Electoral College

[JOEBIALEK]

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.

The debate has started again as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. For example, in Alabama, President Bush won 63% of the popular vote and therefore would be awarded 5.67 electoral points as compared to Senator Kerry with 37% of the popular vote and 3.33 electoral points. In the event of a tie, the national popular vote results would decide the outcome.

If one tabulated the final totals from Election 2004, they would find Bush with 274.92 electoral points versus Kerry with 257.71. The existing electoral college votes shows Bush 286 to Kerry 252. I believe this compromise would reflect a truer intent of the will of the people as exercised through their states. This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.

[VArifleman]

Here's my take on what should happen:
Two votes go to the person who wins the state (just as two senators represent the state).
Each represented district gives one vote to the winner of that district.

[jackbenimble]

Joe,

You gave a pretty good description of how the electorial college works but you left our a key detail.

The Constitution gives the power to decide how electors who will vote in the electorial college are chosen to the state legislatures.

Most states have chosen to use a winner take all system as you describe but notably two states have a different system. *Both Maine and Nebraska have a hybrid system where two (in my mind I think of them as the Senate electors) of the their electorial votes are allocated on the basis of winner take all system and the remaining electorial votes (I think of them as the House electors) are allocated proportionately to the popular vote. *I think Maine actually does it by geographical congressional district and Nebraska just does it mathmatically based on proportions.

One of the beautiful things about our Constitution is that much of the power is delegated out to the States. *This allows the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people because what makes the people of Maine happy may not be what makes the people of New Hampshire happy. *Federalism allows them to each have it their own way.

I would be completely pleased if California would choose to allocate their electorial votes on a proportional basis. *I think it is a shame (snicker, snicker) that the 40% of their population which votes Republican is disinfranchised. *But so long as I live in Wyoming I am going to vote for state legislators who will vote to keep our winner take all electorial system because it magnifies the power of our small state and helps to make sure that the big states don't run ride roughshod over us.

Regards,
Jack

[JustinJamm]

States' rights is surely an important priority, but the Presidential Election is in intrinsically federal issue, isn't it? *That's not the same kind of assumption as saying that military or social welfare or some other "issue" is a federal issue--the President is in inseparable part of the *Federation*, not of any one state.

Whoever dominates any state generally wants the winner take all system to stay so that their party has all the power. *Here in CA, my vote for president doesn't matter one iota and that costs conservative values big time on the national scale. *jackbenimble, I'm sure you love being able to use "winner take all" to give your state more power, but frankly, conservative power (at least from CA) would SHOOT up if the conservative chunk of CA's votes actually counted!

Totally direct election IS a little alarming to me, because it seems like it would give large population centers way too much power...but frankly, direct election is the one thing that makes Gerrymandering irrelevant.


Some British physicists did a study on this, and found that the kind of system we're using (and also that the EU was/is using) not only disillusion the citizens, but they also give too much power to the very biggest and very smallest states, screwing the states in the middle. *This is because the Senate/House combo is set up to represent "big states" and "little states"...not ALL states wherever they are in the spectrum. *They propose an alternative to direct election, and that's for each state/country's "electoral" number to correspond not to "population plus 2" (or whatever), but for each state's representation to match the SQUARE ROOT of their population!

How does THAT sound? *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[lpara]

I don't perceive the electoral college as being fair any more. I realize that if we only went by popular vote, Gore would've been President in 2000 . . . but so be it. I think whoever gets the most votes in the WHOLE COUNTRY should win (not the one who gets the most votes in 9 states http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ugh.gif ) I don't like the idea that some votes just don't count.

[Old Man]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">I don't perceive the electoral college as being fair any more. [/QUOTE] It is as fair as it ever was simply because of what it was intended to do, protect the less populated states. We are not a democracy and this is why we say &quot;the Republic for which it stands.&quot;

We have so distorted the original power of the State to power of the &quot;Nation.&quot; that we no longer recognize what the electorial college was established for.<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE"> The Electoral College system also reduces the possibility of voter fraud; in a direct national election votes could be bought anywhere, even in heavily concentrated Democratic or Republican states where under the present system, few would bother to attempt such a thing. In addition, while small states may be overrepresented under the present system, under any other alternatives smaller states would virtually be ignored. Most importantly, supporters of the Electoral College would add that it is a tried and true system, one that is efficient, identifies a winner quickly, and avoids recounts. For these reasons, Americans would be foolish to risk experimenting with a new one.[/QUOTE]Teaching With Documents Lesson Plan: (http://www.archives.gov/digital_classroom/lessons/electoral_college_ta lly_1824/electoral_college_ta lly_1824.html)

[jackbenimble]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">I don't perceive the electoral college as being fair any more.[/QUOTE]

I think only twice in our history has there ever been a different outcome between the electorial vote and the popular vote. The system seem pretty fair. There wer scenarios in this last election where some very small states like New Mexico could have swung the difference.

But I think the system would be a lot more fair if the states in the Northeast and the West Coast quit disenfranchising their Republicans.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">States' rights is surely an important priority, the Presidential Election is in intrinsically federal issue, isn't it? [/QUOTE]

Yes it is and it was back when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution too. They very deliberately put the right to determine how electors were chosen in the hands of the State Legislatures. Constitutionally, there is no reason why those State legislatures even need to have a popular vote. They could just choose the electors themselves.

Regards,
Jack

[Basheva]

Even though I am a conservative in the blue state of California, I support the electoral college as now constituted.

When we speak of small states Delaware or Vermont et al come quickly to mind. However, we need to remember that there are a number of states whose population is small but whose area is large. This is important in the context of usage.

In a state like Alaska, for instance, where the numbers are small but the area is large, the area includes vast resources. If Alaska was only represented strictly by numbers, then it would lose control of how its own resources were allocated and used by the rest of the states. The people from New York City would have an over-loud voice in how Alaska's resources were used.

If the executive were chosen by popular vote there would be little need to campaign outside of the major population centers at all.

There is probably no method that is completely &quot;fair&quot; - but this present method has proven workable and mostly fair.

As for my vote being drowned in a sea of California blue - I could always move to a red state.

However, if one looks at the broader picture for a state such as California, even though all of our electoral votes went to the blue side, we ended up with 6 of the most powerful chairmanships in the House of Representatives run by representatives from California.

It does tend to even out.

[lpara]

Thanks for the electoral college lesson. http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I still don't &quot;get&quot; everything about it . . . but I'll keep studying http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[Floridaguy]

I feel the electoral college is critical, as important as it ever was, and would strongly urge Congress to retain it indefinitely. It is not about Gore or 2000, it is about a system that works and is fair in its design. It continually amazes me the foresight our founding fathers and early pioneers of the country had. The system is NOT broken, so don't fix it.

http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/flag19.gif *http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cowboy7.gif

[jackbenimble]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE"> I feel the electoral college is critical, as important as it ever was, and would strongly urge Congress to retain it indefinitely. [/QUOTE]

Short of a Constitutional Amendment, Congress does not have the power to change it. *The method of choosing electors has been delegated to the states. *I can't imagine the small states being stupid enough to ratify a Constitutional Admendment that strips them of one of their key powers that gives them protection from domination by the large states. *

If they did, elections would be held in California, Texas, Florida, New York and the rest of us would be ignored.


Regards,
Jack

[americanfirst]

True about the constituional admendment but untrue about founding fathers forsight other than the fact it was one more compromise to get the job done. Just like the deal about counting a slave but counting him as less than one person. The south demanded to be able to count them because they were not as heavily populated as the north even though they could not vote. The north didn't want to count them so they compromised.

Plus be honest about it. It favors the GOP. If it favored the dems we'd want it changed to.

[Basheva]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">Plus be honest about it. It favors the GOP. If it favored the dems we'd want it changed to. [/QUOTE]

Since in this last election the Republicans got a plurality of the vote, it is not true that the GOP is favored by the Electoral College.

As I understand it, the Republican party is now on a parity with the democrats when it comes to registration as well.

[americanfirst]

What I talking about is that the population of Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, and North Dakota probably would not justify 3 votes in the electoral college if it were evenly devided based solely on population. Same reason the D.C. and Purto Rico will never be states. They would be automatic electoral votes for the dems. If D.C. was a solid Republican city they would want to make it a state for the same reasons that the dems want to.

[JustinJamm]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">As for my vote being drowned in a sea of California blue - I could always move to a red state.[/QUOTE]

That doesn't do anything, actually. it dosen't count either time. I'd have to move to a constant &quot;battleground state&quot; in order for it to &quot;count.&quot;

The problem isn't per se the electoral college--it's the &quot;winner take all&quot; nature of the voting sections (states). Having only two parties really polarizes things--it's not ONLY about fair representation! It's also about diverse perspectives getting heard on all issues without chaos--and splitting everything into two parties 99.9% of the time doesn't exactly help the process. It's more of a showdown.

[Basheva]

However, it does work. It has given us stable government for over two hundred years.

Not many other types of representative governments have done that.

None, in fact.

Having two parties is part of that stability. Look around at countries, such as Italy, that have representational government but are always on the brink of having to &quot;reform.&quot;

The electoral college lends importance to states that would literally have no voice at all.

But all that was laid out very clearly in earlier posts.

[JustinJamm]

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">However, it does work. *It has given us stable government for over two hundred years....Having two parties is part of that stability. *[/QUOTE]

That it does, and that it is. *In fact, in order for there to be any kind of long-term, lasting control by either party, there would be (is) a need to persuade people in areas they'd rather not touch with a ten-foot pole. *It funnels the ideas a bit, and prevents many changes from happening too quickly before the long-term effects can unfold full-scale. *(Case in point: the welfare state.)

The &quot;push-pull&quot; of the two parties, and the showdown that results, actually FORCES people to pick their highest priorities and go for them, whatever else the cost may be. *It even forces cooperations that might never happen otherwise. (Well, in theory, at least...)