Proposal to Update the Electoral College

interesting theory by preppypoof · 2006-07-25 06:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

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.

Re:interesting theory by drewzhrodague · 2006-07-25 06:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:interesting theory by mrxak · 2006-07-25 06:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

Personally, I think voting should be MANDATORY for all citizens, but I don't think that will happen either.
So you want millions of uninformed uncaring citizens to start determining national policy? The solution is to education people so that they want to vote, not force people to vote on things they know nothing about.

--
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Re:interesting theory by charlesbakerharris · 2006-07-25 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful

Pfft. I'm informed enough to know that in a blue state, my vote doesn't count. I'm more educated than 95% of the people in my state, but I don't vote because it could never possibly matter.
Then again, I'm arguing with someone who said "The solution is to education people..."
GG.
Re:interesting theory by parasonic · 2006-07-25 07:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

Or, rather, it could do the opposite. A voter could be in a state with a small population where his vote would count more. Perhaps he would be in a state that is nearly split down the middle, and his vote may matter more with the electoral college than with the gross sum voting system. The electoral college is there to give each region (state) as much power as the next region in the federation, creating a balance of power in the federal level.
Re:interesting theory by alienw · 2006-07-25 07:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

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?
Re:interesting theory by tonyr1988 · 2006-07-25 07:29 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?
Re:interesting theory by plague3106 · 2006-07-25 07:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Interesting theory, but there's a reason we're a republic and NOT a democracy. Perhaps this prof. should read up on exactly WHY the electorate exists.
Re:interesting theory by Akaihiryuu · 2006-07-25 07:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:interesting theory by penguinstorm · 2006-07-25 07:47 · Score: 3, Informative

> So you want millions of uninformed uncaring citizens to start determining national policy?

They already do.

This will do nothing to encourage voter turnout though. Voter apathy is a much more complex issue.

Historically, one of the most effective ways to increase voter turnout is to force people to live under dictatorial rule for an extended period of time.

Me? I keep voting in order to AVOID that. Usually it works.

--
Skot Nelson music is my saviour / i was maimed by rock and roll
Re:interesting theory by AKAImBatman · 2006-07-25 07:48 · Score: 5, Informative

Another idea is to make election day a national holiday, like it is in *every* country except the US.

You do know that your employer is required by law to give you time off to vote, don't you?

No?

*sigh*

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Re:interesting theory by bhima · 2006-07-25 07:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

If I could vote for "none of the above" and if enough people did it it would them find another contender... then I'd be truly interested.

But these days I can't decide between one vile reprehensible scum bag and another. Nearly daily I stand in awe seeing how these people are fucking up an otherise perfectly fine contry. I am beginning to think we'd be better off deciding law and foreign policy with one of those ping pong ball lottery machines.

Also I don't actually live in the US any more and given the state of things I have zero confidence that my vote is actually counted... actually now that I've said that I guess I shouldn't feel any different that people that vote using Diebold Machines.

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:interesting theory by crumley · 2006-07-25 07:49 · Score: 3, Insightful

The politicians know that the vast majority of people voting are senior citizens.

There aren't enough senior citizens for them to make up the vast majority of voters in the US. Sure, a larger percentage senior citizens vote than other age groups, but that doesn't make them the vast majority of voters.

The polls in most states are open at least 12 hours, and if that still doesn't work for you could get an absentee ballot.

--
Preventive War is like committing suicide for fear of death. - Otto Von Bismarck
Re:interesting theory by shimage · 2006-07-25 07:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:interesting theory by timeOday · 2006-07-25 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

So you want millions of uninformed uncaring citizens to start determining national policy? The solution is to education people so that they want to vote, not force people to vote on things they know nothing about.
I have personal opinions and think I'm pretty well informed, but my attendance record at the polls is spotty. Why? Because one vote doesn't matter. There is absolutely 0% chance that my single vote will sway the Presidential election, because they can't even count within that margin of error, and if the vote is that close it comes down to procedural rulings anyways (as demonstrated in 2000).
Do I know that the entire system would collapse if everybody thought that and stopped voting entirely? Sure. But I only control my own vote, and I know it doesn't matter.
It's the same reason you have to legislate things like pollution controls. Otherwise even rational environmentalists would still pollute, since the emissions from your tailpipe alone will never matter. What matters is whether the masses polute, and to affect that you need laws.
Re:interesting theory by EnderGT · 2006-07-25 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

The electoral college is there to give each region (state) as much power as the next region in the federation, creating a balance of power in the federal level.
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.
Re:interesting theory by nathanh · 2006-07-25 08:26 · Score: 4, Insightful

So you want millions of uninformed uncaring citizens to start determining national policy?

The problem with voluntary voting systems - such as in the USA - is that the voluntary voters aren't necessarily informed. However the voluntary voters are almost certainly opinionated.
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.
Re:interesting theory by kevlar · 2006-07-25 08:27 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.
Re:interesting theory by cayenne8 · 2006-07-25 08:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

"What would stop a politician from going to a heavily populated city such as New York or L.A. and promising..."
I know...this is the very thing that keeps me from wanting to do away with the Electoral Collge...and go just to popular vote. The lessor populated states would lose their voices basically to a few east and west coast states...and Texas.
The EC allows for each state to have enough voice in the vote and be important enough for the candidates to have to listen to their needs and visit with them (at least in theory).
You gotta remember...this is a union of STATES, each one actually, is similar to a small country joined together with the other states. And as large and varied as the cultures, resources and environments as the US is...this isn't necessarily a bad thing. People in Maine have distinctly different outlooks and needs than someone in Texas or Alaska, and that should be addressed by the candidates...although I'll admit, that has faded to a large extent. But, doing away with the EC or this proposal making popular vote the way, doesn't sound right.
However, I would think that possibly breaking up each states Electoral Votes proportionally to the votes within EACH state...would be more fair....I could see that being a better modification.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:interesting theory by GameMaster · 2006-07-25 08:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

We Americans don't live in a true democracy; we live in a constitutional republic. It was intentionally designed so that rule by the majority (a.k.a. the "tyranny of the majority" in the words of one founding father) is blunted. In fact, that was, specifically, one of the reasons for the creation of the Electoral College. In the event of the public being tricked into voting extremely unwisely, (voting for someone that intends to dissolve the government and set up a dictatorship or theocracy for example) there is someone there to make a reality check.

An example of the weakness of a true democracy is that, as I have seen mentioned by someone else on Slashdot in the past, 50.0000000000001% of the population could, potentially, vote to have the remaining portion of the American public executed because they don't like them (for whatever reason. race religion, etc.). In the U.S., that pesky thing called the Constitution would stop you from implementing that plan. Of course you could, theoretically, amend the constitution but I have heard arguments to the extent that amendments aren't capable of running counter to the content of the body of the constitution and, either way, you would then need much more that a simple majority.

In the end, everyone is supposed to be able to vote if they want to and, with some limited and controversial exceptions, (like prison convicts) they have that ability. On the other hand, as someone else mentioned, to simply force all people to vote, whether they want to or not, would be neither good for our society as a whole or an accurate implementation of even true democracy. If you really think about it, not showing up at the voting booth is a form of abstention and abstaining is a perfectly legitimate vote (especially if you don't know enough to make an informed decision)

-GameMaster

--

Rules of Conduct:
#1 - The DM is always right.
#2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
Re:interesting theory by skam240 · 2006-07-25 08:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

this is classic "part of the problem" thinking. I prefer to be a member of the "part of the solution crowd".

--
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Re:interesting theory by ahmusch · 2006-07-25 08:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

You mean like the way Maine and Nebraska do it today?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg e/

Doing it that way everywhere would certainly yield an electoral college result that is significantly more representative of the collective will of each state's voters.

Further, the electors of the electoral college are representatives of the various states, and therefore state laws govern their actions. You'd need a constitutional amendment to change that, and all bets are off if that happens.

Remember -- you don't vote for President. Your state does. Tradition may argue otherwise, but "each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..." That's the law, and it's one of those big nasty constitutional ones.
Re:interesting theory by snilloc · 2006-07-25 08:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

There is a reason polls are conducted during working hours in the US.
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.
Re:interesting theory by mrchaotica · 2006-07-25 08:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

It was intentionally designed so that rule by the majority (a.k.a. the "tyranny of the majority" in the words of one founding father) is blunted. In fact, that was, specifically, one of the reasons for the creation of the Electoral College. In the event of the public being tricked into voting extremely unwisely, (voting for someone that intends to dissolve the government and set up a dictatorship or theocracy for example) there is someone there to make a reality check.

Exactly! According to the original design, the public is not supposed to be voting for the President at all. The public is supposed to vote for their representatives in state government, and then their state government is supposed to choose electors who then choose the President. Heck, for that matter, we originally didn't even have direct election of US Senators -- they were chosen by the state legislature too!

In my opinion, that was actually a better system than we have now, for two reasons. First, it would stop the presidential election from being a "popularity contest" as it is today (e.g., ever since television the winning candidate tends to be the one with better looks), and second, it would increase the importance of local elections.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:interesting theory by MonkeyOfRage · 2006-07-25 08:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
Re:interesting theory by harks · 2006-07-25 08:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Or, since your vote will never be the deciding factor in any national or state election, it won't make a difference at all.
Re:interesting theory by kenj0418 · 2006-07-25 08:58 · Score: 4, Insightful

On a practical level, one benefit the electoral college gives us is isolating debacles like Florida in 2000. Imagine if we had a direct popular vote, and we were within a few thousand votes. We would have had the madness in Florida going on in 50 different states.

Other than that, yes, the college is outdated and should be tossed.

Ken
Re:interesting theory by TheGavster · 2006-07-25 09:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

... short of a direct-democracy where every tiny issue is decided on by national vote. That method just doesn't work on a large scale.

I think that this brings up the issue of why our federal government deals with every teeny tiny issue. The interstate commerce clause leads the way in legislative abuse.

--
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
Re:interesting theory by vertinox · 2006-07-25 09:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

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)
Re:interesting theory by gb506 · 2006-07-25 09:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

He knows why it exists, he's just very disappointed in recent results, and he knows there are significant numbers of people out there who do not understand the EC and what it protects us from.

Personally, I prefer the current system due to the fact that a presidential candidate would not get within 200 miles of my town were the popular vote the deciding factor. You might have visits to the top 30 or 40 metro areas and that'd be that. Hardly inclusive, and hardly representative of the American cultural spectrum.
Re:interesting theory by kwerle · 2006-07-25 09:23 · Score: 3, Informative

You do know that your employer is required by law to give you time off to vote, don't you?

Not true in all cases - though it looks like roughly 3/5ths of the states do *something* about it:

http://www.timetovote.net/voter_leave_laws.html
Re:interesting theory by anaesthetica · 2006-07-25 09:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

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

I find this to be the solution to most voting complaints. Most things can and should be solved at the state level. People who strongly desire imposing a universal solution on all 50 states like proportional systems, and like the idea of getting rid of the electoral college, and speak disdainfully about the need for substantive state powers. People who want instant runoff voting can implement it at state level, and people who want proportionally assigned electors can implement that through state law. None of this needs to be implemented at a federal level.
Change can and does happen faster at a state level: state legislators are more accessible to local activists than federal representatives (who are completely swamped), and states were intended to be laboratories of democracy and innovative government (according to Supreme Court Justice Brandeis). Pursuing universal solutions through the federal government when there is no need for nation-wide uniformity robs the country of states-as-laboratories and hamstrings one of the major advantages of a federal system of government.

--
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
Re:interesting theory by dajak · 2006-07-25 09:28 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:interesting theory by cayenne8 · 2006-07-25 09:28 · Score: 2

"I think that this brings up the issue of why our federal government deals with every teeny tiny issue. The interstate commerce clause leads the way in legislative abuse."
I agree wholeheartedly....and I wish something could be done to dial this back down!!! It has been bastardized to allow the Feds to basically sneak their way into most matters the the original founders would have thought to be best determined by the states themselves. If you don't like the way one state does it...move to the next.
The Feds should NOT have so much power over the states, and this has caused massive problems....the one that gets me the most, is how they take tax money from each state...then, blackmail each state into adopting policies and laws through the threat of withholding said funds (hwy, etc) if they don't 'voluntarily' comply.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:interesting theory by Knuckles · 2006-07-25 10:07 · Score: 2, Informative

An example of the weakness of a true democracy is that, as I have seen mentioned by someone else on Slashdot in the past, 50.0000000000001% of the population could, potentially, vote to have the remaining portion of the American public executed because they don't like them (for whatever reason. race religion, etc.). In the U.S., that pesky thing called the Constitution would stop you from implementing that plan

Wouldn't hurt to read up on how other countries actually handle it before making comparisons. Countries with a majority system and therefore multiple parties usually work like this:

Ca. 50% of the popular vote are needed for an absolute majority in the parliament. With this, you can create normal laws. Usually you don't have these 50%, so you need to enter a coalition with another party(ies).
Now, to change the constituion, you need more than 50% of seats, ususally 75%. That means that in addition to your coalition partner (together with whom you generally have somewhere between 52% and 65%), you need to convince yet another party (from the opposition, no less) that the change is a good idea.

Pretty high hurdle if you ask me, and you can make it more than 75% just to be sure.

--
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Re:interesting theory by Schraegstrichpunkt · 2006-07-25 10:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

Some people say that it couldn't be secure, or that there's no way to implement it, but if they can do taxes online they can certainly do that.

It isn't secure. How do you prevent vote-selling with Internet voting? What about preventing DoS attacks against identifiable segments of voters? Corruption by election officials?

The fact that somebody else is doing Internet voting doesn't make it a good idea.

--
http://outcampaign.org/
Re:interesting theory by Baloo+Ursidae · 2006-07-25 11:06 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.
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!
Re:interesting theory by Baloo+Ursidae · 2006-07-25 11:12 · Score: 2, Informative

If you can file your taxes online, why not vote online? Some people say that it couldn't be secure, or that there's no way to implement it, but if they can do taxes online they can certainly do that. Brazil implemented internet voting awhile ago, if they can do it there's no reason the US can't.
Brazil doesn't have Diebold as a viable political force, and at a national level supports open source software. Don't even begin to think that can happen in a country owned by it's corporations.

--
Help us build a better map!
Re:interesting theory by Arcane_Rhino · 2006-07-25 12:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

The solution is the instant run-off system. It is a bit complex to describe but, quick and dirty, if one's first selection does not garner enough votes to win, the next selection is tallied. It would make third parties viable without abandoning the two party system that the US has adopted.

One can vote one's conscience with the confidence that if the non-mainstream party of choice does not win, the second choice can be the mainstream party that will do the least damage. ('Course, given the last 30 years, I couldn't tell you which one that is or if there is any real difference, but I digress...)

We attempted to institute the instant run-off system in Alaska but certain idiots didn't think it was fair if they "only got one vote". (Which meant that their first choice would have been elected.) They actually would have voted as many times as anyone else but they never seemed to understand this.

I finally told this group of idiots (I am still grumpy about it) that they could have 10000 votes to my one if I got to win every time.

Realistically, I don't think the US will ever change until we experience a catastrophe that requires us to rebuild our government. Either way, rough times ahead.

-------

Clever trolls are master baiters of the worst kind.
Re:interesting theory by mrxak · 2006-07-25 12:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm not talking about votes here, I'm talking about how the system treats the people who are voting. It's too easy then for a politician to simply ignore the parts of the country with low populations. They can just hit the major cities, flood the larger states with more TV ads, and that's it.

--
-mrxak
Onions Will Kill You
Re:interesting theory by cheezedawg · 2006-07-25 18:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think that's about the biggest problem with the current US election system. Most democracies/constitutional monarchies I know about have more than two relevant parties while the USA don't.

As a US citizen, I think the two-party system is one of our greatest strengths. At it's core, a two-party system is a huge moderating force, as both parties are forced towards the middle to appeal to the largest number of voters. Candidates cannot merely cater to an extremist minority faction and win an election with a small plurality (as has happened many times in history, including in your country, with negative results). Instead, only the candidates that espouse mainstream values can be elected. The result is a much more stable and predictable government.

--
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
Re:interesting theory by onemorechip · 2006-07-25 18:55 · Score: 2, Informative

The public is supposed to vote for their representatives in state government, and then their state government is supposed to choose electors who then choose the President.
Last time I looked, the Constitution said "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors..." According to Wikipedia, in the 1789 election, 6 states used some form of popular vote and 4 used other means to choose electors (New York failed to choose electors, and two other states were not eligible because they hadn't ratified the Constitution). History does not support your statement.

--
But, I wanted socialized health insurance!

Sorry. by Rob+T+Firefly · 2006-07-25 06:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

This is a fantastic idea which seems to have the ability to cut down on red tape and electoral disputes while more aaccurately projecting the wishes of the population onto the American government. And that's precisely why it'll never get anywhere close to implementation by the very people kept rich and powerful by the current system.

Still, Professor Koza might as well get something for his troubles. Someone slice up a banana for him, and put his favorite video on.

--
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned

Re:Sorry. by olsonle · 2006-07-25 06:45 · Score: 2, Informative

The wishes of what population? Why should California's delegates cast their vote based on what voters from Texas think? The Maine/Nebraska system seems to be a better solution for representing local populations.
Re:Sorry. by emag · 2006-07-25 07:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're thinking along similar lines to me. If anything, I'd much rather see electoral votes divided in a state, either based on popularity or congressional district. We already have candidates that only pay attention to the most populous areas of the states with the most electoral votes. Going with a national popularity contest would just make the problem worse, and basically disenfranchise huge numbers of voters. Making a candidate actually WORK for each and every electoral vote would mean no more "let's concentrate on NY, CA, TX" style campaigning, and would likely in several areas result in electoral votes for third party candidates, which is something else this proposed system would more than likely make impossible.

A Maine/Nebraska (or finer-grained) scheme would also address problems such as those in the 2000 election, thanks to, at most, 3 electoral votes being up for grabs, instead of an entire state's worth.

--
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." --H.L. Mencken
Re:Sorry. by RexRhino · 2006-07-25 08:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

The U.S. government was not supposed to "project the wishes of the American people". The U.S. government was supposed to keep agressive people from "projecting their wishes" on other unwilling innocent people. The U.S. government was supposed to be peacemaker and guardian of individual liberty, not dictator and grand potentiate.

The U.S. government was designed to be limited. It has fallen far short of that ideal and has become quite authoritarian... but making it even more top-down centralized is not going to suddenly give power to the people.

Why this won't work by DeathPooky · 2006-07-25 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

This would effectively give a small number of states control over the electoral system. Looks like your candidate won't be winning the popular vote? Have states that might otherwise support him drop out of the system, either causing the system to collapse or become ineffective. A few states dropping out would then cause a chain reaction of other states dropping out to counteract the problem.

The electoral college is in many ways a bad idea in modern times, but a constitutional amendment is the best way to go about fixing it.

Re:Why this won't work by mrxak · 2006-07-25 06:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

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
Re:Why this won't work by thefirelane · 2006-07-25 06:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

>The only states where their people would feel they have something to gain would be those that are consistantly "too close to call".

Interestingly enough, under our current system those states get boat loads of attention... any by attention I mean money... in an effort to lock in votes.

In summary, no one likes this idea.
Re:Why this won't work by crazyfreakid · 2006-07-25 08:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

"My one vote is equal to several California votes. Isn't that a great way of saying fuck you?"

That's only a great way of making others want to return the favor. It's also part of the reason for this proposal, which will make those several Californians or Texans or residents of any other darkly red or blue state believe again that their votes matter.
Less disilusionment = more voting, which is the whole point.

Semantics by christopherfinke · 2006-07-25 06:32 · Score: 3, Insightful

So basically, their plan to update the Electoral College is to give the presidency to the winner of the popular vote? Isn't that more of a removal than an update, since that would make the College useless?

Re:Semantics by Red+Flayer · 2006-07-25 07:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's not just semantics. It's counter to the very idea of States' rights. While the EC was meant to approximate the elective power of each state according to their population, it reserves the right of each state to allot their votes as they choose. Most states have a winner-take-all system, but at least one state splits its EC votes according to the popular vote in that state.

The author of this idea should focus on convincing states to implement a better system for assigning the votes of their electoral college reps. Taking the power of this choice from the states is just one more way that we're seeing a homogenization of states that, IMO, benefits only the majority.

--
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai

Can't Win? Change the rules! by sithkhan · 2006-07-25 06:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

I love how fruity the left land of silliness is! How about this for the importance of the Electoral college? Make the State Senates vote for the US Senators; that would put a bee in their bonnet!
---
You can also create new lines here if you want
Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

--

is it that bad seein a hot chick again? if i see a hot chick walkin down the hall i dont say "repost"

No by acvh · 2006-07-25 06:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

The whole point of the "United States" is that we are a federation of 50 states. 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. Proposals such as this would change the rules under which smaller states joined the union; their voices would cease to be heard.

If this is really the way we want to go, then we should eliminate state government, replace it with regional governors to attend to regional issues, and stop pretending that states matter.

Re:No by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2006-07-25 06:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

The whole point of the "United States" is that we are a federation of 50 states."
BUUUZZZZT! Wrong answer, thanks for playing. See, we had this little thing called the Civil war where 600,000 people died in order to decide that in the end, the good of the entire populace outweighs the good of any individual state. Determining who the president is surely a matter where the good of the entire population trumps the good of any individual state.

--
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Re:No by anaesthetica · 2006-07-25 07:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

artificial divisions of state

States are only "artificial" if you have no concept of American history and have never traveled through the United States. People from other countries don't understand regional or state-specific differences in the U.S. Moreover, American history is taught with poorer and poorer standards, and with less focus on state history. For instance, I received no education in Maryland history even though I attended high school there. So even Americans don't understand why we have states instead of a unitary government.
Division of power between a number of levels and branches of government is fundamental to the liberal philosophical tradition. Read Locke and Montesquieu. Liberal institutions which diffuse power to intermediate and co-equal entities is essential in preventing the centralization of power. It is centralized power that is far more prone to abuse than decentralized power--that should be obvious. Why then would you want to eliminate the substantive role of state divisions, when they are there to fundamentally split power, prevent swaying of the masses through temporary demagogy, and check the central government?

--
The Rise and Fall of Online Community
Re:No by Balthisar · 2006-07-25 07:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I was in Mexico on election day. I was espousing the idea to my inlaws there that none of their current political mess would have happened if only their federal system were *truly* federal and they had a well-working electoral college system similar to our own.

There's STILL no declared presidential winner there, and the losing idiot is still calling for marches, making unsubstantiated accusations, and not giving the legitimate government there a chance to function and do its job. He claims "the will of the people will be heard," forgetting the fact that almost 2/3 of the population were intelligent enough to vote *against* him.

(This is an election that was declared clean by European observes, lest anyone accuse the USA of interefence.)

Hell, I'm from a crappy, wrong colored state that I want to be the other color. As a constant loser, I wish we had a Maine type system. Were I a constant winner, I'd probably be more than happy. It's easy to criticize when you're the loser. The easy, most fair, non-partisan answer is to keep everything local or as local as you can. Hence states can do whatever the hell they want to, and even though I'm not happy with how my state does it while I'm losing, it beats a centralized system.

--
--Jim (me)
Re:No by spirality · 2006-07-25 07:24 · Score: 4, Insightful

Without this compromise the United States would never have been created. States such as Rhode Island, Conneticut, New Hampshire, basically the smaller states would never have ratified the constitution without these provisions.

Federalism is about the states having power. It's also about the Federal Government being limited in its scope, something that most of us ignore these days. See the 10th Amendment to the constitution sometime. Revel in the fact it is a dead letter.

States do matter. Without the states there would be no United States. Sometimes one really wishes the South won the War of the States... Certainly not for the sake of salvery, but because it was a war about a limited federal government. Oh well...
Re:No by scheming+daemons · 2006-07-25 07:43 · Score: 4, Informative

If you counted popular votes only, alot of bad political precedents will be set, like: - Candidates campaign exclusively to certain demographic groups. For example, you could win an election by exclusively mobilizing women, african americans and labor. - Candidates target specific metropolitian areas - New York/Boston/Washington corridor, Los Angeles & Atlanta. - Candidates target specific professions - teachers, cops & health care workers
Isn't it interesting that each example cited above is an example of groups that vote strongly Democratic.
You didn't include lists like "gun enthusiasts, stock traders, CEOs, and religious fundamentalists". This shows where your bias comes from.
Note that you didn't hear an outcry about the electoral college when Clinton took the White House with 43% of the popular vote in 1992
That's because he got more popular votes than any other candidate:
Clinton 43%
Bush Sr. 38%
Perot 19%

See? The guy with the most votes won. Even without the electoral college, Clinton was the winner. Interesting concept. Nobody said the winner had to have the majority of the votes, just more than any other candidate. Clinton got 5 million more votes than the next highest candidate. The will of the people was served. Hence, no uproar.
In 2000, the will of the people... as a whole... was that Al Gore be President. He got 500,000 more votes than any other candidate. That fact is incontrovertible.
Your hatred of Clinton notwithstanding, more Americans wanted him to be president than any other candidate... both times.
You're trying to confuse the issue. Kennedy got more POPULAR vote than Nixon in 1960 by the way... by 100,000.
Abolition of the Electoral college would have STILL meant JFK won in 1960 and WJC won in 1992 and 1996. Actually, abolition of the Electoral College would have meant that every election in the past century would have gone EXACTLY as it went... with the exception of 2000.
Any time there is a viable third candidate, no candidate will get 50%. That's a mathematical fact. It doesn't detract from the basic fairness that says "the guy with the most wins".
No amount of spinning will change the fact that America, by a narrow margin, rejected Bush in 2000. If a vote were somehow held today, Bush would make McGovern in 1972 look like a landslide winner.

--
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin
Re:No by Coryoth · 2006-07-25 07:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

This isn't an abstract line in the sand, it is the principle on which this country was founded. Take that away and we might as well resport to the solution I referenced previously, do away with the fiction of "states" and make the US one big country with one government.

I think the problem, and the reason these sorts of proposals keep getting raised, is because, in many ways, the US already has become one big country with one government. Yes the states remain, and so do state governments, and indeed they still wield considerable power. The balance, however, shifted some time ago, and the concentration of power and importance in the federal government has been steadily increasing. States are already becoming less and less important. As someone else pointed out, US and State history is, these days, taught in such a way that many people don't see the states as primary but rather see the USA, governed by the federal government as primary, and the States as convenient divisions. In many ways people think of themselves first as an "American", and only later as an Ohioan, or Nebraskan, or what have you (there are, of course, cases of dominant or important states, like New York, California, and Texas that still carry some primacy in the minds of their citizens). Consider, for instance, how often you see US flags being waved rather than, say, State flags. In fact I wonder how many people could actually recognise all 50 state flags? At this point what the founder intended has to face up with the current reality where centralised federal government has grown and ossified. I think this sort of proposal (popular vote for President) is stemming from the desire to do something about this clash of original intention with reality - you either need to change the voting structure to reflect reality, or change the reality to better reflect the original intent that lies behind the voting structure.

--
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Re:No by isotope23 · 2006-07-25 07:55 · Score: 2, Informative

"the war was fought to preserve the union, and "union" was understood, even then, to be the equal partnership of the several states in a federal system. if you don't like the idea of the "United States", that's fine; work to change us to something else. But don't rewrite or misinterpret history."

History HAS been rewritten by the winners (as they always do). The war was about taxation. at the time there was no federal income tax. The fed got its money through tariffs on imported goods. The South was an agrarian society, and thus exported most of its production. They typically recieved finished goods in payment, which when imported was subject to tariffs.

This book traces the taxation issue.

Before the civil war the tariff was around 20%. In the book above, the author looks at federal revenue leading up to the civil war. The sourthern states paid roughly 85-90% of TOTAL federal receipts, while most federal spending was in the northern states (70%+).

The Republican party was started as a regional (north eastern states) party. One of its primary planks was an increase of tariff rates. Shortly after they republicans took office they increased the tariff on imported goods to 50%.

Thus you have a southern economy already paying the lions share of taxes and getting little benefit, and the northern economy paying few taxes and increasing taxes on the rest. Before the new congress came into office the south saw the handwriting on the wall....

The book mentioned above goes into this in detail, including reproductions of political cartoons of the time. My favorite shows pres buchanan as a poor widow, while a southerner holding a bag of money taken from the federal "safe" is walking out of the house.

--
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Re:No by RexRhino · 2006-07-25 07:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Bzzztttt. Wrong answer. The Civil War was largely an economic and social clash between the rising industrial capitalists, and the declining agrarian oligarchs. This manifested itself in disagreements about slavery (which promoted the southern agrarian economy, but hurt the northern industrial economy), and about tarifs on imported industrial goods (the north wanted tarifs on foriegn industrial goods in order to expand American industrialism, the south wanted free trade to trade cotton to England in exchange for cheap imported industrial goods).
Re:No by UserGoogol · 2006-07-25 08:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except the states are not being represented in the CURRENT SYSTEM. In the current system, states don't elect presidents, people do. Gradually over history, state governments decided that they didn't really want to elect the presidents, and instead decided to pass the buck to the populations of their states. If you want the states to be represented, then you should support a movement to eradicate popular elections entirely and have the state legislatures decide directly what electors they want to send to the college.

As it currently stands, the people are electing the president, but we are treating them as if the states are the ones doing it. The power has already been voluntarily transfered from the states to the people, but the voting system does not acknowledge this in any way.

Federalism is a good idea. It is a good idea to have certain aspects of governance be adminstered by local subgovernments. But that is all states are: local subgovernments. And as it currently stands, the local subgovernments have no direct impact on which president is elected. But the system treats elections as if they did. Thus the problem.

--
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
Re:No by krlynch · 2006-07-25 08:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

Nobody said the winner had to have the majority of the votes, just more than any other candidate.

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.
Re:No by ChristTrekker · 2006-07-25 08:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

The balance, however, shifted some time ago

Due, in no small part, to the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913. Easier communication and transportation played a significant role as well, of course. But when States (as governmental bodies) ceased sending their own representatives to the national government, that was the death knell of federalism.

--
Constitutionally Correct
Re:No by timeOday · 2006-07-25 09:47 · Score: 3, Interesting

States are only "artificial" if you have no concept of American history and have never traveled through the United States. People from other countries don't understand regional or state-specific differences in the U.S.
In 1776 there were only 13 states. This means the United States is older than the vast majority of individual states. How can you rationalize the electoral college on something as specific as state history, when most of the state history that matters now hadn't even occurred when the system was devised?
It is centralized power that is far more prone to abuse than decentralized power--that should be obvious.
...and the electoral college is clearly more centralized than the popular vote. Nobody is talking about dissolving states' self-determination, only making individuals' votes count equally in national elections.
Re:No by Chris+Burke · 2006-07-25 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's because he got more popular votes than any other candidate:

Clinton 43%
Bush Sr. 38%
Perot 19%

I would like to point out something implied by these numbers that also speaks against the electoral college.

Roughly 1/5th of the total votes were for a 3rd party candidate. One fifth. It's been a long time since that happened, and never in recent times has a 3rd party candidate looked stronger. And yet, on the only scoreboard that matters, the electoral votes, Perot got zero. He didn't even show up. What does that say about the viability of 3rd parties? A party that received 1/5th of the vote should be considered a major force. Instead, with zero percent of the electoral vote, the entire concept of third parties was seen as defeated.

The winner-take-all electoral college is a major reason why we are so strongly locked into a two-party system. Nobody -- especially in a closely contested state -- dares to throw their vote away on a third party, because the way the system is set up says they not only can't succeed, they can't even show up on the scoreboard.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:No by ComputerSlicer23 · 2006-07-25 17:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

Actually if you read the papers about the arguments, the people who argued hardest for the Electoral College is actually the South. The South had huge populations, but incredibly small populations of eligible voters (White Land owning men). Because of the changes in who is eligible, this bit of history has been erased. Partial reasons for including the Electoral College as written in the Constitution (see the 3/5ths rule right in the middle of it), is so that the South would get authority commesurate with the number of slaves, yet without letting the slaves vote.
Ironically, the electoral college is one of the last vestiges of Slavery with any weight in the Constitutions. In fact, Jefferson wouldn't have gotten elected if not for the Electoral College. I believe other early elections had the outcome affected also.
See here, or just google for "Slavery" and "Electoral College".
My largest concern for the Electoral college is the sense of "my vote doesn't count", and the fact that we've devolved into two parties and that's it. The lack of any third party candidate to get real traction concerns me. Effectively there is a lot less of a market place where people can't pick from more people. It'd be novel to have a legitimate opportunity to clue the established political machine that things should change, without them having to make it blazingly obvious to the entire public that the system is incredibly broken.
Kirby

This = PR by FhnuZoag · 2006-07-25 06:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

Really, all this represents is a way to getting in Proportional Representation via the back door, with all the advantages and disadvantages that PR provides - and in a way that can bypass any wingeing states/parties who might complain about reductions to their political importance.

Not to say that this is a bad idea, but just to note that it's only the method here that is new, not the end result.

Worst ... idea.... ever by mabhatter654 · 2006-07-25 06:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

That's the worst idea ever. The president was NEVER supposed to be elected by popular vote. The Framers hated that idea to the core. It's a bit of a "states rights" thing but it's up to the states individually to determine how they will cast their votes. There's nothing in the Constitution itself that says people are suppose to vote for senators or presidents. To the Framers, that choice was supposed to be made by the officially elected state government. That way somebody smart, and already elected once was making the choice for who the next higher up officeholder would be. On the surface it seems anti-democratic, but in reality, many of our Federal govt problems are directly related to Federal elections and officers being separate and disconnected from the lower branches of government. Think of how fast all the issues with Bush would be resolved if he and the senate had to answer not just to the idea of "voters" but to specific branches of state government.. Where would we be if our state legislatures or governors could call our Federal Senators on the carpet and demand their votes the way the States demand it to be because they appointed them, not the voter sheep. We'd see a much higher quality of govt if the feds were responsible to somebody local not "everybody" in a nebulous get elected next term way.

Re:Worst ... idea.... ever by Enrique1218 · 2006-07-25 07:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

I would disagree with you. First and foremost, the framers set up the constitution to be ammended with the times because they knew that they couldn't think of everything. What the Framers envisioned 220 years ago is not necessarily applicable today. They never could think of the internet or TV. The population as a whole is now not as nebulous as you describe due in large part to the forums like the one we are using now to discuss the issues across the nation. The internet links us together and can be used to inform and rally the people to exercise greater control of the government and of the president. Second, mass communciation system that we have now can further inform and update voters in real-time. Then, polls can quickly gauge the pulse of the people providing the appropriate feedback to the elected officials of their actions. So, the mechanism of control by the people is already in place and we don't need local proxies to do it for us.

--
You don't have to be smart to use a Mac, you just have to be smart enough to buy one
Re:Worst ... idea.... ever by coyote-san · 2006-07-25 07:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

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
Re:Worst ... idea.... ever by The+Fun+Guy · 2006-07-25 07:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

The president was NEVER supposed to be elected by popular vote. The Framers hated that idea to the core.

The framers of the constitution, for all that they believed in democracy, didn't really trust it to the extent that we do today, since no one really had any experience with running an entire country on democratic principles. The biggest lesson they took away from the ancient Greek polis and the Roman republic was how susceptible it was to being taken over by a charismatic leader and turned back into a monarchy.

The Electoral College was a mechanism put in place to prevent the rise of populist demagogues, on the assumption that the elected officials at the state levels would be less likely to be swept up in mob psychology furor to throw over the democratic structures in order to put a hero on the throne.

--
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain

it's more complicated than this... by malchus842 · 2006-07-25 06:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

The electors, who are actually elected federal office holders, albeit with a very short term and only one permitted act, cannot be bound by any state or federal law to vote one way or another. It's not possible to prevent 'rogue' electors from voting for anyone they wish, anymore than it's possible for a state legislature to force the state's senators and representatives to vote a particular way on a bill.

Right now, electors represent the party of the candidate they pledge (i.e. Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc). You would have to change this to non-partisan electors who agreed to vote with the national popular vote. And even then, you could not guarantee that the electors would do that, since they can't be forced to vote one way or another

The only way you will ever change this is to ammend the Constitution. And it's not clear that it should be changed. The Electoral College reduces the weight of large states and increases the weight of the small states, which makes it less likely a candidate will try to run up huge numbers in CA, NY, FL, TX, OH, VA and other large states so he/she can ignore the smaller states. Right now, you gain nothing from winning NY with say 70% of the vote vs 50%+1. That helps keep a few large states from dominating the process - the leveling effect limits their impact.

Of course, I know a lot of people don't agree with me. But that's no surprise, they mostly object to my calls to repeal (among others) the 17th Amendment and restore a true federal system.

Re:it's more complicated than this... by GodaiYuhsaku · 2006-07-25 06:44 · Score: 2, Informative

"There are laws to punish faithless electors in 24 states. While no faithless elector has ever been punished, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in 1952 (Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214). The court ruled in favor of state's right to legally require electors to vote as pledged, as well as remove electors who refuse to pledge." -- from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_Colleg e#Faithless_electors

State law can. Federal law cannot. course INAL.

It's an interesting thought, but... by jfengel · 2006-07-25 06:39 · Score: 4, Insightful

I'd be curious to see how enforceable the contract turns out to be. I can imagine a state changing its mind midway through the voting, or secretly changing its vote, or something. If the other states sue to enforce the contract, would it prove valid?

It does make recounts rather a mess. One advantage to the electoral college system is that as messy as the Florida recount was, at least it was in only one state. The election of 2000 was very close even in popular terms, and without the electoral college every single state would have ended up having a recount, because every single vote would matter. But gosh, other countries manage to work it out.

The states that have already talked about signing on are big states: California, New York, Colorado, Illinois and Missouri. States who are under-represented in the electoral college. The little states, who currently benefit from having their individual votes be worth nearly 3 times as much as a voter from California or New York, will pitch a major hissy fit.

I haven't run the numbers, but I suspect that such a scheme will tend to favor Democrats over Republicans, at least with the current distributions. Those small states tend to be red states. Certainly the one recent example where one can point to a candidate getting an advantage from the electoral college favored a Republican over a Democrat, so any attempt to swing it towards a proportional vote will be greeted in red states as an attempt to make it more blue.

Re:It's an interesting thought, but... by Teancum · 2006-07-25 07:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Keep in mind that a "state compact" really is a treaty, but between American states instead of between countries. Actually, a state compact can also include a foriegn government as well.

The one thing that keeps them under control and from getting out of hand is that all state compacts must not only be approved by all state legislatures involved, but also by the U.S. Congress.... keeping the U.S. Consitutional issues in hand.

These compacts are usually done for rather mundane tasks like highway construction projects that cross state lines, school districts that take in kids from just across the state line, or other issues that would involve multiple states. Some good compacts I've seen allowed "in-state" tuition at a group of universities in a specific region. Minnesota in particular established seperate compacts to do just that with all of the neighboring states.

Even more bizzare was a compact between Minnesota and Mantoba, where an airport on the U.S./Canadian border was more cheaply extended across the international border by 1000 feet. It wasn't a huge airport, but the need was there to build the extra length of runway and make a joint state/province authority over the expanded airport. The state and provincial governments ran the airport, but it also needed federal authority from both national governments in order to get this to work.

Once states enter into a compact like this, it becomes enforceable almost like the U.S. Consitution, and states simply can't back out of it shy of fully repealing the compact by agreement with all of the people participating in that compact. Indeed, something like this ultimately has even more authority in fact than the U.S. Constitution as trying to get the whole thing renegotiated all over again after the compact is in legal force would be something next to impossible to accomplish. All told, I think a constitutional ammendment would be easier to negotiate because of this problem. SCOTUS doesn't let states get away with the same garbage that would be routine for the World Court.

Reform, but do not destroy by GospelHead821 · 2006-07-25 06:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't think we need to do away with the electoral college altogether. Allowing each state to have a minimum possible voice is valuable. New York and California already have a lot of electoral votes, but not entirely in proportion to their populations. The problems with the electoral college could be mitigated if only the votes from the college were more granular. As it is, in most states, the candidate that wins the popular vote in that state earns all of the electoral votes from that state. That means that 49% of a state's votes might "not count" in the final decision. As a citizen of Ohio, this problem was really driven home in the last presidential election. The two principle candidates were nearly equal in terms of popular vote, but the state's entire contribution was to George Bush. Let the two "senator" votes go to the popular majority, but let the "representative" votes be divided proportionally to the popular vote.

--
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea

Doesn't work by Jerf · 2006-07-25 06:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

This doesn't work for two big reasons:

It's a "boil the ocean" solution; it doesn't work at all until it is fully operational. Nothing ever works like that with 50 states. This is also related to the next reason:
The benefits of cheating are too large once half or so of the electoral votes are in the agreement. The benefits of defecting, or threatening to defect, become large, because suddenly the votes become bargaining chips, useful to extract concessions from the other states. This makes it effectively impossible to get to all 50 agreeing anyhow; the more people in the agreement before it gets to 50, the larger the spoiler effect.

This would make things even worse, because of the horrible bargaining and politicing that would ensue around the electoral votes. Indeed, this would come to swamp the entire procedure, and the game would become getting the states to commit electoral votes, instead of convincing the people to vote for you. Hopefully, it's obvious why this is bad.

There's no idea so bad you can't extol its virtues for 600 pages.

Finally, to use the previous election for concrete names, do you really thing California is going to stand for seeing its electoral votes go to Bush? Or Texas for Gore? Unlikely.

What about smaller states by Teancum · 2006-07-25 06:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:What about smaller states by Teancum · 2006-07-25 10:25 · Score: 2, Insightful

I actually went through the stats with Utah (a strongly republican state) and noted that Democrats would not only gain electorial votes from Utah with a proportional voting system in place, but with just a tiny amount of additional effort they would have also gained additional electorial votes simply by trying appeal to the voters. Most Utah voters that are Democratic (and many Republicans for that matter) don't even bother to vote for President simply because they already know the conclusion - it is going to go Republican every time.

The same thing could be said about many other states. If Democrats are worried about losing electorial votes, it is because the political machines are rotting away and they are failing to get their message out and convince people to vote for them. It is not because the mechanics of the election are working against them.

It is a sad state that such raw politics such as "who is going to get the most votes" prevails rather than trying to inject true political debate into the process and encourage democratic participation. Or as important, to provide opportunities for more people thinking that their vote counts and can make a difference. The current electorial college fails miserably on this count.

I object on precedent grounds by smittyoneeach · 2006-07-25 06:46 · Score: 4, Insightful

If we want to change the Constitution, the procedure exists, and affords suitable prohibition of bad ideas.

Setting up an end-around will only weaken the sanctity of the document.

Peering into the future, the subsequent election of CowboyNeal ought to be a sufficient caution for us all.

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Re:I object on precedent grounds by smittyoneeach · 2006-07-25 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

My point being that, if we want to do maintenance to the codebase, let's go ahead and branch formally.
Pussyfooting around would draw out the process, and any hairsplitting and legalese generated would be used to do something completely sick and wrong that feels good to some minority, and then we'd all look back and say "Wow, that Electoral College thing looked good at the time, but the dumb ideas that followed sure turned out to have all the appeal of a cancerous, bleeding ulcer. Would that we had kept to the existing process, rather than delving into hacks."

--
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by scheming+daemons · 2006-07-25 06:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

No... it would mean that the New York City resident's vote would count EXACTLY the same as the Wyoming rancher's vote. One each.

As it stands now, The average citizen in Wyoming is 1/160,000th of an electoral vote. The average citizen of New York State is about 1/300,000th of an electoral vote.

Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?

One man (or woman)... one vote. Any system which gives greater weight to a citizen of one state's vote over the citizen of another state is a flawed system.

The electoral college system guarantees that the citizens of lightly-populated states like Wyoming, Montana, Deleware, and the Dakotas have a greater percentage say in who is the President than a citizen of California, Florida, New York, or Texas has.

That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is. That way, there won't be campaigning in just "swing" states... because every vote in every corner of the country counts the same. The Democratic candidate would have a reason to go to Texas and campaign... the Republican candidate would have a reason to go to Massachusetts to campaign... there are votes to be gotten there and they would count the same.

I am just as much a citizen of this country as some farmer in North Dakota is. His vote shouldn't be worth twice as much as mine.

--
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

Interesting theory, but still unfair by theheff · 2006-07-25 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:Outdated System by AKAImBatman · 2006-07-25 06:50 · Score: 5, Informative

Am I wrong or was the electoral college not setup first to make it easier to tally the votes and who won?

Oh, you're quite wrong. The answer to the problem is in the name of our nation: "The United States of America"

Under the original constitution, each state was a separate entity with its own laws that banded together for common defense under a singular Federal entity. Federal powers were always intended to be weak so as to allow for the diversity present in each state governing itself.

The electoral college was setup because the states were concerned that they would not be fairly represented. The concern was that since New York had the largest population, all the elections would follow their desires without the opinions and diversity of the rest of the nation coming into play. As a result, the EC was developed to allow even the smallest state to have a bit of weight in their vote.

In case the implications of that aren't clear, let me spell it out: The electoral college is designed to NOT reflect the popular vote.

Sometimes the popular vote reflects the college vote (especially in the case of a landslide), but in many close races the two will differ. (e.g. Bush vs. Gore '00)

What's interesting is that the people demanding a change in the method used to count the vote is almost always the folks from heavily populated areas. i.e. The exact people the electoral college was setup to protect against. The concern is that these people have little understanding of other areas, and would do insurmountable damage to the rest of the nation. Considering that our food production as well as many forms of research and manufacturing are handled in rural areas, failing to represent them could be disasterous.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Why tip-toe forward instead of walking? by RyoShin · 2006-07-25 06:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

An interesting proposition, but I think efforts would be better spend on getting Congress to disband the electoral college and actually having a vote count as a vote.

The Electoral College was useful in the pioneer days when information took much longer to get from place to place. Not everyone had the opportunity to be informed, so they voted towards a certain party and the state threw all of its electoral votes behind the winner of that popular vote.

The modern day is much different. Information is instantaneous, and people are finding out every little nuance about politicians if they dig deep enough. While the modern citizen probably isn't well informed, they do have the ability now to be informed- they merely need to go to a library to use a comptuer for an hour, or read a few newspapers. This means that citizens can discern which candidate they want. Votes are tallied quickly with the use of punch cards and now electronic voting machines (faults aside). The public's vote should be the only thing that counts now.

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by barawn · 2006-07-25 07:02 · Score: 2, Interesting

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.

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by AKAImBatman · 2006-07-25 07:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

Why should the Wyoming citizen's vote count for twice as much as the New York citizen's vote?

Because that was the way our founding fathers configured it. Intentionally.

Or perhaps I should say that our Founding Fathers configured it so that each state would have a say, not the individual. The only reason why a person in New York has a vote at all is because the state of New York decides that you have a vote. Comparing your vote to the fellow in Wyoming is ridiculous. He's voting for how his state's electoral votes will be counted, and the New York fellow is voting for how his state's votes will be counted.

If Mr. New York wants to be a prick about it (Whaaa! Mr. Wyoming has more of a fraction of his state's vote! Whaa!) then I suggest that the state of New York remove voting privledges from its population, and decide the matter inside the state government. The population will then be forced to chose between their existing leadership and the right to vote for their state's electoral votes.

That is a patently unfair system

The only way it's "patently unfair" is if Mr. New York thinks his state should decide the outcome of ALL federal elections. In which case, what do we have states for anyway? Better dissolve the individual governments, and subject them all to total rule from the Federal government. It's so much better to give the President and Congress absolute power so that we can ensure that they are absolutely corrupted. While we're at it, why don't we dissolve the Senate? Wyoming has way too much power there, as well. Ooo, and why don't we eliminate the Supreme Court? They've been a real pain in the rear for the Soviet Socialist Republic of New York.

In case you're not catching on to the sarcasm, the electoral college is one of the many checks and balances built into the US constitution. Each of those checks that gets knocked out further weakens the nation. Thus whining about your "right to vote" is exactly that: Whining. The nation might even be a better place if we removed your right to vote. At least THAT would be constitutional.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:Green? by ResidntGeek · 2006-07-25 07:24 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Democracy = Mob-ocracy by Average_Joe_Sixpack · 2006-07-25 07:31 · Score: 2

Federalist #68

...It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. The choice of SEVERAL, to form an intermediate body of electors, will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of ONE who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes. And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.

The Best Way To Reform The Electoral College... by tonyr1988 · 2006-07-25 07:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

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.

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by plague3106 · 2006-07-25 07:36 · Score: 4, Insightful

That is a patently unfair system, and the only equitable system is one in which each of us has the same 1/280,000,000th say in who the next president is.

No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed. That's EXACTLY why the electoral system is in place, to stop mob rule.

Please, go READ the words of the founders, they'll tell you exactly why mob rule is a bad idea. We are a Republic and NOT a Democracy for a very good reason.

Re:Outdated System by AKAImBatman · 2006-07-25 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

Failing to represent the small states? Bah! If the Senate and Congress stay they way they are, the small states still have plenty of representation in Washington.

Until some moron comes along and claims that it's "unfair" that the Senator from New York should have the same power as the Senator from Wyoming. Why don't we kick out all the checks and balances while we're at it?

I think the change would be positive, as it would give the majority of people control of one branch of government, while the majority of states has control of two, leading to a more balanced, less partisan federal government.

Have you been paying any attention? If the less populated states are not represented, they will be at the mercy of the large states. Causing damage to the less populated states (unintentionally or otherwise) could cause a complete economic collapse of US production and trade! I know the big shots in New York think they're the only ones of any importance, but the truth is that they're only managing the movement of goods that are produced elsewhere.

--
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade

Re:Can't Win? Change the rules! by jahudabudy · 2006-07-25 07:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by Balthisar · 2006-07-25 07:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

The thing is, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the goverment works and is *supposed* to work. Your vote is designed NOT to vote for the president. Even now you don't have a 1:280000000 voice for the choice; it's an illusion, and one that's not serving you well. That's not meant as a flame; way too much of our population suffers the same illusion.

YOU DON'T VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. That's not screaming; I'm just too lazy to use em tags. States determine how electors are assigned, and it's as simple as that. Your involvement is only indirect.

As said in way too many other posts here, the level of abstraction helps prevent stupid, flavor-of-day ideas from pervading our federal government. All we need is Hugo Chavez to appeal to misguided people at the last minute.

--
--Jim (me)

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by plague3106 · 2006-07-25 07:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

To claify my last comment, Democracy failed. Study the end of ancient Greek civilization (as our Founders did).

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by scheming+daemons · 2006-07-25 08:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority. Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed. That's EXACTLY why the electoral system is in place, to stop mob rule.

Sorry.. I get the point entirely.

My view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is as much a U.S. citizen as the rancher in Wyoming.

Your view: The inner-city merchant in the Bronx is less of a U.S. citizen than the rancher in Wyoming.

The Electoral college doesn't stop the "mob rule" scenario. It just rewards a different mob. It is the reason that Homeland Security money is being disproportionately given to communities with almost zero chance of being hit with a terrorist attack, at the expense of big cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Dallas.

Majority rule is nothing more than mob rule, and if you're NOT in the majority, you end up being screwed.

Really.. so it is preferable that the will of a MINORITY of the people supercede the will of the majority? Think about your statement. You are advocating that a "mob" made up of a minority of the people "screws" the majority. That system is better HOW?

The REAL heart of your argument is this... when the "decision makers" are made up of urban, inner-city folk that aren't like you... it's a mob. When the "decision makers" are made up of bible-thumping, gun-toting, rugged individualists that are a MINORITY of U.S. population, it's "what the founders intended".

Bullshit. If Gore would have gotten 1000 more votes in Florida in 2000, would the resulting government be "mob rule"? How is a government run by a man who CAME IN SECOND NATIONALLY less of a mob?

Prior to 1865, blacks in slave states were considered 3/5 of a person in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.

You are advocating for a system that says a California citizen is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming citizen in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.

As far as electoral standing goes, today's Californian is worth less than a pre-civil war slave.

--
"I have as much authority as the pope, I just
don't have as many people who believe it" - George Carlin

lets just fix the whole thing by jeremycobert · 2006-07-25 08:12 · Score: 2, Interesting

start over with an instant runoff system http://www.instantrunoff.com/

Re:They had a HUGE disparity then as well. by Steve+B · 2006-07-25 08:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Compare the population of Virginia to Tennessee in 1770.

Irrelevant; "Tennessee" as a distinct political entity did not exist in 1770 (and in any case the United States did not yet exist).

The actual ratio between largest and smallest states at the beginning of the Republic was 12.6:1 (1790 population of Virginia: 747610; 1790 population of Delaware: 59096), which is almost an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding ratio today.

--
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.

Scary, isn't it? by Maximilio · 2006-07-25 08:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

Democracy frightens the wits out of elitists because of the very notion you've thrown up here: that "uninformed" people will start determining national policy. But who is going to know better what the needs of the populace are: the populace, or a bunch of consultants who attend $1,500-a-plate fundraising dinners?

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

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by Red+Flayer · 2006-07-25 08:50 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by JordanL · 2006-07-25 08:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Stop hyperventellating long enough to realize that what you really want is an even, full democracy. I would now like to introduce you to the four sociologically impossible forms of government for humans to successfully implement on a federal scale:

Communism
Democracy
Fascism
Anarchy

All four of these are perfect forms of government. All four of these are impossible to correctly implement with human beings. We are not a democracy. If you want your vote for the [INSERT FRINGE SINGLE ISSUE PARTY] party to count, move to the UK.

--
FanFictionRecs.net

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by barawn · 2006-07-25 09:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

First, you do realize that the body that actually makes the laws - Congress - isn't proportional to population either? Why aren't you crowing to fix that as well? There are 250,000 Wyoming representatives to each Senator, and 500,000 to each Representative - California has 600,000 to each Representative, and 15 million to each Senator. Montana gets royally screwed: they've got only 1 representative per 900,000 people, which means Wyoming voters count nearly twice Montana voters!

The Senate is fixed (and unamendable) by the Constitution - the House of Representatives is not, though. And if any other system is flawed, we really should be abolishing states altogether.

The Electoral college doesn't stop the "mob rule" scenario. It just rewards a different mob.

You're wrong. The Electoral College system has one huge advantage over the "one vote per person" system. It's flexible. One vote per person is not.

Remember that the House of Representatives has an adjustable number of people in it: it hasn't been expanded since 1911, and all it takes is a congressional resolution to do so.

Taken to an extreme, if the House had 1 member for each person in the US, the Electoral College would essentially be "one vote per person". The difference that the two extra votes from the Senate give would be negligible. Thus, the Electoral College system (and, in fact, our entire government) has a nice, easily adjustable system that goes from "Democracy-like" to "Republic-like". Going purely to a popular-vote based system shoves that slider all the way to "Democracy-like".

If, right now, the Electoral College is favoring "mob rule" by smaller population states, that just tells you that the size of the House should be increased (which it should be). The ideal goal is a balance between the two.

I don't get it. You're crowing to change a system that fundamentally mimics the legislature. Why aren't you crowing to fix the legislature as well? Why is a democratic President so much more important than a democratic legislature?

You are advocating for a system that says a California citizen is worth 1/3 of a Wyoming citizen in deciding a state's representation in the Electoral College.

See above. Even if you fix this, a Montana citizen still has 1/2 the representation that a Wyoming citizen does in the House of Representatives, and a California citizen has a minimal representation in the Senate compared to a Wyoming citizen as well.

Why is this okay, but the Electoral College is not? Your argument essentially undermines the entire foundation of the country.

Which is fine, mind you! It might be the way to go - but it's not the way that the founders of this country wanted to go.

I disagree by pavon · 2006-07-25 09:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Note - I am replying to a whole bunch of posts in general in this one not just yours - I don't want you to get the impression that I am putting words in your mouth.

Many of the original intentions of the founders no longer apply to the extent that they once did.

Yes, the founders originally intended to create a system that balanced direct democracy and rule by the Gentry class. Back then, the only people with any education to speak of were the wealthy. The only ones with opportunities to apprentice into government were the wealthy. Therefore they were the only ones fit to govern. That is no longer the case - we have universal (if mediocre) primary education, and anyone who shows merit and initiative can get an excellent university education, regardless of their class. While most politicians continue to come from political families, many others have risen from low beginnings, and have served the country well. The balances meant to keep the gentry in power are no longer necessary or beneficial.

Yes, the founders intended for the states to have more influence on the selection of national leaders, but they also intended for the scope of the national government to only deal with large inter-state issues that the individual states could not. Things like interstate and international trade, treaties, and national defense. The federal government has greatly exceeded those original aims, and now passes laws, collects taxes, and runs social programs that directly affects the individuals in our country, rather than indirectly though the states. Therefore, the citizens should have direct representation in the federal government, rather than indirectly through the states.

Yes, the founders originally created a system where representation was dolled out according geo-political boundaries, both in national government, within the individual states. But at the time, opinions and interests were very much clustered geographically. The difficulty of travel, the tightly knit communities, and the fact that the economies of each location was determined largely by it's natural resources, led to this. Again, this is something that no longer applies to the extent that it did when our country was founded. Now opinions on national issues vary as much between members of a community as they do between communities, and only the most popular opinions from each location get any representation in congress. Geographic representation used to promote a wide spectrum of views in congress, now it marginalizes them.

I agree that it is still useful for the states to have some degree of representation. My opinion is that for presidential elections the states should each have two votes corresponding to the two Senators, while the votes corresponding to Representatives should be determined by the popular vote. This would keep the current feature of smaller states having more influence than they otherwise would, while getting rid of the winner-takes-all garbage that turns elections into a political game and joke, rather than an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

I would even go so far to entertain the idea of electing the lower house itself according to some system of proportional representation, rather than districting. Why does my small arbitrarily (or gerrymandered) district need its own representative in Congress of United States of America? Really, now - are the views of its 0.25% of the population that much more different from the rest of the state to merit its own representation in the federal government? And yet a political party which holds over 10% of the registered votes - that represents views held by at least 10% of the population - by cannot get a single seat out of the 435 in the House.

Enacting proportional representation in the House, while maintaining state election(of populus or legislature) in the Senate, would preserve a balance between state (locally clustered) interests, and popular (distributed) interests. It would also break up the current two party syst

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by yourfnmom · 2006-07-25 09:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well said. It seems like the Electoral College is also a great way of keeping the genaral population from being completely whipped into a hateful frenzy, distracted by a charismatic sociopath, and voting for him en mass. This would have the potential to destroy a direct vote democracy in the long run.

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by barawn · 2006-07-25 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Yes, there is. An adjustable system that if taken to either extreme allows the "tyranny of the minority" and the "tyranny of the majority". Then, you just place the adjustable system right in the middle of the two, and you've got a system that's equally balanced between the two. And hey, if you want to be real smart, you set up two systems, one that's slightly dominated by the minority, and one that's slightly dominated by the majority, and check the two against each other, so that if the majority starts to dominate too heavily in one system, the other can reign it back, and vice versa.

Oh, wait. That's what we have.

If you think that the major population centers aren't getting a fair enough shake, argue for an increase in the size of the House of Representatives. That's what it's there for.

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by Chris+Burke · 2006-07-25 09:30 · Score: 2

No, you miss the point completely. The reason the the NYers vote counts 'less' is so that rancher out in the midwest doesn't have HIS rights trampled by the majority.

Don't forget that NY state consists of more than just NY city.

So what about the rancher in rural NY? His vote doesn't just count less, it doesn't count at all, because however the people in the city vote decides how the electoral votes of the entire state will be assigned. A NY city citizen has a vote worth 1/300,000th of an elector, a Wyoming citizen has a vote worth 1/160,000th of an elector, and a rural NY citizen has a vote worth 0/300,000th of an elector. Sure sounds to me like someone is having their rights trampled.

I can agree with giving each state a fixed number of extra electors, even if this doesn't really do much to balance the number of electors or make the small states more important. NY and CA are still vastly more important than Alaska or Rhode Island. However this somewhat anemic attempt to prevent mob rule at the State vs State level actually creates a worse situation within each state, where those who are in the minority have their vote completely eliminated.

P.S. Our government is a Republic or Representative Democracy and is a form of Democracy (saying it's not is like saying some shape is a square, NOT a quadrilateral), which irrelevent semantic arguments aside means we have the same problems with Mob Rule as all democracies, and the electoral college does nothing to address any form of mob rule that isn't Big State A vs Little State B, and how many issues truly fall along these lines? This is why we have to have Constitutional ammendments preventing discriminatory laws that favor the majority. There is no system of voting that eliminates the problem of mob rule, and the electoral college demonstrates this failing.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Outrageous! by rickb928 · 2006-07-25 09:38 · Score: 2, Informative

This author proposes a method to subvert the constitutional method of electing our President.

It's about a close to sedition as you can get. Maybe it IS sedition.

States' rights are under constant attack, and Article 10 is being dismantled in courts at every level in our country.

No surprise that large states are good candidates for this compact, nor that they may have come up with the idea. They see the proportionality as a problem for them. Damned right. They don't get to dictate so much, and that's as it should be. We are indeed the United STATES of America.

Nonetheless, I suspect every single state will get attention in the 2008 Presidential election. Some day you might need New Hampshire's two votes to get elected.

It's outrageous. Almost as bad as pure, receiptless electronic voting. Almost.

rick

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.

Re:Outrageous! by funwithBSD · 2006-07-25 09:52 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Re:Electoral equal != Legislation centralisation by anaesthetica · 2006-07-25 10:04 · Score: 2, Informative

Mass appeals aren't going to be the order of the day - statewide crude mass appeals are already the order of the day because minorities are unrepresented, and the great thing about PR is that it gives such minorities the overall mass that they can't be ignored, and so mass appeals simply won't work.

This is incorrect. Since the United States is not a parliamentary system, politicians would pander to the largest mass of voters: white, middle class, suburban, Christian. They would have little to gain from reaching out minorities, if in doing so they ran the chance of alienating the majority. In a parliamentary system in which there are numerous parties sharing power in coalition governments, small parties can wield power by appealing to niche interest groups and minorities. Not so in a presidential system.

The paradox present is that by introducing intermediary institutions, voting is both distorted and therefore more responsive to minorities. Under PR, we would see:

300 million voters :: 1 President; whereas under the EC we see
300 million voters :: 50 states + one district + some territories :: 1 President

Within the smaller groupings of states, groups that are minorities on a national scale can exercise decisive weight as swing votes within the state. Thus regionally grouped minorities (Polish in Chicago, elderly in Florida) can gain a voice they might not have had otherwise. In a nation-wide PR system, the presidential candidates will all go for the big homogeneous bloc of white, middle class, Christian, suburban voters than make up 60-70% of the United States, ignoring the minorities making up the other 30-40%.

Finally, by further undermining the importance of states, a PR system would weaken the federal system that the States established in order to maintain a proper division of powers. The importance and influence of states were undermined when the 17th amendment was passed, removing from the state legislatures the right to appoint Senators. As a result, even more power was centralized in Washington DC. Moving to PR, and erasing the importance of states would be one more step in that direction.

Everyone on Slashdot understands why centralizing power is a bad thing in the computer science / tech industry / operating system market. Why don't they understand why further centralizing power in national politics is just as dangerous?

--
The Rise and Fall of Online Community

Re:That explains it by Vengie · 2006-07-25 10:25 · Score: 2, Informative

I love it. When ya'll have a nice majority in Congress and want to pass shit that those "pesky" blue-staters don't like, you go on and on about a mandate from the people and some bullshit about "majority votes." When someone might actually come along to level the playing field -- you push back.

That being said, I don't necessarily disagree. Our founding fathers had a SEVERE distrust the of the American Populace. The reason we have electors was because the "common-folk" weren't smart enough to vote for president -- you were supposed to vote for the smartest (guy -- at the time) you knew, and then the electors would pick the pres. And back then, guy #2 was the VP. Or have we forgotten that? We've strayed so far from the system our founding fathers set up originally -- remember all the warnings AGAINST two party systems?

At the end of the day, there are persuasive arguments on BOTH sides of the debate -- but yours is not one of them.

"republicans" in new york and "republicans" in north dakota have little in common. nation wide parties are a load of crap.

--
When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)

Re:Two words by vertinox · 2006-07-25 10:35 · Score: 2, Informative

Proportional Representation

Isreal is one of the few nations that practice this and it tends to help with new political parties come in and not stagnate with with a two party system.

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)

Be honest with the ballots. by Mahkno · 2006-07-25 10:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

How about being honest with the ballots and put the Electors names on them instead of the Presidential candidate. You are electing Electors... not a President. Later in December the Electors actually do what they were elected to do. If the public knew who the electors were then maybe those craven souls would be persuaded to choose the best candidate for the country and not always vote party line.

Correcting a few misconceptions by FairVoteBill · 2006-07-25 11:15 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

Do We Really Need "States"? by DavidD_CA · 2006-07-25 11:34 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

"Appeal" is such a strong word... by AndresCP · 2006-07-25 12:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

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

The whole purpose of the electoral college by wildman6801 · 2006-07-25 12:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

Remember the whole purpose of the electoral college is to make sure every state has a say in how the federal government works. If the electoral college is removed or changed so that the popular vote winner nation wide wins than that would create a huge problem. The problem would be that politians would place all of their money into the following states: New York, California, Texas, and Florida. The other states would get nothing. The reason: if all you have to do is win these four states or just a majority in three of them than you would win the election. I would rather see the electoral college stay the way it is so states like South Dakota and Vermont can get a say in the federal government too. I think it would be better off if each state would create a system where each voting distict's popular vote winner would get their winning electoral college member counted than a winner take all system state wide. I mean that for New York State if 30 voting districts popular votes were republican than all 30 would got to the repulican and the 20 other districs that went to the democrates would go to the democrates. This would make the system work better than a winner take all system.

--
A site cowboyneal will like http://www.freewebs.com/atpa/

Re:That's A GREAT Idea... by Cocoshimmy · 2006-07-25 15:57 · Score: 2, Insightful

Are you trying to argue that the system should be fair? Why should that be the goal? We want the system most likely to make America successful, not to appease someone's sense of fairness.

So what you're saying is that overrepresenting those who live in rural areas, who contribute the least to the economy and take the most from it (per capita), would make the US successful? Or maybe you're saying that having gun-toting, bible thumping rednecks have more of a vote would make the US successful?

Sorry for the stereotype, but I don't see how misrepresenting the majority will make a country successful. By the same argument, the system most likely to make the US successful would be a dictatorship, but it is certainly NOT what the intention was. As someone else mentioned, "all men are created equal" as stated by the creators of the country.

Electoral LOTTERIES are the solution by macraig · 2006-07-25 18:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

We select the candidates for our juries - who are asked to make life-and-death decisions regarding others' fates every day - by a random selection process, after which we wean them down by a bit of bipartisan examination. Can you imagine what would happen if we selected juries by election, where only those MOTIVATED (i.e. having some emotional vested interest) enough to desire it could become jurors? Can you imagine how that would impact the judicial process, if the parents of raped girls were allowed to "run" for the juries in trials of accused rapists and child molesters?

Now let's look at the state of our governmental electoral process: that happens to be exactly how we currently acquire our leadership. Only those ambitious, alpha-male-ish, charismatic, and egotistical enough are even considered for governmental leadership. By definition, people so ambitious are almost always those who possess the LEAST ethics: they're willing to do ANYTHING to achieve and retain the desired seat of power.

Witness the plight of Dean Cain, a candidate who was supposed to be more ethical than average: at one point he made honest statements about his less-than-typical existential beliefs, which was a good, forthright, and ethical thing, but then - when it became a public relations mess for him as he realized it would hurt his campaign - he soon backpedalled and tried to reinvent what he'd said earlier. What other candidates have done and will do is far worse than that.

I suggest that what we need is in fact NOT a popular-vote "tyranny of the majority" electoral process, but rather a lottery system analogous to the one we use for selecting juries. It would involve ALL the Americal people in the process, as anyone might be selected for consideration. It removes the inherent unethical advantages that career manipulators and the wealthy have enjoyed over the process.

Thomas Jefferson, I recall, was the one who coined the term "tyranny of the majority", and feared the lack of ethics inherent in any unchecked simple-majority rule; it was the reason the founders selected a republican form of democracy. Jefferson and other founders had good reason to fear it: they weren't part of the majority. Jefferson, for instance, was not a typical Christian, though he called himself one publicly for fear of public reaction: he was a Deist at best, who didn't believe Jesus was anything more than a man and great "philosopher", and was so bothered by the "mystical" elements in the New Testament that he wrote his own "Jefferson Bible" with just the history, philosophy, and ethics he so admired.

Though I've been preaching this notion to anyone who'd listen for years, I'm neither the first nor the only person to invent this idea: it was proposed in an article in the national Mensa Bulletin in, IIRC, the summer of 2005.

An electoral lottery would likely prevent charismatic and cunning but otherwise stupid and illogical people from having an unnatural advantage in the process. I for one would much rather take my Presidential chances with some average (and perhaps more ethical) Joes than the likes of George W. Bush and John Kerry. The current process effectively excludes both ethical and intellectual people.

Where the power lies by pingveno · 2006-07-25 18:48 · Score: 2, Informative

How many times have you seen presidential candidates fighting over, say, North Dakota? How about Massachusetts? California? Texas? Oklahoma? I'm guessing none. North Dakota is too small to be bothered with, while the other four are so locked in to one party or another that the candidates don't have to worry about swaying voters in that state.

Now look at Ohio and Florida. They're swing states, where every vote counts because the race will invariably be close. They're also very populous, so winning or loosing one can easily tip the entire national election. Candidates bend over backwards to appeal to these populous swing states.

Voters in the small states are effectively disenfranchised because winning or loosing a 3 electoral vote state is insignificant. Minority voters in states that are heavily Democrat or Republican are disenfranchised because their votes will not change the outcome of the election. The people whose really have significant power are in the large swing states.

--
"it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda

The EC doesn't help rural voters... by ThinWhiteDuke · 2006-07-25 23:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

It helps voters living in low-population states.

The correlation between the two (being a farmer or living in a low-population state) is very low. Connecticut or Rhode Island, for instance, are everything but rural states. But they have a low population thus they benefit a lot from the EC. On the other hand, Texas is a very rural state and is penalized heavily by the EC system.

I agree with you on one point : The electoral college is designed to NOT reflect the popular vote.

But the rationale you propose - ie. to protect rural voters from the tyranny of city-dwellers - doesn't hold water. Actually there are many instances where the EC actively discriminates against farmers. Rural people in New York State are effectively discriminated AGAINST twice by the EC system. First they happen to live in a highly populated state so the EC vote / population ratio is low. Second, they are bunched together with lots of city-dwellers and don't stand a chance of ever being heard within the state. Have you ever heard of a candidate visiting rural New York State?

The EC system might make sense for a number of good reasons (state rights, history...) that could, or could not, offset its blatant unfairness. But the protection against mob rule is NOT one of them.

The EC "protects" the minority only according to ONE possible subdivision of the US population : the state borders. People who happen to fall in the minority according to any other criteria are not protected. Gays, blacks, mormons, taxi drivers, holocaust deniers, left handed people, people who liked the da Vinci Code movie, slashdotters, you name it... All of these people belong to a minority that is not protected by the EC.

Mob rule is prevented by the whole constitution. The EC has nothing to do with it. All democratic countries in the world have constitutions that prevent mob rules. Only USA have the EC.

--

It would be nice to be sure of anything the way some people are of everything.

Slashdot Mirror

Proposal to Update the Electoral College

122 of 922 comments (clear)