Electoral College Reforms

[ArrestMeRedZ28]

The District Plan
State elector's would cast their electoral votes in line with the result of the Statewide popular vote.

The Proportional Plan
Each candidate receives the same share of a State's electoral vote as they received in the State's popular vote.

Direct Popular Election
Popular Election winner becomes president.

National Bonus Plan
102 Electoral Votes to the winner of the popular election.

Discuss advantages/disadvantages and which you are in favor of or no change.

[6SpeedTA95]

I think I like it how it is.

I've done so much reading on pro's/con's for a variety of ways. The way it is setup now seems to be the best especially given the way the country is structured.

Also it seems that no particular plan would favor any side more than the other in the long run.

There would of course always be elections where if plan X were in place it would have been different but those will exist no matter what.

[ArrestMeRedZ28]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

I think I like it how it is.

I've done so much reading on pro's/con's for a variety of ways. The way it is setup now seems to be the best especially given the way the country is structured.

Also it seems that no particular plan would favor any side more than the other in the long run.

There would of course always be elections where if plan X were in place it would have been different but those will exist no matter what.

I don't really care either but I have to write a paper on which one I perfer and discuss the advantages and disadvantages. I'm thinking I'll go with the porportional plan as it seems fairest of all of them to me.


District brings the issue of gerrymandering, and the national bonus / direct popular vote plans bring the issue of no government intervention. (relying on the people to select their own leader, when some of them don't know half the issues)

[6SpeedTA95]

People who dont know the issues elected senators and congressmen all the time...why would it be different for the president?

[David Octavius]

I wrote an article on it, it is long but I'm sure there is plenty below you can get mad about :




At the dawn of our new Century it would be hoped the time has long passed that the AMERICAN PEOPLE must justify electing a President by direct vote instead of indirectly through the Electoral College and that it can be taken as our DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to do so. But the unfortunate circumstances in our reality confess that those who are in power fear that the people would be incompetent with such control, has forced me to defend my fellow citizens in this essay.

In talking about the fitness of our system, the obvious question would be this: is by having the President elected indirectly better than election by popular vote? The 2000 election saw, again, a President elected by the EC rather than by the majority of people. His policy decisions have lead the country to where we are today and will continue to affect us long after he has left office. This is not to say that had the other candidate who won the popular vote was allowed into office that he would of done better, but now that we are at a point where the country is caught in a quagmire and where the people have no confidence in the leadership, who can we blame for this state of affairs? Certainly not the people, he was not democratically elected (2004 was more about being forced to re-elect a President at war since it is his war and strategy, than it was about him), but the system itself. If it was the people then we made our bed and have to sleep in it, that is democracy, but when it is not, then it is a PERVERTED form of democracy that allow populations of some states to have more electoral power than populations of other states. It is oppression of the will of the majority for no real reason. The majority is already checked in the Congress and by the Supreme Court, the Presidency is supposed to represent the will of the country, that is, the majority of people. By having the President elected indirectly the system fails on the most fundamental level of good governance: Accountability.

The most ridiculous notion in support of this system is that it forces candidates to campaign in smaller states since they have a bigger voice due to having a higher proportion of Electoral votes. In the first place the savvy candidates understand what States will vote to what party and concentrate on a very small number of “swing states”, states that can go either way. Besides going into how this setup ignores half the population as a Republican candidate will not devote his time to campaigning in New York or California or a Democrat would not do the same in Texas or Georgia as they know those votes are effectively wasted, the bigger reason is that the PRESIDENT IS NOT SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT A PORTION OF THE POPULATION IN THIS STATE OR THAT STATE BUT THE WHOLE UNION. The needs of a citizen of Rhode Island or of New York for that matter should have no bearing over the needs of the nation as a whole, the citizens of those respective states and the rest, already have representation in the Congress. The population as a whole does not, which means the collective will of the nation has no voice when it comes to national issues such as war, energy and the like. It is like a husband and wife, the particular spouses have their own desires, but the desire as a couple and a family can be different and require different answers.

In our time when globalization has created a world of one organism, having a national voice becomes more important than ever to maintain sovereignty, security and prosperity. Issues such as terrorism, war, trade and immigration will only become more important as time goes by, thus we ought to have a voice for such things that affect us greatly.




What troubles me most however, is that the most vocal critics to direct vote, who will endeavor to deceive us and scare us with cries that the system would be thrown into chaos because of our irrational passions, are the same ones who stand to lose the most if Presidential elections indeed becomes direct. It is an unfortunate occurrence that the more vested people are within the political system the less allegiance they have to our UNION and the more to their own special interests. For the ones who argue most passionately for the EC knows that they can elect a President more ideological aligned to them. For instance, no person can win the Presidency without at least one southern state, this assures that the winning candidate must embody at least some of the values, morals and beliefs of this region. This for one, promotes regional divides and for the second place does not allow for us as a nation to have a true representative President but instead one who is indebted to the minority population of the South. Our southern brethren deserve a voice, but in our Democracy, their voice should be equal to ours, not superior or inferior. We are a nation of one, not of multiple regions, we prosper together.

The EC has turned our nation into divided regions of the Northeast, the South, Midwest, and West Coast. We have become what our founders feared, in Federalist Paper #2 John Jay lamented the folly of those who thought having our land split up into confederacies instead of one union would be better. How lucky we are that didn’t happen but a confederacy of a different kind is happing now down ideological lines. We don’t act as one union, but rather as competing entities when electing our President. What better reason than this to unite the people by erasing the lines that divide us and count every vote from all the parts of the country?

[DosEquis]

The only problem i have with the current system is when people like Tom Delay pull a redistricting for political reasons.

[Pro Street]

There are two things I have an issue with, both have been brought up


1) political redistricting, in which both parties are guilty

2) the elector should be required to cast the vote based on the popular results, although I don't think it's ever been a huge issue.

[Diamond Cross]

The other change I would like to see is the end to the race. For example, the President is often chosen before some of the states can cast their votes. That should change. The President shouldn't be chosen until after all states have turned in their votes.

[7960]

Win by popular vote is the worst possible system ever.

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

The other change I would like to see is the end to the race. For example, the President is often chosen before some of the states can cast their votes. That should change. The President shouldn't be chosen until after all states have turned in their votes.

If he needs 10 votes and they count and find he's got 6 then he won...there's nothing anyone can do...he won. You're saying they should wait anyway? I guess I see some validity to waiting until the next day before calling it, but that would also require an end to exit polling and we're not likely to see that anytime soon.

[thomez]

I don't think it is a big deal, the popular vote and EC are almost always picking the same person. If we had a trend where the popular vote and EC were in disagreement several times in a 25 year span or something, then I would worry about how it should be changed.

[David Octavius]

Almost always isn't good enough.

If there is a chance the EC elects a person the popular will did not mandate and that person took us down a dark path that made us less prosperous and less secure, that chance of it happening (some say it already has) is reason enough to change it. In a republic when we elect a bad leader, it is on us and is ultimately our responsibility - that is the burden of democratic republic. But when the EC elects a bad leader, its a perverted system and causes harm to the people who as a whole did not even vote him in thus it violates the liberty of the people - such a perverted system has no place in a country that call itself a democratic republic.

[7960]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

...that chance of it happening (some say it already has)

When?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Almost always isn't good enough.

If there is a chance the EC elects a person the popular will did not mandate

The President ISNT SUPPOSED to be elected by the people.


Easy example, Clinton got 43% of the vote in 1996. The majority of the people didnt want him, yet he was President. Majority has little say in electing Presidents.

And those of you backing more parties, nothing like having a President win with only 30% of the vote.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The President ISNT SUPPOSED to be elected by the people.


Easy example, Clinton got 43% of the vote in 1996. The majority of the people didnt want him, yet he was President. Majority has little say in electing Presidents.

And those of you backing more parties, nothing like having a President win with only 30% of the vote.

This isn't 1789, with a economy in the trillions, one of the biggest and strongest military in the world and being the center of attention on world issues, the president should be elected by the people. There should not be a President like Bush who thinks he can do whatever he wants, because even small decisions he makes will have a huge impact on our lives and if we didn't elect him by our will then this is COUNTER to the tenets of liberty - one person is dictating our lives without our consent and without any real accountability. This is exactly what our founders tried to avoid but they had no idea the Presidency was going to become this powerful, they were more worried about the Congress.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

This isn't 1789, with a economy in the trillions, one of the biggest and strongest military in the world and being the center of attention on world issues, the president should be elected by the people.

The people = tyranny. Check out CA's problems if you want a great example. The people vote on a shitload of new spending bills, cut the tax system so it cant do its basic job etc....

The governor and Assembly have basically no room to do anything about the budget since 90% plus is mandatory spending.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The people = tyranny. Check out CA's problems if you want a great example. The people vote on a shitload of new spending bills, cut the tax system so it cant do its basic job etc....

The governor and Assembly have basically no room to do anything about the budget since 90% plus is mandatory spending.

I didn't say the people should vote directly on issues like they do in CA, we will maintain our republican form of government in which our leaders represent our interest, not act as a conduit and there will be mechanisms to check the will of the majority when it is oppressive just like there are checks to stop our leaders when they are oppressive.

That argument - though a valid criticism of having the people have direct power - has nothing to do with my argument

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

I didn't say the people should vote directly on issues like they do in CA, we will maintain our republican form of government in which our leaders represent our interest, not act as a conduit and there will be mechanisms to check the will of the majority when it is oppressive just like there are checks to stop our leaders when they are oppressive.

That argument - though a valid criticism of having the people have direct power - has nothing to do with my argument

The difference is a minor degree.

President represents the nation, not the people. That is the job of the Representatives.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The difference is a minor degree.

President represents the nation, not the people. That is the job of the Representatives.

I agree that President must represent the nation but I disagree that the notion is separate from the people. The President ought to represent the nation as a whole but the EC divides the nation into regions and factions, the South for instance has a disproportionate large voice which I think you would agree is not right if the President is suppose to represent the nation.

It doesn't allow level the playing field, it makes it worse. Millions of votes are thrown out, candidates don't even campaign in certain States because they know it is "red" or "blue" and only a handful of states (swing states) they actually campaigned in. How is this representing the whole? It seems to be that they become beholden to ideologically and regionally because they have to in order to be elected and re-elected.

Also representatives, especially in the House, are not equipped to represent the people when it comes to national affairs. They have less than 2 years to know us and understand how the polices translate nationally and with such a short term they have no incentive to pass long range initiatives, instead they myopically look short term to get votes, even if such short term measures are adverse long term.

Moreover, the President represents the executive portion of our government, the person ought to be accountable to how the laws - that our legislators passed on our behalf - are actually applied. It makes no sense that we have accountability in the law making process but not the application of the law which could and has been very different then how the law was written

[David Octavius]

Btw, judging by these posts it looks like I am the only one who supports direct elections for President (of course there would have to be some other modifications with it not just direct), is there anyone else here that is for it?

[Ardentfrost]

the electorate is required, otherwise we could be taken over by a minority group with good voting practices (think if all the white supremists nationwide got together and wanted to elect one of their own, all they have to do is get all their numbers to vote and it's over... well, as long as all the white supremists nationwide made up 50%+1 of the voting public, which they probably would). Direct voting would make a mockery of our entire political system.

In order to successfully split up the electorate in a state you'd have to make sure that the rural areas with a lower population would still have a voice... that is, the electorate would have to be based on location, not population. For instance, Georgia has a population of 8 million people, 5 million in Atlanta. It is unfair to rural GA that they would get only a couple electoral votes because they don't have the population of Atlanta (and you'll find similar phenomenon in every state... rural areas are rural because of low population, but they need just as mu