BF2S Forums Electoral Systems

CameronPoe wrote:

/proportional representation

It's an inaccurate proportion system though.

FallenMorgan wrote:

Popular vote > electoral vote

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/images/5/5 … ecVote.png

Electors don't have to vote based on the polls - they can just vote because of what they think.  Switzerland, California, and others have sucessful popular vote systems.  With things such as television and the internet it's silly to say that politicians will only campaign in higher population areas.

...says the kid from one of the high population areas.  And it is not that they will only campain there, but that they will target their campain and policies in office to only benifit those high-population areas to aim at re-election at the expense of less populated areas.

"Most people don't even realize, when they vote in a presidential election, they're not actually voting for a president or vice president."

"We're not?"

He looked at me just a little surprised himself. "No. You're voting for a slate of electors who will vote for the President. You're not voting for the President at all."

"Are you kidding?"

"No. What do you think the electoral vote, being tracked on television during the election, means?"

He didn't wait for my answer.

"Each state's electoral vote represents a group of electors you are voting for who will vote for the President in December. It's the vote of these electors in December that makes the presidential election official.

I stared at him for several seconds. I'd always known about the electoral vote, but I'd never really given thought to what it meant. "We don't vote for the President?"

"No."

"How many electors are there? And who are they?"

"The number of electors a state has is equal to that state's total representation in Congress. The least populous states have at least one Representative and two Senators, so, states like Wyoming, North Dakota, and Vermont have three electoral votes. California, with 52 Representatives and two Senators, has 54 electors."

"Big difference," I said.

"It is, and if a candidate carries a plurality in a state, his slate of electors wins the state contest. If Bush wins California, his slate of electors will cast their 54 ballots for him and he'll carry all of California's electoral vote.

"Forty-nine states have the winner takes all approach. Maine splits its electoral vote in proportion to the popular vote, but in reality, an elector once elected, can vote for whomever he pleases as long as that person is 35 or older, is a natural born American citizen, and has been a resident in the U.S. for at least 14 years."

"Anyone?"

"Electors are not bound by any Constitutional Articles or Amendments to vote for the candidate who won. That's why, in the election of 1820, though James Monroe won every state and should have won every electoral vote, he didn't. An elector from New Hampshire cast his vote for John Quincy Adams, Monroe's opponent."

"Why?"

"He said only one President, George Washington, should ever be accorded the honor of 100% of the electoral vote. So, he voted for Adams. Today, Washington is still the only President to win unanimously — and he did it twice."

"Wasn't John Quincy Adams President at some time?"

"Yes. Ironically, he won the following election, in 1824, in an electoral contest where no one could win a majority in the electoral college and the decision was thrown to the House of Representatives for the second time in the nation's history and Adams won the presidency there in a contest racked with scandal.

"What happened?"

"When the electoral votes were tallied, there were four men who had significant electoral votes; Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, and a man named William Crawford. But none had a majority. The Constitution, states that if no Presidential contender has a clear majority of electoral votes the names of not more than the three top finishers are to be submitted to the House, and Jackson's, Adams's, and Clay's names were submitted. Jackson had garnered more popular vote than Adams and Clay combined and many thought he was going to win. But, when the election is tossed to the House, each state casts one vote and Henry Clay threw his support to Adams and Adams won.

Then, when Adams formed his cabinet, he named Clay Secretary of State.

Jackson's supporters cried scandal and made it an issue for the next four years. In the election of 1828, Adams won one less electoral vote than he had in 1824 but Jackson won virtually all the rest and along with it, a landslide ride into the presidency.

"If that weren't enough, four years later, Jackson won again, this time beating Clay."

"You said that was the second time it went to the House. Who won the first time it happened?"

"That was the election of 1800. Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each won 73 votes. After something like three dozen ballots, they chose Jefferson."

I looked at my notes. "What happens if the House is deadlocked and can't choose a winner?"

"The Constitution provides that the names of the two to have garnered the greatest vote should then be presented to the Senate and the Senators choose by casting individual ballots."

"What do you think would have happened if Ross Perot had stayed in the race and tied up the electoral vote so no one got a majority.

Could he have wielded any power?"

"Probably not. It's not likely he could have influenced his electors, and if the election were thrown to the House, he had no power to broker there as Henry Clay did in 1824. If the race had gone to the House, there were no state delegations he could swing. There are no Representatives who owe him allegiance."

"So, who would win?"

"Figure it out. Each of the state's delegations would get one vote. About 30 of the states have more Democratic Representatives than Republican Representatives. Another 10 have more Republicans. The remaining 10 are split."

"Clinton wins."

He nodded.

"But you say the electors can vote for someone else if they want."

"Yeah. It's even happened several times in this century. As recently as 1988, an elector from West Virginia cast his ballot for Lloyd Benson, though Michael Dukakis had carried the state."

"Why do we elect the President with an electoral college?"

"It's actually a very clever way of ensuring the likelihood of a President being elected, particularly if there are more than two strong candidates.

I still have to go with the electoral college.  It is the only way that rural votes mean anything.

nukchebi0 wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's an inaccurate proportion system though.

Only if you think the Congress is an inaccurate proportion system, since they are exactly the same.

No.

The House is proportional on population, the Senate is equal to each state.

The result is that the people in smaller states actually have "more say" than larger states, because the ratio of state population to electoral votes is closer to one.

Look at Wyoming vs. California.

Yes, so the number of Congressional seats (House + Senate) for a given states is exactly the same as the number of electors, and is based on (mainly) that state's population (proportion). The Wyoming vs. California thing shows why the electoral college was put in place: so that the States (it is the United States of America) have more of a peer-to-peer relationship when it comes to electing the President of the United States of America.

The electoral college means that candidates (and incumbents) cannot ignore the less-populous states. If we went to a pure popular vote, then only a handful of states would ever get anything, which is contrary to the intent of the Founders on the role of the Federal government.

RAIMIUS wrote:

I still have to go with the electoral college.  It is the only way that rural votes mean anything.

Please explain how the electoral college skewing votes makes rural votes more valid. Even if it did (which it doesn't), I would immediately be against it because no one's vote should be any more, or less, important than anyone else's. If anything, the electoral college diminishes their voting power. Think of things this way, most Americans live in urban or suburban cities, leaving a much smaller portion in rural settings. Now you seem to think that rural folks vote differently than city slickers, this means they will vote for different candidates. Since the rural people are always outnumbered, their votes will always be in the minority and will never get any electoral votes (winner takes all, remember). With popular vote, at least they'd get their 30% or whatever the number is.

What you've basically done with this system is to completely remove the rural voice. They deserve to be heard, even if they're so ignorant as to support the electoral system that is obliterating their voting power (I kid, I kid).

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Pubic wrote:

General question for everybody here:

Could you argue that proportional/popular vote is the next step for democracy after the electoral college/member system?  If so, what would be the next step after proportional/popular vote?

Most people haven't a clue as to why we have the electoral college. From what I've seen at least.

The nomination process is more sketchy imo. Caucus's, super delegates, and delegates (which may not vote accordingly) is sketchy.

This "the winner takes all the votes" system is very unfair and doesn't reflect the people's will.

The US is designed to be a republic, not a democracy.  It has been set up to operate with the consent of the people, not by the will of the people.

Oh god...OUR VOTES DON'T FUCKING COUNT WHEN WE HAVE "ELECTORS," DAMMIT.

imortal wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Most people haven't a clue as to why we have the electoral college. From what I've seen at least.

The nomination process is more sketchy imo. Caucus's, super delegates, and delegates (which may not vote accordingly) is sketchy.

This "the winner takes all the votes" system is very unfair and doesn't reflect the people's will.

The US is designed to be a republic, not a democracy.  It has been set up to operate with the consent of the people, not by the will of the people.

Actually, it's by the consent and will of the wealthy elite.  The average person has little more than ceremonial power -- especially with the Electoral College in place.

The most power that can realistically be expected to be given to the common man is promoted by the most direct democracy possible in a republic.  Ending the Electoral College would make more populated areas more powerful, but I'd rather that happen than continue the current overvaluing of rural votes and of special interest groups.

I trust the will of the majority far more than the will of corporations and rednecks.

By supporting the Electoral College, you're only saying the equivalent of urban voters.

I realize the reasons why the EC was first established, but that time has come and gone.  Times change and so must the system.  To support the EC in this day and age is no different than supposing that urban voters are less informed, because it undervalues their votes.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

By supporting the Electoral College, you're only saying the equivalent of urban voters.

I realize the reasons why the EC was first established, but that time has come and gone.  Times change and so must the system.  To support the EC in this day and age is no different than supposing that urban voters are less informed, because it undervalues their votes.

No, it doesn't undervalue the urban votes, it puts the rural and urban votes on a more equal footing. By stating that it undervalues the urban vote means that you feel the urban vote is worth more than the rural vote.

Supporting the EC isn't about assuming that anyone is more or less informed (ie, "rednecks"...sound familiar?). It's about saying that the votes of the less-populated areas are just as important as the votes of the more populated areas.

Mathematically speaking, if we are all equal as individuals but majority rules under democracy, then this means urban voters are worth more collectively because they are more numerous.

So, if you believe in individual equality, then you must acknowledge that we should each get an equal say in elections.  All groups are NOT equal, because a mathematical majority is required to approve things.  This means more numerous groups are effectively worth more.

If we do not follow this mathematical principle, then inevitably, individual inequalities will result.

FEOS wrote:

And that is exactly why the Founders implemented the EC...to prevent tyranny by the most populated states, recognizing the importance of each state's contribution.

One could argue the current system presents a tyranny of the few.  Not only is this tyranny drawn along class lines, but it also applies to rural/urban divisions.

So, in effect, we have put into place a system that is no better than what they aimed to prevent.  Logically, you could argue it's actually worse by nature, because it contradicts the principle of individual equality.