren't as crazy as they sound. All of the quasi-sane ones also put a "blank vote" on the ballot. That way, you can say "I don't support either candidate (or have any idea what's going on), but I want my vote to count".
Mandatory voting would eliminate any barriers to inequality as well. In the 2004 Presidential election, many people criticized Republicans (especially in Ohio) of not having enough polling stations in black communities. As a result, the lines were extremely long, and many black individuals eventually gave up after literally HOURS of waiting in line. Mandatory voting would bring these issues more to light. Since you're forcing people to vote, you inherently eliminate all barriers.
This also includes socioeconomic factors. Many people, especially those with multiple jobs, literally don't have the time to vote. Lots of those people don't know about absentee ballots, and/or don't know how to get them.
Finally, we wouldn't be the first. After World War I, they lost over 60,000 citizens. They felt that the freedoms their soldiers fought for shouldn't be thrown away. As a result, they implemented mandatory voting, and it's worked well for them so far, not to mention the voter turnout increase from 59% to over 95%.
Even if you can't vote for some reason, they send you a postcard in the mail after the election. If you give them a legitimate excuse, they don't fine you.
Now tell me - what's so insane about that?
is through the Maine-Nebraska Method. Instead of a winner-take-all system (if a candidate wins a majority of electoral votes in a state, he gets all the state's votes), it splits it based on districts.
Remember: the number of electorates = # of Representatives + # of Senators
The 2 electoral votes that go towards Senators would go state-wide (like we have now). The "Representative" votes would be split based on the popular votes of the individual congressional districts of the state.
It fixes several problems of the current system. Your vote counts more, because the division isn't state-wide, but district-wide. At the same time, it doesn't make the division too small (individuals under a popular election). If each person's vote counts equally, then a candidate could win a couple of large states (California, New York, Texas), and win the election.
The Maine-Nebraska method also doesn't require a constitutional amendment.
Another idea is to make election day a national holiday, like it is in *every* country except the US. Close everything down, except the polls. A lot of us have to actually *work* for a living, and we can't afford to lose an entire day's pay to sit in line at the polls...but our jobs do give us paid holidays. If they'll shut everything down for the commercial BS of Christmas, they can certainly shut everything down for election day.
I agree completely. While we're at it, let's get rid of the 16th. 1913 is not my favorite year in history.
...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
Not that it's the same thing, but we do have absentee voting. It's close enough that everyone I talk to on a regular basis (and many with whom I do not) vote absentee so they don't have to wait in any lines. It's also nice in that it leaves a physical paper trail, which can come in handy on occasion.
Not true - if this were the case, then each state would have the same number of electors, similar to how the Senate works. Instead, each state has a number of electors proportional to the state's population, similar to how the House of Representatives works.
The way the electoral college was originally designed, each elector would cast their vote according to the majority in their electoral district. This means that not all electoral votes in a state would necessarily be cast for the same candidate. If the system worked this way today, this problem would not exist.
The solution is neither to change the constitution, nor to have each state's electors vote for the national majority, but rather to implement the electoral college the way the constitution originally defined it - each elector casts their vote for the candidate supported by their district.
start over with an instant runoff system http://www.instantrunoff.com/
And really, all that matters in this equation is whether or not the needs of the people are being met by the government which they elect. Hare-brained, trendy political or economic theories mean exactly jack shit to the rest of us.
Current political conditions thrive because the parties play on apathy to drive their oppositions' fans away from the polls. With mandatory voting, everyone would at least have to spend the 20 minutes doing their civic duty and I warrant a good many of them would do their homework accordingly. Along with mandatory voting, let's also have mandatory national holidays on the dates of national elections. Like any other important project in life, if the citizens of a democracy don't bother to invest time in the running of their government they shouldn't expect anything but a sloppy result. Which is what we have.
My book, podcast
What makes you think the voters that are already at the polls are educated or informed?
What the hell are you talking about? You're confusing the influencing force that drives people to vote with whether or not people are smart enough to make a "smart" vote.
There is a reason polls are conducted during working hours in the US. The politicians know that the vast majority of people voting are senior citizens.
The last time I voted for President, I voted at 7 or 8PM. You're right though, it is a conspiracy to keep the seniors and AARP in charge.
Let's see, we rely on people who are generally uninformed or misinformed, have little remaining intellectual capacity, and generally refuse to alter their beliefs even in the face of overwhelming evidence. That sounds just like our political system, doesn't it?
This is the silliest of all your statements right here. What you mean to say is that these people refuse to alter their beliefs in favor of your own. They are uninformed or misinformed according to your standards.
Don't get me wrong here, there are plenty of stupid people in the world who subscribe to ridiculous beliefs. Our system right now limits us to two parties (generally) which I think is both good and bad. It is good because it does not allow a nut-case with a majority vote which represents a significant minority of the country get into office. It is bad because it does not provide enough diversity for political beliefs. On the other hand, the two party system does produce a significant middle ground of swing-voters who can go either way.
I always raise an eyebrow when I see someone suggest that everyone be forced to vote. My first question to them is: Why? My second question to them is: How? Then I ask them to research Latin American countries that force their entire populace to vote and fine them if they do not. Take Peru for example. Peru recently elected Alan Garcia, a former Peruvian President whom during his first administration was caught in a huge bribery scandal and managed to drive the Peruvian Sol's inflation up 2.2M% (thats 2.2 MILLION PERCENT!!). This threw the country into serious turmoil which terrorist organizations fed upon. It wasn't until Fujimori that the country stabilized, only to get thrown to the shitter again after Fujimori decided to bribe the entire Treasury dept and leave for Japan (a country that does not extradite citizens) with the entire national budget of Peru, bankrupting the country. Ironically though, Fujimori's bankrupting of the country had less of an effect on the country than Garcia's hyperinflation.
So how exactly do the Peruvian citizens elect such corrupt individuals? The answer, IMHO is that they are generally uneducated and are fined if they do not vote. So they vote for the person who has the most popular last name and promises to get him and all his buddies jobs in his government. The fine for not voting something like $50/election which is an enormous amount of money for a poor person in Peru. They have no choice but to make an uneducated decision.
Actually, that's exactly what the rules say currently. Whereas you think the rules should say the candidate that gets a plurality of the "popular" vote should be declared the winner, our current Constitution says that the candidate must get a majority of the Electoral College or House vote to be declared the winner. I don't much care which system we use ... each has its own benefits and drawbacks, on both theoretical and practical levels. In either system, you can find corner cases that result in "unfair" outcomes or where the winning candidate "lost" the "real vote". The point is simply that the current rules do, in fact, require majority ... and that's one of its strengths.
Take it from someone who used to do polling analysis- good polls are NOT conducted during work hours. Crappy "media" polls are conducted throughout the day because that's when one can get the cheapest rates at the call centers. Zogby also polls some during the day, but nobody in "the biz" takes his numbers seriously.
Another questionable polling technique is the computer automated response. Rassmussen and Survey USA have a computer call a zillion people and have them interact with a computer voice. While this does seem extremely questionable to me, in my opinion/experience Rassmussen's numbers seem to be closer than a lot of other publicly released polls.
99% of the population has never seen a "real" poll (Private poll from a reputable pollster complete with crosstabulated demographic data) and would have no idea what is actually done with one.
You're completely off base in re: the EC system. Actually, I suspect you are way off base in re: the Founding Fathers' thoughts on representative government. It's not "one man one vote" and it's not "don't let the little guy get trampled" -- it's "each state has electory power proportional to their population."
The tyranny of the masses or 'mob rule' is a problem -- but it's to be fixed at the state level, not the national. The reason NYers' votes count less is not to prevent the trampling of rights of the rancher -- it's because the distribution of electoral votes have been skewed. The original intent was to ensure elective power is relative to population. This is a direct result of the 2-votes-per-state in the Senate, not that there is anything wrong with that.
The root problem with the tyranny of the majority wrt the Executive would disappear if the Executive were as limited in power as was originally construed. You can't have a tyranny of the majority if there is not the possibility of electing someone with the power to be a tyrant.
I firmly believe the bicameral Congress holds the key to preventing the tyranny of the majority -- that's why we have non-proportional voting power in the Senate. Now if only we could put the chains back on the Executive Branch...
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
The end result is the vote is decided by minority groups with political agendas. Mandatory voting forces the politicians to appeal to the largest demographics, rather than the noisiest minorities.
I mostly agree, but think you're discounting a couple significant factors. The largest democraphics are also affected by the most succesful marketing effort, who spent the most most money on it, and how emotionally moving (even if rationally bankrupt) their marketing may have been. The latter factor especially can be already be found hand in hand with the noisiest minorities. Some significant number of currently non-participating voters, who at least in part are likely not to participate for a lack of information to decide with, will instead be left to make emotional decisions. In this case, noisy minorities with ad budgets win.
You do know that your employer is required by law to give you time off to vote, don't you?
That is nice to know, but I think we should celebrate elections much we do other holidays. Voting should be a celebration, but not a hassle or a burden where we have to stand up and ask our employers time off when we know it will be 6 hours in line at the polls.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Another idea is to make election day a national holiday, like it is in *every* country except the US.
No, it isn't. Here in the Netherlands we always vote on a wednesday, except when election day coincides with a religious day, in which case we vote on the tuesday before it. Nothing is closed, everybody goes to work, voting is not mandatory, and we still have a voter turnout of 80% for parliament. We obviously have no presidential election in a monarchy.
The most important difference is obviously that we use a proportional voting system, and your vote counts for your candidate regardless of where you live.
A lot of us have to actually *work* for a living, and we can't afford to lose an entire day's pay to sit in line at the polls
We hardly ever have lines at polling stations though, and nearly everyone, except for the most remote farms, votes at a station in walking distance from his house. It is just a matter of having very small polling districts, which is basically a function of the number of election committee volunteers available per capita.
I always thought it funny that Americans think people standing in line for bread or soap is a sign of a failed political system, while they think nothing of standing in long lines to exercise their democratic rights. The message it communicates is that democracy in the US is apparently an artificially scarce good.
Demogogs love this idea. The understand they only have to control California and New York and they can bend the entire country to their will.
Part of the protection of the Senate, part of the protection of the electoral college is the protection of the smaller population states. This sidesteps that protection.
"The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
It's not our fault your state hasn't taken Oregon's lead in abolishing the voting booth altogether. You get six weeks to vote, and you can vote anywhere you choose as long as you get your ballot back to county elections by 7PM on the last day of the election (formerly known as Election Day before we abolished it).
Help us build a better map!
First, the so-called "small-state bonus" -- that is, small states somehow benefit from the Electoral College system -- is entirely illusory. In 2004, 12 of the 13 smallest states (those with 3 or 4 electoral votes) were absolutely, entirely ignored by the candidates and their campaigns. Why? Because they are "safe" for one party or the other. Of those, six went for Kerry, six went for Bush, and just New Hampshire was "in play" and got attention. Why? ONLY because it was closely divided.
Second, the populations within each state are diverse: Urban, rural, rich, poor, etc. As noted in several other posts, the interests of everyone in Maine or everyone in Ohio are not the same. If they were, the vote would be 100% for a particular candidate who best protected the interests of their unified state interest. Obviously, that's not how it happens.
Third, the Electoral College was created not based on any political theory, but only because it was a compromise that would help ensure ratification of the Constitution. In fact, it wasn't until 1876 -- nearly 100 years after the Constitution was drafted -- that every state held a popular election for presidential electors and awarded them in the "winner-take-all" method we're familiar with (except for Nebraska and Maine, which award some electors by congressional district results). Initially, electors were appointed by state legislatures, were awarded in special elector districts, or by other means. The Consitution says nothing about popular election for electors and leaves their allocation up to the states. The National Popular Vote plan calls out state legislators to accept the responsibility given to them by the Constitution -- if they're not modifying the system to make sure their constituents (in the three dozen "spectator states" in particular) have a meaningful say in electing the president, they're not doing their job.
Fourth, there's far more likelihood of a recount when a few hundred or few thousand votes in one state can secure a bunch of electoral votes and tip an election (like Florida 2000). that's also a recipe for fraud and electoral shenanigans. With a national popular vote, we have one pool of 120+ million votes, rather than 51 separate pools. The likelihood of an election close enough for a recount is very, very small. Regardless, should we not have a fair, democratic election for president just because it may, from time to time, be close?
The reasons for the EC no longer exist, and the bottom line is this: Every vote should be equal in choosing the president, just as every vote is equal in every other election we have in the United States. It's the democratic norm, and it's long overdue in our presidential elections. Otherwise, with this state-based system, voters in about three dozen states will continue to be entirely ignored -- anyone who thinks the Electoral College forces candidates to campaign everywhere across the country isn't paying attention to the shrinking number of states that matter and where campaigns spend their money and time.
Also, voter turnout suffers under the current system, particularly among young people. In 2004, in the 10 most competitive states, voter turnout among those under 30 was an impressive 64%. In the remaining 40 states and DC, it was just 47%. When they know their vote matters, people pay attention and participate.
With a national popular vote, every vote would matter, and campaigns would change accordingly. A new kind of modern campaign would unfold, where anyone, anywhere could cast a meaningful vote, as well as organize in their town, suburb or city to get out the vote for their candidate of choice. It would reinvigorate our politics at a time when our politics desperately needs reinvigorating. Campaigns and political debate would be where the people are, not where the candidate is or goes.
One final thought: There are 28 countries (with good human-rights records) that elect their president. Twenty-one require the winner to secure a majority of the popular
Mod me to hell and back for this, but really, 230 years after this whole colonies thing, do we still need "states"?
I can see the value that not every region can agree upon certain laws, but the majority of thoses laws are being superceded by Federal laws at an increasing rate. And the ones that are still left up to the States are more semantic than anything else (employment law, pollution, etc).
California is moving towards a system less controlled by County government, which is increasing the state's efficiency by eliminating redundancy. This is a slow process, but one that I think will yield great returns over time. What would be so wrong with the States doing the same thing?
-David
Politicians don't need to "appeal" to any group under a mandatory voting system. They just need to make sure their name is more publicized than the other guy's. Think of some of those little positions no one cares about when you're at the polls. Very few people form opinions on who should be the municipal soil and water conservation manager, and so they pick the guy whose name is recognizable or interesting. Under mandatory voting, people would be doing that for more powerful positions, and while a guy named "Brock Bannon" sounds cool, he may not be the best choice for President.
"Just because you're eloquent doesn't mean you aren't a fucking crackpot." -Wavebreak