Here's something interesting I hadn't heard about until today - a movement to undermine the Electoral College as it now exists and guarantee that the winner of the popular vote gets elected president. I hope the movement is successful.

(And, for you media bashers out there, this is not a straight news story, so please come into the story realizing that its purpose is persuasion, not objectivity. It's an editorial from the Opinion page of the Sacramento Bee).

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/story/14263703p-15076536c.html

Editorial: Rx for U.S. elections
States can assure the popular vote rules

Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, June 3, 2006
Story appeared in Editorials section, Page B8

Print | E-Mail | Comments (4)
The election of the U.S. president should reflect the directly expressed will of the American people.

But it doesn't.

The current Electoral College system can produce perverse results: A candidate can lose the popular vote and win the Electoral College vote and, thus, the presidency. That has happened several times in American history, most recently in 2000. With the nation so closely divided politically, this is likely to be an ongoing problem, undermining the legitimacy of our presidential elections.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Polls for the last 30 years have shown that Americans overwhelmingly support direct election of the president, but Congress hasn't budged on a constitutional amendment.

A new campaign, "National Popular Vote," spearheaded by several former members of Congress, including California's Tom Campbell (most recently Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's finance director), has a creative way to get the same result.

The campaign uses an old mechanism -- an interstate compact -- to achieve the direct election of the president. The idea is modeled on existing interstate compacts, such the Colorado River Compact, which divides water among seven Western states. The compact depends on states changing their own rules for dividing up their electoral votes.

We'd prefer a constitutional amendment simply abolishing the Electoral College, but this state-by-state reform is an achievable second-best solution to a defective product that even the Founding Fathers regarded wearily and warily.

The strongest arguments at the 1787 Constitutional Convention favored direct election of the president by the people. Proponents wanted the president to be the "guardian of the people" and as independent as possible of Congress and the states. But the delegates were hopelessly divided between direct election by the people and election by Congress.

The Electoral College was a last-minute compromise, reached under what James Madison called the "hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience." The Electoral College has been patched many times since.

The interstate compact proposal wouldn't abolish the Electoral College, but at least it would ensure that it reflects the national popular vote.

Election officials in the compact states would award all of their electoral votes to the candidate receiving the greatest number of votes nationally.

Clearly, one state could not do this on its own. So each of the states has the same 888-word bill entering into a binding interstate compact (you can find the text at www.nationalpopularvote.com). States would join the agreement one by one. The compact would take effect only after enough states joined to represent a majority of Americans and electoral votes -- 270 of the 538 electoral votes.

So far, the bill has been introduced in five legislatures -- California, Illinois, Colorado, Missouri and Louisiana. The campaign's goal is 10 states by the end of 2006 and enough states by the end of 2007 to make direct election the governing rule for the 2008 presidential election.

In California, the Assembly approved the bill Tuesday. Because California has such strong influence nationally, the governor and senators can get this process rolling in other states by acting this session. Otherwise, in presidential elections, unhappy Americans are bound to continue paying for the Founding Fathers' fatigue.

I'm kinda on the fence about this, because I would worry about a "power-drive" by large populations (NY City, LA, ect). that would eliminate the voice of most of the country (most of the midwest, ect.).

Hmm... if it ain't broke...

Hmm... if it ain't broke...

:cough Al Gore :cough

:cough Al Gore :cough

Exactly.

I'm kinda on the fence about this, because I would worry about a "power-drive" by large populations (NY City, LA, ect). that would eliminate the voice of most of the country (most of the midwest, ect.).

+1.

What it would boil down to is that the President would be what the people in Los Angelesan Diego and New York City want unless there's a candidate so overwhelmingly attractive/unattractive to the rest of the country that it forces a coalition of voters against or for that candidate.

Frankly, I've dealt with enough retarded Angelenos in my life that I really don't want them to have as big a say as they do in the election of the state government, let alone to give them a major say in the election of the President.

Actually, wouldn't it do the opposite? Since a vote in North Dakota would count the same as a vote in New York, instead of 1/27 as much (or whatever it is), it would actually reward candidates who campaigned across the country. That's always been the benefit as I saw it, anyway.

I'm kinda on the fence about this, because I would worry about a "power-drive" by large populations (NY City, LA, ect). that would eliminate the voice of most of the country (most of the midwest, ect.).

That's what many people immediately respond to this proposal with. The problem with the electoral college system is that one person is NOT equal to one vote. It depends on what state you are in. This is quite a counterintuitive system. Shouldn't campaigning be done to please the most people, not the just the people in the right places? It seems much more logical to me to have direct elections. I haven't given it a whole lot of thought, though, so I'm not going to argue very far.

Actually, wouldn't it do the opposite? Since a vote in North Dakota would count the same as a vote in New York, instead of 1/27 as much (or whatever it is), it would actually reward candidates who campaigned across the country. That's always been the benefit as I saw it, anyway.

Well, actually, North Dakotans get 0.5% of the electoral votes now, but only make up about 0.2% of the population, so they would be getting the shaft.

On the other hand, I think it would reward candidates who campaigned across the country in the sense that it would no longer make sense to not campaign in states where one of the candidates has a big lead because to the trailing candidate, a vote there would be just as valuable as a vote in a swing state.

Also, I think people are overestimating the amount of influence NY and LA would have - together, the two metropolitan areas still account a little over 10% of the US population.

the electoral cooegelge exists for a reasn. most of you are not as smart, enabled, or enlighted as the people who craeated it to realize it.

I think the smaller, less populated areas deserve a say, though. The breadbasket of the country is just as important as New York or L.A., but would its voice would be drowned out in a direct election. In a vaccum, direct election would be the only way to go, but in a country so vast and diverse as ours, the electoral college seems to balance our needs quite nicely IMO.

the electoral cooegelge exists for a reasn. most of you are not as smart, enabled, or enlighted as the people who craeated it to realize it.

Umm...right.

the electoral cooegelge exists for a reasn. most of you are not as smart, enabled, or enlighted as the people who craeated it to realize it.

Well, as Plato, Robespierre, and Marx teach us, smart and enlightened people don't always invent the best political systems.

Umm...right.

exacty my poiny, if skydog would just vist post # http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showpost.php?p=1157474&postcount=647 , all would be cleaed up!

the electoral cooegelge exists for a reasn. most of you are not as smart, enabled, or enlighted as the people who craeated it to realize it.

The people who created it lived in a time where there was no television, no radio, no internet and news stories took days, even weeks, to get from one part of the nation to another. The reason the electorial college was created was because all of the electorates would be in one place, know all of the news and issues, and be generally well informed on the politics of the day while their constituants back on the farm with no electricity in the middle of nowhere wouldn't.

Those reasons are quite outdated. Especially now that the vast majority of states have laws that state all electorates must vote the way their state's popular vote goes. The way the electorial college is set up is not the same as it was back then. The electorial college has only got one more step in a line of several steps to go before it's abolished for good.

I think the smaller, less populated areas deserve a say, though. The breadbasket of the country is just as important as New York or L.A., but would its voice would be drowned out in a direct election. In a vaccum, direct election would be the only way to go, but in a country so vast and diverse as ours, the electoral college seems to balance our needs quite nicely IMO.

Congress is the main lawmaking body in the US. The underpopulated "bread basket" of America is still appropriately represented there, regardless of the means of presidential election.

Congress is the main lawmaking body in the US. The underpopulated "bread basket" of America is still appropriately represented there, regardless of the means of presidential election.

So you're saying they shouldn't have a say in determining the President, since they're "appropriately" represented in Congress?

Congress is the main lawmaking body in the US. The underpopulated "bread basket" of America is still appropriately represented there, regardless of the means of presidential election.

If you want to see how much influence LA and NY would have in a presidential election, look at how much influence they have in the House of Representatives, since the House seats are assigned approximately proportionately by population. That would be a pretty good approximation. And I see very little evidence that the House is dominated by the interests of LA and NY.

So you're saying they shouldn't have a say in determining the President, since they're "appropriately" represented in Congress?

Not at all. I don't see where I advocate disenfranchising these people.

They would have a say. A proportional say to the number of people who live in their state.

In order for a bill to be passed into law, the senate, which has equal representation from all states, must give the bill their OK. It's even the upper house of congress. I don't see how allowing a 1-man-1-vote policy is disenfranchising or alienating the people of the lower population states.

Well, actually, North Dakotans get 0.5% of the electoral votes now, but only make up about 0.2% of the population, so they would be getting the shaft.

On the other hand, I think it would reward candidates who campaigned across the country in the sense that it would no longer make sense to not campaign in states where one of the candidates has a big lead because to the trailing candidate, a vote there would be just as valuable as a vote in a swing state.

Also, I think people are overestimating the amount of influence NY and LA would have - together, the two metropolitan areas still account a little over 10% of the US population.

30 million out of 300 million. Now consider that we get less than 50% turnout during national elections, when people have a say in things like their congressmen and senators. Would a direct presidential election really solve that? Because boosting national turnout is the only way, IMO, that urban votes don't drown out their rural cousins.

30 million out of 300 million. Now consider that we get less than 50% turnout during national elections, when people have a say in things like their congressmen and senators. Would a direct presidential election really solve that? Because boosting national turnout is the only way, IMO, that urban votes don't drown out their rural cousins.

Actually, it might. Not that that's neccesarily a good thing.

I'm not sure I see how your logic is working there. You're making an assumption that in a low-turnout election, the proportion of urban voters is going to be higher than it would be in a high-turnout election, and I don't think there's any evidence that's true. Usually, a few specific issues are driving force behind the demographics of voter turnout, and those change from election to election.

Not at all. I don't see where I advocate disenfranchising these people.

They would have a say. A proportional say to the number of people who live in their state.

In order for a bill to be passed into law, the senate, which has equal representation from all states, must give the bill their OK. It's even the upper house of congress. I don't see how allowing a 1-man-1-vote policy is disenfranchising or alienating the people of the lower population states.

Because the President would be elected by the residents of the largest cities, making it unfair for the smaller states. One of the reasons the electorial college is there is to give all states a stake in determining the presidency. While on the surface it seems fair to have a 1-man-1-vote policy, it's ultimately not fair to the low population states to have it done that way.

It's one person, one vote. I just don't see how this unfair even to low population states. Each person gets a vote. You just have to look at it differently. If you believe the president should be elected by the people, then the change is good. If you believe the president should be elected by the states, then you want the current system. Technically, the way it stands now is if only one person showed up to vote in Idaho or California for example, that candidate would get all of the electoral votes, thus elevating that one person's vote way above other individuals in other states - and that's nonsensical.

The real question is why should a low population state get a greater say than its percentage of the national population? If the electoral college was set up to match each state's portion of the population exactly, then it would have some validity, but it doesn't and so I am trying to wonder why it doesn't, and why people like it that way. Taking the example from above, just why does North Dakota, which has only 0.2% of the population get 0.5% of the say on who is president -- rather than getting the shaft as claimed above, it would seem the new system would restore the balance and give North Dakota the properly weighted say it should get.

As FN said, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. It's not broke.


But it is broken. It's been broken from the beginning. At three different amendments (12th, 14th, and 23rd) deal at least in part with fixing directly or indirectly something wrong with the Electoral College.

Because the President would be elected by the residents of the largest cities, making it unfair for the smaller states. One of the reasons the electorial college is there is to give all states a stake in determining the presidency. While on the surface it seems fair to have a 1-man-1-vote policy, it's ultimately not fair to the low population states to have it done that way.


I'm not really worried about states as much as I am worried about demographics. It's all a matter of who you want to make less valuable as a voter, those who are in more populous areas, or no one. You're looking at either a system where people's votes are regularly devalued because of where they live, vs. a system where no-one's votes are devalued. Those in the minority have their lobbyists and whatnot. Does the president have so much impact on this nation that evening the playing field is a bad idea?

I don't have the statistics here with me, so I can't really make a solid arguement.



Besides, eliminating the College will take a new Amendment to the Constitution. Good luck getting the states to ratify that.

I seriously don't think it's going to happen for a LONG time, if ever.

This is a needed change IMO. I've only ever lived in Indiana and Illinois and under the current system my presidential vote has been completely meaningless in every election because there has never been any question which way each state would go.

A lot of people seem to think that this would hurt the fly-over states, but in the current system how much time is spent campaigning in Montana? Most of those states are already ignored because they're just never in play. In the current system you end up with five or six states getting all the focus because there is nothing to gain or lose anywhere else. A popular system would put every state in play.

Horrible idea. Only two states would ever count again, New York and California.

Horrible idea. Only two states would ever count again, New York and California.

What a dumb statement. California has 36 million in population. New York has 19 million. (of course how many of those actually vote) That's only 20% of the US population. I think you'd kind of need more than 20% of the vote (assuming same percentage of people are voters in Cal and NY as they do in the rest of the country).

I think it'll be funny in 20 years when all the red states are full of immigrants who are then citizens. 10 or 15 percent of a population is a lot more than people realize, especially if they're organized and they vote in blocs.

Things are gonna change a lot. And I don't mean to the left or the right. I just think that the rules for what parties dominate and how the power structure is setup is going to change...a lot sooner than people think.

Yup.

Um, states like North Dakota, Montana, Utah, etc. that people seem to want to give a voice as opposed to the big bad NY and LA currently have NO voice. Why would either candidate go there? It's already decided. If it was a popular vote, then yes I would expect a candidate to go to Salt Lake City, for example.

New York and LA have more power under the current system, if anything. These two cities right now are almost garanteeing the entire states for Democrats. For example, Gore won New York 60-35. He could have done a LOT worse upstate and still won on the strength of NYC alone.

Also, the electoral college is not a proper representation of each state. It's winner take all (except in two states), so it doesnt matter if you win with 70% of the vote or 50.1% of the vote, or hell even 34% of the vote in a three way race. You still get the same amount of electoral college votes. That's kind of ridiculous. Imagine a serious three way race. It's actually feasible that someone could win the electoral college vote while finishing third in the popular vote.

Here's the thing. Most voters already know who they want to vote for before the election begins. It's a fact.

What you're then doing is trying to influence the largest number of voters that are undecided.

Without the electoral college you're going to spend your money where the voters are. That's in the larger area's. It makes zero sense to try and convince the 4 undecided votes in Butthole Alabama when there's a million undecided voters in New York City.

You're going to campaign in NYC and you're going to pander to the interests of NYC. If you decide to try and get the four votes in Butthole there's a word for your campaign, it's called loser.

[edited to retract an incendiary statement that has been quoted but I don't feel belongs in a serious and so far non inflammatory thread ]

Here's the thing. Most voters already know who they want to vote for before the election begins. It's a fact.

What you're then doing is trying to influence the largest number of voters that are undecided.

Without the electoral college you're going to spend your money where the voters are. That's in the larger area's. It makes zero sense to try and convince the 4 undecided votes in Butthole Alabama when there's a million undecided voters in New York City.

You're going to campaign in NYC and you're going to pander to the interests of NYC. If you decide to try and get the four votes in Butthole there's a word for your campaign, it's called loser.

Hey, but if that's what the people want, more power to them. I'm pretty much against protecting the morons from their own desires. It's how I feel about seat belt laws etc.

Well first of all, your Alabama example is very, very bad. Why? Because under the current system it makes even LESS sense to go there. The Republican has it sewn up and the Democrat has no chance, so it's stupid for them to even go there. Even here in Georgia we didn't get attention in the last two elections because the state was conceded early on. Under a direct election, it would make sense to go to Atlanta, or Birmingham. It wouyld make sense for Republicans to target Republican voters in left leaning states. And it would make sense to target Democratic voters in right leaning states. Under the current system, the tossup states get all the attention.

Aside from the tragic math going on in this thread, there's an awful lot of attention being paid to "visits" here... is that what really matters in presidential elctions? Do you vote for the candidate who most frequently or most nearly visits your home town? Does anyone?


Anyway... I think the supposed debate about big state/small state is mostly specious. The modern electoral college campaign, fueled by highly sensitive polling data, does not segregate based on the size of the state -- it segregates based on the "availability" of the votes in the state, much as several people here have intimated.

Under a direct election sysytem (however implemented), the biggest change would not be a refocusing onto specific large urban areas...it would be the diffusion of the campaign to reach the many areas that are not currently really a part of the campaign. Like Daimyo, I have basically been irrelevant to the recent presiedneital elections, living in a state that was never in play, and even my local media has largely been ignored -- as Maryland, DC, and even Virginia are all easy calls in advance. My mother in Ohio, however, was barraged by presidential ads all year long last go-round... for good reason, it seems.


While the conceptual injustice of the elctoral college is an affront to my philosophical sensibilities, it's the practical effect that is the much bigger issue. It's not really about big or small states... it's about hot or cold states...
and direct election would eliminate the artificial value of arbitrary state lines and count every vote the same, resolving the problems on both fronts.

Well first of all, your Alabama example is very, very bad. Why? Because under the current system it makes even LESS sense to go there. The Republican has it sewn up and the Democrat has no chance, so it's stupid for them to even go there. Even here in Georgia we didn't get attention in the last two elections because the state was conceded early on. Under a direct election, it would make sense to go to Atlanta, or Birmingham. It wouyld make sense for Republicans to target Republican voters in left leaning states. And it would make sense to target Democratic voters in right leaning states. Under the current system, the tossup states get all the attention.

Ok, it's all about limited resources. No matter how theoretical we get campaigning for an election requires at least two major resources, time and money.

Both of these resources are better spent where the votes are. Why would you spend the resourceses it takes to reach 10 states including the time factor, the infrastructure, the advertising etc when you can spend less of each of these to reach the same number of voters in a more congested area?

Also, there is one unlimited resource, promises. Where would your promises, with the associated research and advertising be best applied, where there are enough like minded voters congested or spread over several states if every vote was equal?

The current situation isn't perfect but at least the winning party in your state has invested in your state precisely because it has meaning to them and their election stragegy. It's representation is greater than it's population so it matters. It has a positive value relative to the voters in a congested area. As the 2k election proves, this value is important.

I guess I should shut up since I didn't like the results of that election but hey, I still believe in the system. :)

Georgia has a population of 8,829,383. New York City alone has roughly the same population. Los Angeles has 9,937,739.

If each vote is equal why would you spend the time and money in an entire state when concentrating on one city is cheaper, more effective? Now, if those eight million voters in Ga are worth more than the equivalent votes in NYC or LA...

that's why this system was born.

Aside from the tragic math going on in this thread, there's an awful lot of attention being paid to "visits" here... is that what really matters in presidential elctions? Do you vote for the candidate who most frequently or most nearly visits your home town? Does anyone?



Not to comment on the rest of your post, but the answer to this question is "yes." I don't know who these people are (I'm not one of them) but there is always a swing of support that follows a visit. That (and campaign money) is the reason the candidates make so many stops during an election cycle. There are no commercials, posters, radio ads etc. that equals the bump a candidate gets from a visit.

To add to my last point.

California has 35,893,799 voters.

In the current system if party A has 60% of the vote then the losing party has no need to try and win the state. They can't so they concentrate on smaller states that they can win.

But, 60% of Ca is rought 21 million voters they can try and influence. Georgia is only 8 million voters in total. Why on earth would the losing waste time in Georgia trying to influence the 8 million voters ( lets say all of them are undecided or for the other party ) when they have a pool of 21 million voters to try and convert in CA?

Makes no sense.

Not to comment on the rest of your post, but the answer to this question is "yes." I don't know who these people are (I'm not one of them) but there is always a swing of support that follows a visit. That (and campaign money) is the reason the candidates make so many stops during an election cycle. There are no commercials, posters, radio ads etc. that equals the bump a candidate gets from a visit.

Thus reinforcing my time as a limiting factor argument. It's easier to visit fewer places and reach more voters.

While the conceptual injustice of the elctoral college is an affront to my philosophical sensibilities, it's the practical effect that is the much bigger issue. It's not really about big or small states... it's about hot or cold states...
and direct election would eliminate the artificial value of arbitrary state lines and count every vote the same, resolving the problems on both fronts.

Do you honestly feel that a party would feel that spending their limited campaign funds would be better served by focusing on a hot state with a relatively negligible eligible voter count?

Why on earth wouldn't they still focus on the hot states but focus even more on the ones with the larger voter pool?

This is what I'm missing. In either case they are chasing the voters, right? Isn't it far more cost effective to chase them in a smaller geographic area assuming every vote counts exactly the same?

To add to my last point.

California has 35,893,799 voters.

In the current system if party A has 60% of the vote then the losing party has no need to try and win the state. They can't so they concentrate on smaller states that they can win.

But, 60% of Ca is rought 21 million voters they can try and influence. Georgia is only 8 million voters in total. Why on earth would the losing waste time in Georgia trying to influence the 8 million voters ( lets say all of them are undecided or for the other party ) when they have a pool of 21 million voters to try and convert in CA?

Makes no sense.

Because you can't spend the entire election in California and New York. There's only so much effect a visit (or ads, etc.) can do for you. Eventually people make up their mind and you have to look elsewhere. If you did that and ignored the rest of the country, you lose the undecided voters in all of those other areas. And you would lose the election. Even if you were able to get 100% of the vote (which would never happen no matter how much time you spent), that STILL wouldn't be enough. You would have to go to Georgia to try to influence those 8 million.

Again, you guys are using bad examples. No one cares about Georgia in the current system. So it's not like the electoral college is making things better. Even if we accepted your arguments, Georgia gets screwd either way.

Because you can't spend the entire election in California and New York. There's only so much effect a visit (or ads, etc.) can do for you. Eventually people make up their mind and you have to look elsewhere. If you did that and ignored the rest of the country, you lose the undecided voters in all of those other areas. And you would lose the election. Even if you were able to get 100% of the vote (which would never happen no matter how much time you spent), that STILL wouldn't be enough. You would have to go to Georgia to try to influence those 8 million.

Again, you guys are using bad examples. No one cares about Georgia in the current system. So it's not like the electoral college is making things better. Even if we accepted your arguments, Georgia gets screwd either way.

Georgia does my friend. It simply does.

If we sew up NY in your system we then go to Cali, then Texas, the Fla, then Penn. etc. When do we get to the small states? We don't, especially since most people vote party no matter what. Somebody has to get hosed in the all votes equal setting and there is zero incentive for that not to be the smallest states.

In the current scenario you can win by visiting all the smaller states so if you appeal there you will visit there. Otherwise, why would you, ever visit a state that has a small population if there are bigger states that still have votes to be won?

Think of it as a strategy game. You have limited resources that you have to allocate. Where do you allocate them? What's the incentive of not trying to maximize your resources?

Where is a small state going to gain value if it's vote is exactly equal given a candidate has limited resources?

Even if you were able to get 100% of the vote (which would never happen no matter how much time you spent), that STILL wouldn't be enough. You would have to go to Georgia to try to influence those 8 million.


Had to comment on this. This actually works against your point. In the every vote is equal scenario you would still be more effective lobbying the additional votes in the big states assuming they were winnable than moving to GA.

Under the current scenario if you lock up a much smaller percentage there is no longer any incentive to stay in a state and you have an incentive to move on. You'll tend to not concentrate where your strengths are, even the big population centers if you've sewn the state up. You'll visit other places and they'll reap the benefits.

Had to comment on this. This actually works against your point. In the every vote is equal scenario you would still be more effective lobbying the additional votes in the big cities assuming they were winnable than moving to GA.

Under the current scenario if you lock up a much smaller percentage there is no longer any incentive to stay in a state and you have an incentive to move on. You'll tend to not concentrate where your strengths are, even the big population centers if you've sewn the state up. You'll visit other places and they'll reap the benefits.

How so? Under either system people eventually make up their mind and/or get sick of you. You have to move on either way. In a popular vote system if your opponent is maximizing his vote in other states while your focusing on the biggest areas, you will lose. But under the electoral college, it's going to be a long long time before anyone seriously campaigns in Alabama, Utah, North Dakota, Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

Furthermore, as to your limited resources argument, it is MUCH MUCH more expensive to campaign in California or Florida or New York than in the smaller states. Bush himself showed in 2004 that you can win the popular vote even if you don't appeal to the large population centers. Look at a map of the voting distribution. Kerry won the most populated areas and Bush won the smaller areas, but won enough of them to make up for Kerry's advantage.

How so? Under either system people eventually make up their mind and/or get sick of you. You have to move on either way. In a popular vote system if your opponent is maximizing his vote in other states while your focusing on the biggest areas, you will lose. But under the electoral college, it's going to be a long long time before anyone seriously campaigns in Alabama, Utah, North Dakota, Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

Furthermore, as to your limited resources argument, it is MUCH MUCH more expensive to campaign in California or Florida or New York than in the smaller states. Bush himself showed in 2004 that you can win the popular vote even if you don't appeal to the large population centers. Look at a map of the voting distribution. Kerry won the most populated areas and Bush won the smaller areas, but won enough of them to make up for Kerry's advantage.

He won in 2k without winning the popular vote so I don't see your point. It was the same basic strategy.

The difference is if you can win 51% of california and then move on once you hit that you move on. In an equal value per vote system winning 61% of California wins you an extra 3.5 million votes. Hard to get that going to Georgia. Your scenario encourages staying with the large population centers longer if you're gaining votes per appearance.

I also notice you left out the even more limiting of the factors. Time. You can raise more money, you can't raise more time. Stay in one large state and you see more people with every appearance and you don't have as much downtime due to travel.

Don't forget promises. You go pro union you'll add to your votes in the urban areas but it won't fly in right to work states. So, which view do you automatically pander to?

My point is that Bush was able to win the popular vote without catering to the populated urban areas, so in a direct election system, that would still be possible.

As for California, Bush wouldn't get 61% there if he promised everyone a $1 million tax rebate check. There comes a point where you've made allt he headway you can in an area and you have to move on because further campaigning will only make people suck of you. This happens in EITHER system. Under the electoral college system, there is much less incentive for Bush to go to Alabama or Idaho. Going there wouldn't have done him a thing in 2000 or 2004. But spending all that time in Florida and Ohio did make sense and it's what got him elected.

Don't forget promises. You go pro union you'll add to your votes in the urban areas but it won't fly in right to work states. So, which view do you automatically pander to?

Why is it better to have a system that rewards pandering to "swing states" any better than a system that rewards you for pandering to populated states? And still, even if Bush did pander to union voters, that's still not going to get him 51% nationwide. Most people won't buy it anyways, just like they don't buy it when Kerry tries to pander to religious voters.

Originally, the concept was created to limit the ability of someone to gain election by focusing on one geographic area.

By adding the two electoral votes per state, it essentially eliminated the chance that a candidate could represent the mid-Atlantic alone (as California wasn't a factor) and never leave that area.

For its time, it was a good concept. Today, we have the same problem on a more local level. Most states have urban centers that dictate politics to the rest of the state. Take Washington and Michigan, for example. Without Seattle and Detroit, these states would be Republican strongholds. With them, the Democrats control each state.

Communications improvements have largely eliminated regional biases as well. Are you a red state or a blue state? It depends on how spread out your population has become.

So the question isn't whether the Electoral College is doing what it was designed to do. It isn't. Only a small number of states are in serious play. They get all the attention. And I'm not even sure attention is worth while. New Hampshire still gets very little back for each tax dollar it sends to the feds. I doubt anyone here even imagined that either Bush or Kerry cared one whit about New Hampshire issues.

One man, one vote sounds great in theory. But what do you do when your area is completely ignored? What do you do if you're in Washington, and you see ultra-liberal Seattle controlling the entire state - siphoning your tax dollars for projects you don't want or benefit from? Ignoring your issues completely?

Do we further break things down? Do we allow the rest of Washington to secede from Seattle? Do we allow New York to split? Because that would be the fairest thing to do, too.

There's a lot of disenfranchisement going on. But, by and large, the urban centers are sucking a lot of money and support from the rest of us, so they should be more than satisfied with the status quo. If they want even more, they should be prepared for the backlash.

Do you honestly feel that a party would feel that spending their limited campaign funds would be better served by focusing on a hot state with a relatively negligible eligible voter count?

Why on earth wouldn't they still focus on the hot states but focus even more on the ones with the larger voter pool?

This is what I'm missing. In either case they are chasing the voters, right? Isn't it far more cost effective to chase them in a smaller geographic area assuming every vote counts exactly the same?

You seem to be operating under the premise that it costs the same amount of money to run an advertisement in a huge market like New York City as it does to run one in a small market like, say, Montgomery Alabama. You raise the matter of "cost effective" without even considering the matter of cost in even a simple way. Without resorting to your tone. I'd simply disagree.

You idea of "still focus [on one thing]" but then "focus even more [on another]" also suggests to me that your use of the term "focus" isn't the same as mine. So it goes, I guess.

My point is that Bush was able to win the popular vote without catering to the populated urban areas, so in a direct election system, that would still be possible.

It isn't possible now? It happened in the current system. I thought the point of changing was to provide more equal representation.


As for California, Bush wouldn't get 61% there if he promised everyone a $1 million tax rebate check.

No, but a democrat could and maybe more. Direct elections would certainly provide them an incentive to continue to strive to reach this point.


There comes a point where you've made allt he headway you can in an area and you have to move on because further campaigning will only make people suck of you. This happens in EITHER system. Under the electoral college system, there is much less incentive for Bush to go to Alabama or Idaho. Going there wouldn't have done him a thing in 2000 or 2004. But spending all that time in Florida and Ohio did make sense and it's what got him elected.

So, you really just want more personal attention from the candidate you support? I can understand the sentiment. We all want to feel the politicians care about us. In 2k Bush lost the popular vote but won the election. Under a direct election system this would not have happened. Maybe you're right then. He should have spent more time in Alabama and Idaho and ignored the places where more voters are actually living. It would have sucked for him though.

There's no system thats really going to make an individual voter important. It's always going to be a numbers game no matter how we slice the numbers. IMHO, Bush would still be better served getting 49% of Florida than 71% of Alabama. I'm just pulling numbers out of a hat as I don't want to look numbers up anymore because the point is valid. No matter how the votes are sliced a candidate is going to spend more time where the voters are unless the votes do not have equal value.

Why is it better to have a system that rewards pandering to "swing states" any better than a system that rewards you for pandering to populated states? And still, even if Bush did pander to union voters, that's still not going to get him 51% nationwide. Most people won't buy it anyways, just like they don't buy it when Kerry tries to pander to religious voters.

Pandering is part of the game and we tend to be cynical but most politicians do pay some lip service to promises that they made to be elected as they want to be reelected. Pork does exist.

Originally, the concept was created to limit the ability of someone to gain election by focusing on one geographic area.

By adding the two electoral votes per state, it essentially eliminated the chance that a candidate could represent the mid-Atlantic alone (as California wasn't a factor) and never leave that area.

For its time, it was a good concept. Today, we have the same problem on a more local level. Most states have urban centers that dictate politics to the rest of the state. Take Washington and Michigan, for example. Without Seattle and Detroit, these states would be Republican strongholds. With them, the Democrats control each state.

Communications improvements have largely eliminated regional biases as well. Are you a red state or a blue state? It depends on how spread out your population has become.

So the question isn't whether the Electoral College is doing what it was designed to do. It isn't. Only a small number of states are in serious play. They get all the attention. And I'm not even sure attention is worth while. New Hampshire still gets very little back for each tax dollar it sends to the feds. I doubt anyone here even imagined that either Bush or Kerry cared one whit about New Hampshire issues.

One man, one vote sounds great in theory. But what do you do when your area is completely ignored? What do you do if you're in Washington, and you see ultra-liberal Seattle controlling the entire state - siphoning your tax dollars for projects you don't want or benefit from? Ignoring your issues completely?

Do we further break things down? Do we allow the rest of Washington to secede from Seattle? Do we allow New York to split? Because that would be the fairest thing to do, too.

There's a lot of disenfranchisement going on. But, by and large, the urban centers are sucking a lot of money and support from the rest of us, so they should be more than satisfied with the status quo. If they want even more, they should be prepared for the backlash.

Well it works both ways. For example, there are lots of progressive areas isolated in southern states that have the rest of the state dictating politics to them. I don't understand why everyone approaches this from a "Urban area-bad" perspective. I can understand if people have a problem with the values of those in urban areas (as I also understand those having a problem with the values of rural people), but I would submit that an electoral system shouldn't be designed based on whether you like the politics of a certain group of people. That's the same kind of thinking that keeps D.C. from getting representation.

You seem to be operating under the premise that it costs the same amount of money to run an advertisement in a huge market like New York City as it does to run one in a small market like, say, Mopntgomery Alabama. You raise the matter of "cost effective" without even considering the matter of cost in even a simple way. Without resorting to your tone. I'd simply disagree.

You idea of "still focus [on one thing]" but then "focus even more [on another]" also suggests to me that your use of the term "focus" isn't the same as mine. So it goes, I guess.

I'm sorry if you are offended by my tone. I only saw one spot where my tone was incendiary and I retracted that before your post, though admittedly not necessarily before you were composing it. If you saw more to my tone it was not intended.

Also, I have mentioned the cost effectiveness of time which everyone has ignored and to me it's the more limiting factor. Money isn't that big a deal really in that even the lesser funding of the parties isn't hurting to advertise where they want. You can't be in two places at the same time though and there is a limited campaign season.

My use of the term focus is based on allocating limited resources in certain areas. What's yours? Maybe we aren't talking the same thing.

Well it works both ways. For example, there are lots of progressive areas isolated in southern states that have the rest of the state dictating politics to them. I don't understand why everyone approaches this from a "Urban area-bad" perspective. I can understand if people have a problem with the values of those in urban areas (as I also understand those having a problem with the values of rural people), but I would submit that an electoral system shouldn't be designed based on whether you like the politics of a certain group of people. That's the same kind of thinking that keeps D.C. from getting representation.

I would never say urban area = bad but I would say that rural area issues are valid issues and these issues may get short shrift if they're underrepresented. My opinion is based on representation not who is right or who is wrong.

But, by and large, the urban centers are sucking a lot of money and support from the rest of us, so they should be more than satisfied with the status quo. If they want even more, they should be prepared for the backlash.

I'd like to see some numbers on this, especially since I'd assume the vast majority of tax revenue comes from urban centers.

Not to worry about tone.


As for resources... I think that a national campaign does indeed value money first, and time second. And that's in the context where only a limited number of locations really "matter" -- when each side can quickly decided not to spend any money of consequence (and time also, admittedly) in maybe 35 out of 50 states... and later in the campaign, even more than that. But even in the current system, money is still king. Television is still what moves the numbers, and television isn't about time, it's about money.

Expand the campaig to everywhere, where every vote really does count, and the media/money challenge expands multifold. You can't just ignore Illinois or Georgia anymore, just because it's expected to go 58/42... you'd still get credit for those votes if you move 50,000 people in that state. So many many more media markets, and a far greater need for money, first and foremost.

As I said above... I don't think the specifics of the candidate's location at any particular time are that important in a national election. You get your candidate to go stand in front of a steel plant and talk about tariffs, and get it picked up on the national network of your choice... it doesn't really matter whether the plant itself is in Pennsylvania or Minnesota all that much, in my view.

I would never say urban area = bad but I would say that rural area issues are valid issues and these issues may get short shrift if they're underrepresented. My opinion is based on representation not who is right or who is wrong.

But again, Bush won the popular vote even though he appealed more to rural area issues. So that tells me that there are enough rural issue voters to counteract urban issue voters.

Well it works both ways. For example, there are lots of progressive areas isolated in southern states that have the rest of the state dictating politics to them. I don't understand why everyone approaches this from a "Urban area-bad" perspective. I can understand if people have a problem with the values of those in urban areas (as I also understand those having a problem with the values of rural people), but I would submit that an electoral system shouldn't be designed based on whether you like the politics of a certain group of people. That's the same kind of thinking that keeps D.C. from getting representation.

Of course it works both ways. My point is that our country's major urban centers already have huge associated political perks. As someone who doesn't want to live in a major city, I would like to imagine a situation where my vote will count, where my issues will be heard. I see things as "urban area = bad" because of money issues. People who live in states that happen to have a huge urban area pay a huge tax for that. And they have very little representation in state politics.

I think the EC is a good compromise, even though it doesn't do what it originally set out to do. I think states should do the same thing, by county or by township.

I'd like to see some numbers on this, especially since I'd assume the vast majority of tax revenue comes from urban centers.

A quick google shows the following:

http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/20001204/200/148

which references a report I don't really want to read right now. :)

The contention is


"There's a myth, perpetuated by upstate newspapers, that New York City is draining money out of the state treasury," said Assemblyman Edward C. Sullivan.

But statistics point otherwise. The Center for Governmental Research released a recent report that showed that New York City "contributes significantly more in revenue than it receives in state funds."

Upstate areas receive $1.41 in state aid for every tax dollar contributed, while New York City breaks even, the report states. Likewise, the upstate area, with the exception of Rochester County, receives much more than their share of state spending.

Since I am also curious and instinctively feel you are correct this is as far as I'm googling. It was the first result I got. :)

No, but a democrat could and maybe more. Direct elections would certainly provide them an incentive to continue to strive to reach this point.

But there is a wall. As I've said, people get sick of you after a while. Their is only so much you can say. There is a level of diminishing returns the longer you stay in a state because people have already heard what you have to offer.



So, you really just want more personal attention from the candidate you support? I can understand the sentiment. We all want to feel the politicians care about us.

Not really, this isn't about me and I don't see what led you to that conclusion. I'm simply refuting the assertion that a direct election system would necessarily favor urban areas over rural areas by pointing out the fact that rural areas get extremely screwed under the current system.

QS- This is somewhat of a tangent, but you're leaving out all the free media a candidate gets with a visit. The real advantage of going to Peoria or Columbus or wherever is that the local media will give the candidate plenty of free air time covering the visit. In our modern system that's the main benefit of a visit.

Of course this doesn't effect the argument about the electoral college as its true no matter what system is in place.

I understand the value of local media... and I'd argue it's not at all what it once was. Television campaigns, and major sweeping issues, are what decide national elections. Visits to the local nursing home are fine, but don't end up moving real numbers.

I think the EC is a good compromise, even though it doesn't do what it originally set out to do. I think states should do the same thing, by county or by township.

Can't do it on a state level. SCOTUS would strike it down, per Baker v. Carr.

But again, Bush won the popular vote even though he appealed more to rural area issues. So that tells me that there are enough rural issue voters to counteract urban issue voters.

He'd have never had that chance under your system since he lost in 2k. In 2k4 he was the incumbant which gets a bump and fighting a war ( we've never failed to reelect an incumbant who ran for reelection during a war ) which was also huge. It wasn't about urban vs rural in 2k4.

But there is a wall. As I've said, people get sick of you after a while. Their is only so much you can say. There is a level of diminishing returns the longer you stay in a state because people have already heard what you have to offer.

But it's not one state. It's several big states. There's not enough time to overstay your welcome in all the bigger states necessitating your visiting the small ones.


Not really, this isn't about me and I don't see what led you to that conclusion. I'm simply refuting the assertion that a direct election system would necessarily favor urban areas over rural areas by pointing out the fact that rural areas get extremely screwed under the current system.

It was the following quote.


Under the electoral college system, there is much less incentive for Bush to go to Alabama or Idaho. Going there wouldn't have done him a thing in 2000 or 2004. But spending all that time in Florida and Ohio did make sense and it's what got him elected.


I said you meaning your state but admittedly that may not be what you meant. I contend that under either system he would still go to Fl and Ohio over Alabama and Idaho and that's what my point was about.

He'd have never had that chance under your system since he lost in 2k. In 2k4 he was the incumbant which gets a bump and fighting a war ( we've never failed to reelect an incumbant who ran for reelection during a war ) which was also huge. It wasn't about urban vs rural in 2k4.

Look at the vote distribution in 2004. Bush won the most rural areas and Kerry won the most urban areas. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just who they appeal to.

In your 2000 example, the election was so close that it's hard to tell who would have won in a direct election format. But I will note that Gore was already campaigning in the populous areas due to the electoral college format, because those were the states where he had the best chance. Bush had more to gain by opening up extra states than Gore did.

Can't do it on a state level. SCOTUS would strike it down, per Baker v. Carr.

States are entitled to apportion their EC slate as they see fit -- Baker v. Carr doesn't preclude a proportional system, where each state sends delegates in the closest propostion to the popular vote. True, you can't just send one person per county or something that is glaringly imbalanced... but you certainly could have a system where each congressional district sends a delegate whose candidate won the popular vote in that district, and then sends two at-large delegates decided either by the popular vote, or (if they prefer) split to more fairly reflect the state's actual vote count.

States have a lot of leeway, within the "one [person] one vote" context.

I understand the value of local media... and I'd argue it's not at all what it once was. Television campaigns, and major sweeping issues, are what decide national elections. Visits to the local nursing home are fine, but don't end up moving real numbers.

Are you factoring in the third party spending which doesn't count against a campaign's spending limit? I don't have numbers on this so I may be wrong but it seems this money is making the whole cost of advertising thing more moot and it's a factor in what I'm saying about time being a more limiting factor.

Also, since no one has really provided numbers I fall with GrantDawg in feeling


Not to comment on the rest of your post, but the answer to this question is "yes." I don't know who these people are (I'm not one of them) but there is always a swing of support that follows a visit. That (and campaign money) is the reason the candidates make so many stops during an election cycle. There are no commercials, posters, radio ads etc. that equals the bump a candidate gets from a visit.


which explains a lot about why we disagree in this argument.

States are entitled to apportion their EC slate as they see fit -- Baker v. Carr doesn't preclude a proportional system, where each state sends delegates in the closest propostion to the popular vote. True, you can't just send one person per county or something that is glaringly imbalanced... but you certainly could have a system where each congressional district sends a delegate whose candidate won the popular vote in that district, and then sends two at-large delegates decided either by the popular vote, or (if they prefer) split to more fairly reflect the state's actual vote count.

State's have a lot of leeway, within the "one [person] one vote" context.

I wasn't talking about the Electoral College slate. Of course they can choose their own method. The consitution gives that authority to the legislature.

Jim was talking about setting up state government in an EC system (i.e. the state legislature where each city/town gets a certain amount of EC votes). That's the system that was used in the south for a long time to disenfranchise blacks and is what Baker v. Carr was all about.

I contend that under either system he would still go to Fl and Ohio over Alabama and Idaho and that's what my point was about.

I think you're benefitting from the coincidence here that the big/small state split also happens to be the same as the swing/lock state split in that example. Under the EC, in a modern election, both Alabama and Idaho are solidly red, and thus out of anyone's focus -- but it's not because they are small states.

A fairer comparison might be Florida versus Illinois. Both aree large states rich with votes. Under the EC, Illinois is pretty solidly blue, and therefore largely ignored -- to the benefot of a state like Florida, which is a "swing" state. Both candidates bang on Florida like crazy, and rightfully so. Switch to direct elections, and suddenly those voters in Illinois are worth reaching, since movememnt there counts just as much as movement anywhere else.


Actually, if we were to go to pure direct election, I think the real shift would be toward more national focus -- more issue-based national media campaigns, and more focus on swing issues, rather than swing locations. I think the geographic oddities would break down largely, since there would be votes to move everywhere, not just in certain places (either based on big/small states or swing/lock states).

Look at the vote distribution in 2004. Bush won the most rural areas and Kerry won the most urban areas. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just who they appeal to.

In your 2000 example, the election was so close that it's hard to tell who would have won in a direct election format. But I will note that Gore was already campaigning in the populous areas due to the electoral college format, because those were the states where he had the best chance. Bush had more to gain by opening up extra states than Gore did.

From the government itself

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

If we're goint to say that Gore didn't win the popular vote and thus wuold have won a direct election then I really don't see how we can proceed in this discussion since you want to use the numbers when they suit you 2k4 but dispute them when they don't.

Fact is, they're all we have to go on. If we say we don't know what would have happened in 2k in a direct election format we also don't know how 2k4 would have turned out under the same formula so we either use both examples or deny both of them. Can't have it both ways.

Jim was talking about setting up state government in an EC system (i.e. the state legislature where each city/town gets a certain amount of EC votes). That's the system that was used in the south for a long time to disenfranchise blacks and is what Baker v. Carr was all about.

Gotcha... and agreed. I missed his point originally.

Of course it works both ways. My point is that our country's major urban centers already have huge associated political perks. As someone who doesn't want to live in a major city, I would like to imagine a situation where my vote will count, where my issues will be heard. I see things as "urban area = bad" because of money issues. People who live in states that happen to have a huge urban area pay a huge tax for that. And they have very little representation in state politics.

But even in your scenario, the same thing would happen, just on a smaller scale. A city or town could be heavily divided and the 49.9% would have to deal with their values/money whatever being decided in a way that offends their own beliefs.

I mean, here in Georgia, I don't like having the rural part of the state legislating their morality. But I'm clearly in the minority on that.

Everyone arguing that the Electoral College gives small states a say is ignoring reality. Every election the "battleground" states are populus states anyway (Florida & Ohio this last time around, with Pennsylvania close behind). Even if Small State A is split 50-50, you're still not going to see a lot of Presidential campaigning there because it's just 2 electoral votes.

With direct election, these small states still might not get a lot of attention, but the Presidential election will be a lot more relevant for, say, voters living in rural Illinois (or, heck, even suburban Chicago).

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer votes. Basically, that's wrong. In 2000, the Electoral College said "Because you appealed to slightly more people in Ohio and Florida than the other guy, who appealed to considerably more people nationwide, you get to be President." You can construct a similar quote for Nixon/Kennedy if you wanted to look up the states in question.

Edit: Gah, beaten to my points by the fast-moving thread.

I think you're benefitting from the coincidence here that the big/small state split also happens to be the same as the swing/lock state split in that example. Under the EC, in a modern election, both Alabama and Idaho are solidly red, and thus out of anyone's focus -- but it's not because they are small states.

A fairer comparison might be Florida versus Illinois. Both aree large states rich with votes. Under the EC, Illinois is pretty solidly blue, and therefore largely ignored -- to the benefot of a state like Florida, which is a "swing" state. Both candidates bang on Florida like crazy, and rightfully so. Switch to direct elections, and suddenly those voters in Illinois are worth reaching, since movememnt there counts just as much as movement anywhere else.

One of my objections I touched on earlier is the use of the word ignored. These states aren't ignored. Years of organization and hard work and local focus goes into their parties becoming entrenched and becoming locked down states. In a two party system this is as valid a part of the election campaign as anything else.


Actually, if we were to go to pure direct election, I think the real shift would be toward more national focus -- more issue-based national media campaigns, and more focus on swing issues, rather than swing locations. I think the geographic oddities would break down largely, since there would be votes to move everywhere, not just in certain places (either based on big/small states or swing/lock states).


It's an interesting concept and has merit but it puts a lot of faith in people not putting their own personal issues ahead of more altruistic issues and I don't necessarily see that happening. Again, I'm not speaking of the campaigns but of the voters which the campaigns must after all win over.

I like the idea of a direct election. I'd be very interested to see the turnout of the minority party in states that lean heavily one way or the other. It'd be the first time in a long time that a liberal in Utah or a conservative in Maryland feel like they have a reason to vote. As it is one party or the other gets credit for the entire state, so a lot of votes don't "count".

I think that's a more significant point than the idea that candidates won't visit some areas as much during the campaign.

Everyone arguing that the Electoral College gives small states a say is ignoring reality. Every election the "battleground" states are populus states anyway (Florida & Ohio this last time around, with Pennsylvania close behind). Even if Small State A is split 50-50, you're still not going to see a lot of Presidential campaigning there because it's just 2 electoral votes.

With direct election, these small states still might not get a lot of attention, but the Presidential election will be a lot more relevant for, say, voters living in rural Illinois (or, heck, even suburban Chicago).

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer votes. Basically, that's wrong. In 2000, the Electoral College said "Because you appealed to slightly more people in Ohio and Florida than the other guy, who appealed to considerably more people nationwide, you get to be President." You can construct a similar quote for Nixon/Kennedy if you wanted to look up the states in question.

IMHO, that's not seeing the forest for the trees. The only reason that these states are swing states now is because enough small states are red that they balance the more populous blue states leaving these larger more moderate states as the deciders.

From the government itself

http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm

If we're goint to say that Gore didn't win the popular vote and thus wuold have won a direct election then I really don't see how we can proceed in this discussion since you want to use the numbers when they suit you 2k4 but dispute them when they don't.

Fact is, they're all we have to go on. If we say we don't know what would have happened in 2k in a direct election format we also don't know how 2k4 would have turned out under the same formula so we either use both examples or deny both of them. Can't have it both ways.

But I don't think the results in 2000 go against my argument. Of course a candidate appealing to a urban issues would win some times under a direct election system. But the fact that the last two elections were so close show that there are enough rural issues out there to counteract the urban voters. If anything, I'd argue that the reason Gore won the popular vote is because he had more appeal to rural voters than Kerry did. This would even further my point.

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer votes. Basically, that's wrong. In 2000, the Electoral College said "Because you appealed to slightly more people in Ohio and Florida than the other guy, who appealed to considerably more people nationwide, you get to be President." You can construct a similar quote for Nixon/Kennedy if you wanted to look up the states in question.


Hmm, roughly 500k more voters out of 100m is considerably more? Seems suspect to me. I had the numbers already googled. :)

Better stop this now because defending this administration isn't something I want to do but I do hate obviously slanted semantics like this.

Hmm, roughly 50k more voters out of 100m is considerably more? Seems suspect to me. I had the numbers already googled. :)

Better stop this now because defending this administration isn't something I want to do but I do hate obviously slanted semantics like this.

The % difference in Florida was much smaller than the % difference nationwide, which is what I think he was talking about.

IMHO, that's not seeing the forest for the trees. The only reason that these states are swing states now is because enough small states are red that they balance the more populous blue states leaving these larger more moderate states as the deciders.

No, there are plenty of small (population-wise) blue states.

If anything, I'd argue that the reason Gore won the popular vote is because he had more appeal to rural voters than Kerry did. This would even further my point.

Maybe but I think the factors I cited for Bush's win are far more significant and the fact that he barely won given those advantages didn't bode well for his second term.

Hmm, roughly 50k more voters out of 100m is considerably more? Seems suspect to me. I had the numbers already googled. :)



You mean 500k, right? It was 543,895 according to the link you provided.

To follow up my last post. The % difference in Florida was .01% and the nationwide difference was .5%

That's actually a pretty big difference.

Hmm, roughly 50k more voters out of 100m is considerably more? Seems suspect to me. I had the numbers already googled. :)


You're missing my point. In each case (Bush/Gore in 2000, Nixon/Kennedy in 1960) the Electoral College made it so that the choices of small numbers of voters in particular states overrode the choices of the majority of voters nationwide. It's about the choices of the few dictating the choice of the many.

No, there are plenty of small (population-wise) blue states.

I'm missing where I said all. Are you seriously going to argue that there wasn't a substantial difference between who won the urban vote vs who won the heartland?

You mean 500k, right? It was 543,895 according to the link you provided.

Yep. I mistyped. Couldn't cut and paste. I'll fix it.

You're missing my point. In each case (Bush/Gore in 2000, Nixon/Kennedy in 1960) the Electoral College made it so that the choices of small numbers of voters in particular states overrode the choices of the majority of voters nationwide. It's about the choices of the few dictating the choice of the many.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but Kennedy won the popular vote.

<table class="wikitable"> <tbody><tr><th rowspan="2">Presidential Candidate</th> <th rowspan="2">Party</th> <th rowspan="2">Home State</th> <th colspan="2">Popular Vote</th> <th rowspan="2">Electoral Vote</th> <th rowspan="2">Running Mate</th> <th rowspan="2">Running Mate's
Home State</th> <th rowspan="2">Running Mate's
Electoral Vote</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Count</th> <th>Percentage</th> </tr> <tr> <td>John Fitzgerald Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy)</td> <td>Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party)</td> <td>Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts)</td> <td style="text-align: right;">34,220,984^(a)</td> <td style="text-align: right;">49.9%</td> <td style="text-align: right;">303</td> <td>Lyndon Baines Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson)</td> <td>Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)</td> <td style="text-align: right;">303</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Richard Milhous Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Nixon)</td> <td>Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party)</td> <td>California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California)</td> <td style="text-align: right;">34,108,157</td> <td style="text-align: right;">49.6%</td> <td style="text-align: right;">21</td></tr></tbody> </table>

You're missing my point. In each case (Bush/Gore in 2000, Nixon/Kennedy in 1960) the Electoral College made it so that the choices of small numbers of voters in particular states overrode the choices of the majority of voters nationwide. It's about the choices of the few dictating the choice of the many.

I can understand the point and agree with it but the way you stated it seemed misleading to me.

Oh, and it's not the few, it's the slightly fewer. Don't continue to use the over exaggerations. .5% is not the few, it's the slightly fewer. :)

Of course, that's exactly what the electoral college was set up to allow. ;)

The election of the U.S. president should reflect the directly expressed will of the American people.

But it doesn't.

The current Electoral College system can produce perverse results: A candidate can lose the popular vote and win the Electoral College vote and, thus, the presidency. That has happened several times in American history, most recently in 2000. With the nation so closely divided politically, this is likely to be an ongoing problem, undermining the legitimacy of our presidential elections.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Polls for the last 30 years have shown that Americans overwhelmingly support direct election of the president, but Congress hasn't budged on a constitutional amendment.

Funny that the writer doesn't elaborate on this statement. What polls? I'd be willing to bet that they are "popular vote" polls where a large percentage of those polled are from large population centers that would benefit from a change.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but Kennedy won the popular vote.

<table class="wikitable"> <tbody><tr><th rowspan="2">Presidential Candidate</th> <th rowspan="2">Party</th> <th rowspan="2">Home State</th> <th colspan="2">Popular Vote</th> <th rowspan="2">Electoral Vote</th> <th rowspan="2">Running Mate</th> <th rowspan="2">Running Mate's
Home State</th> <th rowspan="2">Running Mate's
Electoral Vote</th> </tr> <tr> <th>Count</th> <th>Percentage</th> </tr> <tr> <td>John Fitzgerald Kennedy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy)</td> <td>Democratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party)</td> <td>Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts)</td> <td style="text-align: right;">34,220,984^(a)</td> <td style="text-align: right;">49.9%</td> <td style="text-align: right;">303</td> <td>Lyndon Baines Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_Johnson)</td> <td>Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas)</td> <td style="text-align: right;">303</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Richard Milhous Nixon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_M._Nixon)</td> <td>Republican (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party)</td> <td>California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California)</td> <td style="text-align: right;">34,108,157</td> <td style="text-align: right;">49.6%</td> <td style="text-align: right;">21</td></tr></tbody> </table>

Ouch, but that election was rigged anyway. ;)

But even in your scenario, the same thing would happen, just on a smaller scale. A city or town could be heavily divided and the 49.9% would have to deal with their values/money whatever being decided in a way that offends their own beliefs.

I mean, here in Georgia, I don't like having the rural part of the state legislating their morality. But I'm clearly in the minority on that.

You have to find that compromise point. Do you declare sovereignty to the world, to the country, to the state, to the county, to the town or to the neighborhood?

A little of each is the best solution. Right now, I believe states are grabbing too much power because of the dynamic that one large city has so much voting control.

It's difficult to find a breakdown of tax revenue/spending. In Michigan, it's pretty obvious that Detroit eats revenue. They can't even collect their own taxes, the local government is so ineffective.

But how do you count big cities that have efficiency, like NYC? Since these are destinations, they generate revenue spent by people from other areas. How do you count the revenue from those businesses?

Ouch, but that election was rigged anyway. ;)

So was 2000, but I think that's outside the scope of our argument. :)

Funny that the writer doesn't elaborate on this statement. What polls? I'd be willing to bet that they are "popular vote" polls where a large percentage of those polled are from large population centers that would benefit from a change.

Well, as the original poster pointed out it is an opinion piece so it's not that unusual for him not to elaborate on this.

On your point, I'd be willing to bet that there are popular vote polls where a large percentage of those polled believe professional wrestling is real. ;)

So was 2000, but I think that's outside the scope of our argument. :)

Yeah, but in 1960 the right candidate won. ;)

The notion that urban areas are somehow too dominant in elections is fascinating to me. It's not like the representation is apportioned based on the number of tall buildings or anything... the reason that Chicago and Detroit and New York City dominate their state elections is pretty straightforward -- that's where the people are.

This reminds me of the hubbub made over the red-and-blue map showing who won each county in the USA. Great, very valuable information. The 30,000 people living in some geographically gigantic county out west voted red, and shows up as a big red square. Some dense conclave of a major city with 800,000 people voted blue, and gets a tiny speck of blue. Outrage! Outrage!

Other than just disagreeing with the politics of people who live in big cities, what does this accomplish?

Well, as the original poster pointed out it is an opinion piece so it's not that unusual for him not to elaborate on this.

Agreed, but being an opinion piece doesn't excuse laziness in writing to me. Then again, I'm a lazy hypocrite.

I'd like to see the results of a poll showing that the change has a 2/3 majority of the overall poll (representing the House), and a majority in at least 38 states (the state approval process plus the Senate aspect). That's what an Amendment would require.

I would like to know if "overwhelmingly" is or is not 67% or more.

Right. I don't see why it matters if 8 million people live close together or if the same 8 million lived far apart.

The notion that urban areas are somehow too dominant in elections is fascinating to me. It's not like the representation is apportioned based on the number of tall buildings or anything... the reason that Chicago and Detroit and New York City dominate their state elections is pretty straightforward -- that's where the people are.

This reminds me of the hubbub made over the red-and-blue map showing who won each county in the USA. Great, very valuable information. The 30,000 people living in some geographically gigantic county out west voted red, and shows up as a big red square. Some dense conclave of a major city with 800,000 people voted blue, and gets a tiny speck of blue. Outrage! Outrage!

Other than just disagreeing with the politics of people who live in big cities, what does this accomplish?

For clarity, I am not saying that national politics are too dominated by urban areas. Then again, I'm not the one advocating change.

I think the system works fairly well now. I think that a change to a direct election could result in urban dominance. That's why I'm against it.

I don't know how everyone else feels but I think there is a misconception here about what is being discussed and everyone is runnng with it.

For clarity, I am not saying that national politics are too dominated by urban areas. Then again, I'm not the one advocating change.

I think the system works fairly well now. I think that a change to a direct election could result in urban dominance. That's why I'm against it.

I don't know how everyone else feels but I think there is a misconception here about what is being discussed and everyone is runnng with it.

I think he's more responding to Jim's point than yours.

Agreed, but being an opinion piece doesn't excuse laziness in writing to me. Then again, I'm a lazy hypocrite.

I'd like to see the results of a poll showing that the change has a 2/3 majority of the overall poll (representing the House), and a majority in at least 38 states (the state approval process plus the Senate aspect). That's what an Amendment would require.

I would like to know if "overwhelmingly" is or is not 67% or more.

If the poll shows a 2/3 majority I'd say the source is likely QuikSand so I'd ask him for the site. ;)

QuikSand does not use the internally inconsistent phrase "2/3 majority" despite his clear fondness for said fraction.

I think he's more responding to Jim's point than yours.

Gotcha. Thanks.

QuikSand does not use the internally inconsistent phrase "2/3 majority" despite his clear fondness for said fraction.

Nice. I thought QuikSand once mentioned that if one needed to highlight certain phrases in his sentences for emphasis then said writer should construct his sentences better. ;)

All joking aside, I think you were specifically talking about UPPER CASE but that is some of the best, most useful advise I've ever been given. :)

How is it internally inconsistent?

BTW, I'd have to say this is definitely the best political thread that I've seen here in a long time.

The electoral college was created as a *compromise* so that smaller states would agree to join the union with the big states. Over the course of our nation; the compromise has granted the smaller states an election outcome change maybe 5% of the time (at best). A small price to pay for the larger states if you ask me.

Regardless, it takes 3/4 of the states to agree. Lot's of small states out there.

BTW, I'd have to say this is definitely the best political thread that I've seen here in a long time.'

Give it time...give it time.

The people who created it lived in a time where there was no television, no radio, no internet and news stories took days, even weeks, to get from one part of the nation to another. The reason the electorial college was created was because all of the electorates would be in one place, know all of the news and issues, and be generally well informed on the politics of the day while their constituants back on the farm with no electricity in the middle of nowhere wouldn't.

Those reasons are quite outdated. Especially now that the vast majority of states have laws that state all electorates must vote the way their state's popular vote goes. The way the electorial college is set up is not the same as it was back then. The electorial college has only got one more step in a line of several steps to go before it's abolished for good.

It is the other reasons that aren't outdated. You know the ones where low population areas wouldn't agree to another system. That is what will preserve the electoral college system in the end.

The electoral college was created as a *compromise* so that smaller states would agree to join the union with the big states. Over the course of our nation; the compromise has granted the smaller states an election outcome change maybe 5% of the time (at best). A small price to pay for the larger states if you ask me.

Regardless, it takes 3/4 of the states to agree. Lot's of small states out there.

Again, why would small states currently support the electoral college? It does absolutely nothing for Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

And the compromise had to do with the Senate and House representation, not the electoral college.

Again, why would small states currently support the electoral college? It does absolutely nothing for Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana Vermont, Mississippi, etc.

And the compromise had to do with the Senate and House representation, not the electoral college.

This isn't a concept that these states share obviously.

It's controversial and the prevailing wisdom seems to be that they are better served by the current system. This is a belief that I agree with but if I took the opposing view I'd likely say that it's a lot easier to change than to change back so barring overwhelming evidence to the contrary, the status quo is easier to maintain, and safer. That's human nature.

I'm not sure which states benefit from the electoral college outside of the vague definition of "small" vs "large". Anybody care to fill me in?

The electoral college was created two-fold.

1. To give small states some representation against the powerhouses like New York and Virginia (in the day, of course).

2. To ensure the population wasn't 'hoodwinked' by a dictator of some sort.

...

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer votes. Basically, that's wrong. ...


...

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer popular votes, but the most electoral college votes. Basically, that's exactly how the system is supposed to work. ...


At least that's how I see it.

I'm not sure which states benefit from the electoral college outside of the vague definition of "small" vs "large". Anybody care to fill me in?

The electoral college was created two-fold.

1. To give small states some representation against the powerhouses like New York and Virginia (in the day, of course).

2. To ensure the population wasn't 'hoodwinked' by a dictator of some sort.

I have just started reading this article but it's long and starts well. :)

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KVD/is_3_3/ai_n6142000

At least that's how I see it.

Agreed.

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

So yeah, the person with the most electoral votes winning is exactly how it's supposed to work. Nobody disagrees with that. We're arguing that it should be changed.

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.


Oh, I'd argue that he shouldn't have won either election but like you said, that's for a different thread. :)

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

So yeah, the person with the most electoral votes winning is exactly how it's supposed to work. Nobody disagrees with that. We're arguing that it should be changed.

I think he's referrring to the last line in this quote


Originally Posted by flere-imsaho
...

Overall, though, it's very simple: Twice in the modern era, the Electoral College has given the Presidency to the candidate who received fewer votes. Basically, that's wrong. ...

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

So yeah, the person with the most electoral votes winning is exactly how it's supposed to work. Nobody disagrees with that. We're arguing that it should be changed.

Do the smaller states get the option of ceding from the union if you take back the compromise that joined the states to begin with?

Um, I don't understand that post at all. No one is arguing that Bush shouldn't have won (at least not in this thread). We're arguing that it should be changed.

So yeah, the person with the most electoral votes winning is exactly how it's supposed to work. Nobody disagrees with that. We're arguing that it should be changed.
I'm arguing that it shouldn't change. The same I did before the 2000 election when the theory that Gore might win the electoral college and lose the popular vote was proposed. I think the system works perfectly fine.

Edit: I should note that I was sort of pulling for Gore in 2000.

I think it'll be funny in 20 years when all the red states are full of immigrants who are then citizens. 10 or 15 percent of a population is a lot more than people realize, especially if they're organized and they vote in blocs.

Things are gonna change a lot. And I don't mean to the left or the right. I just think that the rules for what parties dominate and how the power structure is setup is going to change...a lot sooner than people think.

Yup.

Well, under a direct-vote system, it doesn't even have to be all the red states or all the blue states. In theory, you could see more regional parties pop up, or yes, possibly "immigrant" parties. It would require one heck of a block vote, but I suppose it's not entirely out of the question. A candidate wouldn't need to be on 50 ballots (if the criteria even stayed the same) to be considered a "national" candidate. If there was a Dem, a Rep, a Latino candidate and a Black candidate for instance, I wonder if the vote could be sufficiently segmented to be interesting...

The notion that urban areas are somehow too dominant in elections is fascinating to me. It's not like the representation is apportioned based on the number of tall buildings or anything... the reason that Chicago and Detroit and New York City dominate their state elections is pretty straightforward -- that's where the people are.

This reminds me of the hubbub made over the red-and-blue map showing who won each county in the USA. Great, very valuable information. The 30,000 people living in some geographically gigantic county out west voted red, and shows up as a big red square. Some dense conclave of a major city with 800,000 people voted blue, and gets a tiny speck of blue. Outrage! Outrage!

Other than just disagreeing with the politics of people who live in big cities, what does this accomplish?

So, you'd do away with cities and states as political boundaries entirely then?

That argument could be made as the fairest of all solutions.

I feel bad for the residents of, for example, a city of maybe 30,000 that's in the same congressional district and county as a huge city in a medium-to-large state. They get zero representation on the national level, the state level and the county level. It's likely that their state has gone through educational "reform," which means the local tax rate is even out of their hands. That adds up to almost complete disenfranchisement.

Many of us can't choose exactly where we live. I can, and I appreciate that. For those of us who can, why do we make the choices we make? Aren't there significant differences in just a few miles of land?

I think there are really good reasons to break down our country into small administrative units. We do this, quite successfully I may add, with states. The states also allow for some political experimentation which can then be adopted, or not, on a national level. Of course if we were starting with a blank slate today I'm not sure we'd end up with the same 50 states we actually have today.

Do the smaller states get the option of ceding from the union if you take back the compromise that joined the states to begin with?

Except as I've already discussed, the compromise you are talking about dealt with House/Senate representation and not the Electoral College.

And still, no one has convinced me that smaller states would be screwed under a direct vote system. Part of the reason I'm arguing for it is because I think it would help smaller states (like the many I listed before).

I think he's referrring to the last line in this quote

Right I get that, but I think he was talking about it being wrong on a philosophical level (i.e. the way the system is set up is wrong) while the response seemed to imply he was saying that the result itself was wrong.

Oh, I'd argue that he shouldn't have won either election but like you said, that's for a different thread. :)

Well I meant no one is arguing he shouldn't have been declared the winner because of the popular vote. But yeah I agree there are many other reasons, but we can get into that a different time.

I feel bad for the residents of, for example, a city of maybe 30,000 that's in the same congressional district and county as a huge city in a medium-to-large state. They get zero representation on the national level, the state level and the county level.

I see that differently... I see each voter getting exactly the same representation on those levels as any other voter. It's not like (as I think you even suggested earlier) that a slight majority of people in that adjoining big city means that the city's cotes all get cast in one big block. Each person casts one vote, and they all count the same to elect someone district-wide.

I see your point... but there are always going to be minority views in any representative system. We vote, and the winner takes the seat, that's how it works. The notion that "urban" versus "rural" is somehow so significantly different than any of the myriad differences among voters in any election is beyond me... unless, once again, we're just trying to concoct an argument to lessen the influence of people we disagee with politically.

How is it internally inconsistent?

The term "majority" simply means more on the prevailing side than on the losing side, period. More than 50%, that is a majority.

Two-thirds is a sort of super-majority, which inhenrlty is saying that a majority is not enough -- the standard is set higher. The standard is a two-third vote.

Technically, there is no melding of the two standards -- in this context, they are exclusive. Some things call for a majority, some call for a two-thirds vote, there is no such thing as a "two thirds majority."

So, you'd do away with cities and states as political boundaries entirely then?

That argument could be made as the fairest of all solutions.

I fail to see how that follows from anything I have argued... but no, I wouldn't argue that. What I wouold argue, however, is that when an office represents a certain area, that the simplest and most effective way to elect that representative is to give every voter an equal vote, count them up, and award the office to the person who got the most votes.

For city Alderman of District 4 in Podunktown, that means direct election by the voters of District 4. For Mayor of Podunktown, that means direct election by the voters of the whole city. For the Congressman who represents Podunktown and several adjoining areas, that means direct election by all the people in town and in the rest of the district, all lumped together. For president, that means all Americans, lumped together. I don't think there's anything internally inconsistent about that view.

In my mind, that has to be your starting point. Certainly it's imaginable that a certain sort of political compromise might be necessary to get everyone to buy into a system at some point... I can recognize the realities of such things. But from where we sit, just fiddling around on a message board, it seems fair to me to have this be an open discussion about "what woudl be best." To me, you start with: the winner is the just one with the most votes.

I think there are really good reasons to break down our country into small administrative units. We do this, quite successfully I may add, with states. The states also allow for some political experimentation which can then be adopted, or not, on a national level. Of course if we were starting with a blank slate today I'm not sure we'd end up with the same 50 states we actually have today.

Scariest post in this thread, maybe ever. The perfect spokesman for the 'New World Order.' In fact this idea points very dramatically to the future path of this country.

Will we continue to be a Federal system of soverign states ruled (in theory) bottom up by the people? Or, as this poster advocates, junk the Constitution and reform this country as the ultimate 'state' being run top-down from Washington thru a series of buearacratic 'departments' charged with nothing more than carrying out the will of 'those in charge' at the top?

Sir, when your vision of the future occurs you will see why the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea.

I fail to see how that follows from anything I have argued... but no, I wouldn't argue that. What I wouold argue, however, is that when an office represents a certain area, that the simplest and most effective way to elect that representative is to give every voter an equal vote, count them up, and award the office to the person who got the most votes.

For city Alderman of District 4 in Podunktown, that means direct election by the voters of District 4. For Mayor of Podunktown, that means direct election by the voters of the whole city. For the Congressman who represents Podunktown and several adjoining areas, that means direct election by all the people in town and in the rest of the district, all lumped together. For president, that means all Americans, lumped together. I don't think there's anything internally inconsistent about that view.

In my mind, that has to be your starting point. Certainly it's imaginable that a certain sort of political compromise might be necessary to get everyone to buy into a system at some point... I can recognize the realities of such things. But from where we sit, just fiddling around on a message board, it seems fair to me to have this be an open discussion about "what woudl be best." To me, you start with: the winner is the just one with the most votes.

But how divide people into these political districts, and how much power each district has, is extremely important.

While dividing urban and rural per se might not seem all that relevant, should voters who are nowhere near and will never use an expensive light rail system be forced to pay for the system? Should an entire state have to pay for a large city's $400 million baseball park? Should the entire country pay for the New Orleans city planners' failure to anticipate flooding?

Problems arise when items that should be paid locally end up coming from larger budgets.

So, how do you divide the people in a fair manner? Some would say racial gerrymandering is necessary because only a black person can represent a group of black voters (of course, to suggest the opposite gets you branded as a KKK member). It's not practical to run a true democracy, where every item is put to the people.

To me, one of the most important distinctions is between urban and suburban. And the suburban middle class in large states dominated by one or two large cities just doesn't have much of a voice in America right now. It's not exactly a popular cause (in fact, rallying against it is a Democrat specialty right now, which is why I'm not a Democrat even though George Bush is about as far from ideal as any leader I could imagine). Because of the way things are set up, this entire demographic is safely ignored by both parties on a national level.

There's no easy way to divide things. And maybe there's no way to divide things that's both fair and practical. If anything, I just wish there was a viable third party in America today.

Scariest post in this thread, maybe ever. The perfect spokesman for the 'New World Order.' In fact this idea points very dramatically to the future path of this country.

Will we continue to be a Federal system of soverign states ruled (in theory) bottom up by the people? Or, as this poster advocates, junk the Constitution and reform this country as the ultimate 'state' being run top-down from Washington thru a series of buearacratic 'departments' charged with nothing more than carrying out the will of 'those in charge' at the top?

Sir, when your vision of the future occurs you will see why the 2nd Amendment is such a good idea.

And just yesterday you told us that we're out of touch with mainstream America. You're out of touch with mainstream Earth.

I do like how Bubba totally takes Barkeep's post and twists it as hard as he can, so at the end, it resembles nothing close to what he said.

Anyway, as stated before, I think abolishing the EC is a good idea because people in states "not in play" may actually have an incentive to get out there and vote! I mean what real incentive is there for a Democrat in Georgia or a Republican in New York get out and vote for President? However, if it counts equally with everyone in the country, rather than everyone in the state, there is a far better reason to get out there and vote.

And isn't that what we should be promoting? More people voting? Our voter turnout is horrendus for the world's pre-eminent democracy.

I have always thought poor voter turnout was a symptom of a healthy country, not an unhealthy one.

I have always thought poor voter turnout was a symptom of a healthy country, not an unhealthy one.

I think absolutely the opposite. Low voter turnout scares me more than anything else really about our country, because of what it says about us. It ain't like voting takes a long time, but somehow along the way we've decided our civic duty wasn't worth the effort. Add that to the fact that a good deal of Americans think that the two parties don't represent them and that third parties have no chance at victory, I think some major change is needed.

I think absolutely the opposite. Low voter turnout scares me more than anything else really about our country, because of what it says about us. It ain't like voting takes a long time, but somehow along the way we've decided our civic duty wasn't worth the effort. Add that to the fact that a good deal of Americans think that the two parties don't represent them and that third parties have no chance at victory, I think some major change is needed.

Low voter turnout means people are more concerned with living their lives than with the governance of their country, which I think is as it should be. In certain conditions, where people are very opressed and elections are transparently fraudulent, I can see it as a bad sign. But in our country, where people are as free as they are anywhere in the world, I think it means that most people just aren't effected by the government much - which, I think, is ideal.

Low voter turnout means people are more concerned with living their lives than with the governance of their country

Which is absolutely incredibly scary. It is this attitude that allows our leaders to shit on the Constitution and the docile sheep like citizenry will just take it because they are more concerned with 'living their lives' (and how much more selfish can you get [not you personally], if you care more about living your life than taking part in the civic duty of voting).

We are violating what the founders wanted, which was a citizenry that was the final, and greatest check on government excess.

Which is absolutely incredibly scary. It is this attitude that allows our leaders to shit on the Constitution and the docile sheep like citizenry will just take it because they are more concerned with 'living their lives' (and how much more selfish can you get [not you personally], if you care more about living your life than taking part in the civic duty of voting).

We are violating what the founders wanted, which was a citizenry that was the final, and greatest check on government excess.

But my point is that if our government were to become truly oppressive or repugnant, the voters would turn up. I mean, if you really think our government is oppressive, I just don't know what to say to you.

I have always thought poor voter turnout was a symptom of a healthy country, not an unhealthy one.

I think it can be both in some ways... but I agree with your central point. It would be a good thing if more people actually voted, but the fact that they can and don't is almost certainly representative of general contentment with the state of things.

But my point is that if our government were to become truly oppressive or repugnant, the voters would turn up. I mean, if you really think our government is oppressive, I just don't know what to say to you.

So, what, voting is something to be excersized only when the government becomes oppressive or repugnant? I think the future of the country/state/etc would be a compelling reason to come out and vote, but apparently, people are too apathetic to even give a damn about their government. And when they do, they find the two main parties don't give a damn about them.

As every day passes by, I'm starting to like the idea of proportional representation in the House and compulsory voting (as in Australia).

I don't get this supposed unfairness to rural and small cities theory. The will of the people should decide who is president. More people live in big cities; therefore they should have a bigger say. But the bigger say is only because more people live there. Someone please explain to me why a certain segment of the population should get a bigger say, not because they have more people, but because they don't live in a city.

Bubba, you're in the wrong thread. Although that's true most of the time.

I don't get this supposed unfairness to rural and small cities theory. The will of the people should decide who is president. More people live in big cities; therefore they should have a bigger say. But the bigger say is only because more people live there. Someone please explain to me why a certain segment of the population should get a bigger say, not because they have more people, but because they don't live in a city.

It's not a bigger say vs a smaller say. It's a smaller say vs no say.

So, what, voting is something to be excersized only when the government becomes oppressive or repugnant? I think the future of the country/state/etc would be a compelling reason to come out and vote, but apparently, people are too apathetic to even give a damn about their government. And when they do, they find the two main parties don't give a damn about them.

As every day passes by, I'm starting to like the idea of proportional representation in the House and compulsory voting (as in Australia).

I'm so tired of elections being reduced to sound bites and overly simplistic platforms which play only to fears and hot buttons.

Compulsory voting would only exacerbate this problem.

We do have proportional representation in the House. Not in the Senate. Probably a good compromise there, too. A strong third party would make things much more interesting.

I don't agree that voting is only necessary to fight off an oppressive government. If anything, a truly oppressive government is going to reduce voting participation or reduce it to a formality.

We need to be more involved. Because we're not, our participation has been reduced to selecting from one of two cadres of pretty people who can't even begin to grasp the issues themselves. We are all to blame for Iraq.

I don't get this supposed unfairness to rural and small cities theory. The will of the people should decide who is president. More people live in big cities; therefore they should have a bigger say. But the bigger say is only because more people live there. Someone please explain to me why a certain segment of the population should get a bigger say, not because they have more people, but because they don't live in a city.

You could say one state, one vote with roughly similar moral authority. States were originally desinged to be semi-autonomous entitites under one guiding principle.

Right now, one state, one vote would pretty much lock the presidency for the Republicans. Not a great idea, of course.

I see the point about about all having an equal vote. The dissent is all about whether you believe authority should be spread out or concentrated. Our framers chose to compromise. I'm fine with that. Votes still count.

If a Democratic candidate ignores the needs of the big cities, he does risk apathy keeping his supporters away from the polls. Or he risks a significant third party formation (I wish). It almost happened in the early '90s. Too bad Perot was possessed by aliens.

I'm so tired of elections being reduced to sound bites and overly simplistic platforms which play only to fears and hot buttons.

Compulsory voting would only exacerbate this problem.Being a college student I know lots of people who have the right to vote and don't. Quite honestly, even if they care they aren't very informed, and if they don't want to exercise the effort I don't really want them voting.We do have proportional representation in the House. Not in the Senate. Probably a good compromise there, too. A strong third party would make things much more interesting.But what about if it breaks down in the Senate to 45 Democrats, 45 Republicans and 10 3rd-Party candidates? Then all the power goes to Party 3, and while that may seem to be a good idea if they are centrists, what if they won on an anti-immigration platform? Or an impeach Bush platform? (To pick an extreme from each side.) Do you then want that 3rd party deciding the national platform for Medicare, or for Drug policy, or for monetary policy?


I'm not sure if either of these caveats were brought up on the overall point, which I see and agree with somewhat, but one downside is imagine if you had to have a national recount. With different standards everywhere. The other downside is that it could lead to candidates appealing to their base even more - Republicans focusing on getting as many Texans/Southerners out and Democrats going into big cities on the coasts instead of forcing them to appeal to a wide cross-section of voters in a few states like Florida and Ohio and Missouri that better represent America as a whole than their respective strongholds.

But what about if it breaks down in the Senate to 45 Democrats, 45 Republicans and 10 3rd-Party candidates? Then all the power goes to Party 3, and while that may seem to be a good idea if they are centrists, what if they won on an anti-immigration platform? Or an impeach Bush platform? (To pick an extreme from each side.)


That's easy. If an extreme issue comes up, the Dems and Repubs will get together to shut out the 3rd party. Theoretically. Hopefully.

I think the most likely scenario for a 3rd party is not on the fringe, though - I think it's in the center, coming up in the space left as the Ass and the Elephant move to their respective right and left.

And just yesterday you told us that we're out of touch with mainstream America. You're out of touch with mainstream Earth.

More evidence of your inadequate education. The U.S. being 'out of step' with the rest of the planet is why the 'rest of the planet' wants to come here.

See, that's the point, we don't want to be like the rest of 'mainstream Earth."

More evidence of your inadequate education. The U.S. being 'out of step' with the rest of the planet is why the 'rest of the planet' wants to come here.

See, that's the point, we don't want to be like the rest of 'mainstream Earth."


I was actually referring to you reading Barkeep's post and somehow concluding that he was endorsing a "New World Order," which I believe is, in fact, more evidence that you are deranged. Hence the joke that you are out of touch with "Earth," as in reality.

I'm not sure if either of these caveats were brought up on the overall point, which I see and agree with somewhat, but one downside is imagine if you had to have a national recount. With different standards everywhere.

Right there would be my biggest argument against direct representation. It's bad enough if we have to do a recount within one state. Florida gave an idea of what a nightmare that is. Multiply that by 50? And there is a huge difference between how elections are handled in each state (hell, within different cities and counties in each state). A uniform system would have to be introduced throughout the country.

Ultimately though, it is one person, one vote. How much say have California or New York had in the last two elections? Very little if you are looking at how much attention those states received. A small population, rural state just is not going to get attention in a presidential election. But they are given a voice in the Senate equal to all other states. That's a pretty good compromise.

If anything, I'd probably prefer a plan similar to Colorado's(?). One electoral vote for the winner of each congressional district and the other two electoral votes in each state for the winner of the state.

I'm so tired of elections being reduced to sound bites and overly simplistic platforms which play only to fears and hot buttons.

Compulsory voting would only exacerbate this problem.

I know it ain't the best solution, but I guess I'm laboring under the (probably wrong) assumption that if people have to vote, they'll educate themselves better about it.

We do have proportional representation in the House. Not in the Senate. Probably a good compromise there, too. A strong third party would make things much more interesting.

Did you mean we should have PR in the House? Otherwise, I'm confused.

We need to be more involved. Because we're not, our participation has been reduced to selecting from one of two cadres of pretty people who can't even begin to grasp the issues themselves. We are all to blame for Iraq.

Yep... and the lowering and lowering of voter turnout has seemingly made the politicians in Washington more bold in their egregeous practices. Its almost like they are daring people to vote them out sometimes!

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/vote_map.jpg

2000 election. Red counties voted for Bush, blue ones for Gore.

I'm in no way a Bush (heck, or Gore) advocate, but I think this clearly shows that the coastal counties would/could dominate an election.

I was actually referring to you reading Barkeep's post and somehow concluding that he was endorsing a "New World Order," which I believe is, in fact, more evidence that you are deranged. Hence the joke that you are out of touch with "Earth," as in reality.

How can you read his post about the states becoming 'administrative departments' or whatever and not conclude that would be a radical reformation of our present 'world order?"

In fact, this has been an actual debate in some circles, usually promoted by 'new world order' types and communists/socialists as a more effective way of distibuting goods and services to 'the masses.' Of course, individual liberties and the safe-guards that present-day state soverignty provide would have to be 'brushed away' for the 'common good.'

It would also be a much more effective way of controlling the populance by the government.

Wouldn't have expected your type to have ever heard of this though, not the kind of thing usually discussed by Jon Stewart.

Some interesting definitions back from the 1920's... before we changed the meaning of Democracy.


CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

How can you read his post about the states becoming 'administrative departments' or whatever and not conclude that would be a radical reformation of our present 'world order?"

Easy.. if you have ever had a class on reading comprehension, then you read his post and come to a vastly different conclusion than you have.

Easy.. if you have ever had a class on reading comprehension, then you read his post and come to a vastly different conclusion than you have.

Right, but even you don't seem to know what that would be.:rolleyes:

Right, but even you don't seem to know what that would be.:rolleyes:

Yeah we do. Barkeep merely used the term "administrative units" to describe states and you started foaming at the mouth.

Some interesting definitions back from the 1920's... before we changed the meaning of Democracy.


CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world. A republic is a form of government under a constitution which provides for the election of

(1) an executive and (2) a legislative body, who working together in a representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create (3) a judiciary to pass upon the justice and legality of their government acts and to recognize (4) certain inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy.

Good stuff...and just more evidence that our education system today is dumbing down its students and future voting citizens to pave the way for the creation of something like 'administrative departments' in place of soverign states.

Yeah we do. Barkeep merely used the term "administrative units" to describe states and you started foaming at the mouth.

Somewhere there is a map that has the U.S. divided into 10 new 'zones' or 'administrative units.' It was done by the U.N. to promote all the stuff about 'better distribution of goods' and such. If I can find it, I'll post it. Make no mistake, though, this is someone's vision of our future.

Somewhere there is a map that has the U.S. divided into 10 new 'zones' or 'administrative units.' It was done by the U.N. to promote all the stuff about 'better distribution of goods' and such. If I can find it, I'll post it. Make no mistake, though, this is someone's vision of our future.

And this has absolutely what to do with Barkeep's post? Though I must ask, does the map have black Sikorsky helicopters in the corner?

Somewhere there is a map that has the U.S. divided into 10 new 'zones' or 'administrative units.' It was done by the U.N. to promote all the stuff about 'better distribution of goods' and such. If I can find it, I'll post it. Make no mistake, though, this is someone's vision of our future.
http://www.thegreatcornholio.com/images/not-this-s-again.jpg

And this has absolutely what to do with Barkeep's post? Though I must ask, does the map have black Sikorsky helicopters in the corner?

Just amazed that someone would use those words in describing states and not fully realize what he/she was saying. Personally, I think the battle was lost long ago and what we are witnessing today is just the continuing spiral towards that.

Not sure about the helicopters, do know however that Walmart will now require each and every item sold to it by manufacturers and distributors to come equiped with RFID. Other companies are working with the government to better exploit the information they gather.

One example I heard of (technology is already developed, just needs to be installed) allows for this RFID to be imbedded into the sole of a pair of shoes that could then be tracked by sensors inside a doorway when the person walkes thru it. Trust me or not, things will be radically different in the next 5-10years.

http://www.thegreatcornholio.com/images/not-this-s-again.jpg

HA! Good one! I'm out!

Just amazed that someone would use those words in describing states and not fully realize what he/she was saying. Personally, I think the battle was lost long ago and what we are witnessing today is just the continuing spiral towards that.

Not sure about the helicopters, do know however that Walmart will now require each and every item sold to it by manufacturers and distributors to come equiped with RFID. Other companies are working with the government to better exploit the information they gather.

One example I heard of (technology is already developed, just needs to be installed) allows for this RFID to be imbedded into the sole of a pair of shoes that could then be tracked by sensors inside a doorway when the person walkes thru it. Trust me or not, things will be radically different in the next 5-10years.

Also, you will be able to upload your consciousness onto a network. That's the part I'm most looking forward to.

Also, you will be able to upload your consciousness onto a network. That's the part I'm most looking forward to.

Oh, Bubba... by "you" here, he doesn't mean the generic third person... he means you personally. Have at it.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/artman/uploads/vote_map.jpg

2000 election. Red counties voted for Bush, blue ones for Gore.

I'm in no way a Bush (heck, or Gore) advocate, but I think this clearly shows that the coastal counties would/could dominate an election.

Which of course they should because they have the most people and thus the most affected by the choice of president.

In addition, the map is misleading for this type of argument. Because it's not winner take all under the new scenario being proposed; some of those blue counties you see will also have a lot of red votes (which will actually count) and vice versa.

That map actually prove my argument, I think. That election was so close, within .5% I don't see how you can see the big cities dominated. They didn't. They barely won. The rural areas coiuld just as easily have won, like they did in 2004.

I found this article quite interesting (and scary):

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

That map actually prove my argument, I think. That election was so close, within .5% I don't see how you can see the big cities dominated. They didn't. They barely won. The rural areas coiuld just as easily have won, like they did in 2004.

But the point is that they would not have won in 2k if it was one man, one vote. They would have lost. That tiny patch of blue in a nation of red was enough for a majority of the voters.

Now, for those who don't believe in the sovereignity of states that's all fine and dandy but the people in all those red states would have to be convinced that the fairer method of allowing those tiny patches of blue to outvote them before this idea would fly.

But the point is that they would not have won in 2k if it was one man, one vote. They would have lost. That tiny patch of blue in a nation of red was enough for a majority of the voters.

Now, for those who don't believe in the sovereignity of states that's all fine and dandy but the people in all those red states would have to be convinced that the fairer method of allowing those tiny patches of blue to outvote them before this idea would fly.

But I don;t buy that argument, because in 2000, Gore very nearly could have won the electoral college. With a couple more thousand votes in Florida, that map would look almost identical and Gore would still have won. So I still fail to see how the electoral college prevents what you guys are so concerned about.

But I don;t buy that argument, because in 2000, Gore very nearly could have won the electoral college. With a couple more thousand votes in Florida, that map would look almost identical and Gore would still have won. So I still fail to see how the electoral college prevents what you guys are so concerned about.

It's not that it prevents it, exactly.

But I think both sides would argue that perception outweighs reality here.

So which perception dominates?

1) I'm a blue stater in a red state or a red stater in a blue state. Candidate X will get our electoral votes regardless of for whom I actually cast my vote. Direct election would be better.

2) The big cities are a massed bloc of power that, in a direct election, would greatly sway the outcome of the election. Their vote will have a greater impact than mine on the outcome in a direct election> The Electoral method is best.

I'm not suggesting that either of the above stances are necessarily true or reflective of the reality of the situation - just that in a political system that engenders pessimism in its electorate, those are the views I see being pre-eminent whether we stay with the current system or switch to direct election.

That's easy. If an extreme issue comes up, the Dems and Repubs will get together to shut out the 3rd party. Theoretically. Hopefully.

I think the most likely scenario for a 3rd party is not on the fringe, though - I think it's in the center, coming up in the space left as the Ass and the Elephant move to their respective right and left.I think I edited my post after you replied, but my point wasn't about the extreme issue. It's about every other issue. Basically both big parties will come up with a plan and try to persuade the 3rd party to vote their way, giving up concessions here and there to the point where the 3rd party, despite having only 1/10th of the votes gets to decide almost every issue.
But the point is that they would not have won in 2k if it was one man, one vote. They would have lost. That tiny patch of blue in a nation of red was enough for a majority of the voters.That's at best misleading though because the candidates would not have campaigned the same way under your proposed system. Instead of spending time in toss-up states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Bush would have just gone down Texas and the rest of the South/Midwest to get the vote out, while Gore would have done the same in SoCal/NY/DC. And there were probably an electorally significant number of voters who just didn't vote because they knew their state was decided.
If anything, I'd probably prefer a plan similar to Colorado's(?). One electoral vote for the winner of each congressional district and the other two electoral votes in each state for the winner of the state.I know Maine does that and I think New Mexico is the other state. Colorado was voting on the issue via referendum before the election, but I think the measure failed. There was/(is?) speculation that devious operatives for both sides will start agitating for it in states where they are clearly not winning the whole state but could pick up districts (ie - Republicans in California, Democrats in Texas.)

But I don;t buy that argument, because in 2000, Gore very nearly could have won the electoral college. With a couple more thousand votes in Florida, that map would look almost identical and Gore would still have won. So I still fail to see how the electoral college prevents what you guys are so concerned about.

So, you're saying that when confronted with the facts you'd rather ignore them and play what if's? We can do that with most close elections and say if candidate x had done better in state y he would have won ( not still won though ;) ).

I give up. You're right. 2k4 is the perfect example for you and 2k doesn't count because had people voted differently it would support your position.

Clearly I can't assail that logic.

That's at best misleading though because the candidates would not have campaigned the same way under your proposed system. Instead of spending time in toss-up states like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, Bush would have just gone down Texas and the rest of the South/Midwest to get the vote out, while Gore would have done the same in SoCal/NY/DC. And there were probably an electorally significant number of voters who just didn't vote because they knew their state was decided.


Actually Bishop that is exactly my point. In a one vote per person system each candidate would spend time focusing on the the big population centers that they can garner the most votes in and would have no incentive to move out to other states.

1) I'm a blue stater in a red state or a red stater in a blue state. Candidate X will get our electoral votes regardless of for whom I actually cast my vote. Direct election would be better.

2) The big cities are a massed bloc of power that, in a direct election, would greatly sway the outcome of the election. Their vote will have a greater impact than mine on the outcome in a direct election> The Electoral method is best.


I would propose #1 is true; and #2 is definitely false (although some perceive it as true). Under #2, the guy walking down the paved sidewalk to the voting booth would have just as much power in his little hands as the woman walking down the dirt trail to her voting booth under the direct vote method. But that is definitely not the case under the electoral college method depending on whether your state is in play.

I would propose #1 is true; and #2 is definitely false (although some perceive it as true). Under #2, the guy walking down the paved sidewalk to the voting booth would have just as much power in his little hands as the woman walking down the dirt trail to her voting booth under the direct vote method. But that is definitely not the case under the electoral college method depending on whether your state is in play.

Right.

What I'm saying, sir, is that it doesn't matter whether the perception is TRUE - only how deeply held the perception is, and to what action the perception drives its adherents.

In other words, does the potential for self-fulfilling prophecy exist?

So, you're saying that when confronted with the facts you'd rather ignore them and play what if's? We can do that with most close elections and say if candidate x had done better in state y he would have won ( not still won though ;) ).

I give up. You're right. 2k4 is the perfect example for you and 2k doesn't count because had people voted differently it would support your position.

Clearly I can't assail that logic.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying in 2000 and 2004 you had candidates that appealed to different types of voters. Bush appealed to rural voters and Gore/Kerry appealed to urban voters. The results show that sometimes the urban voters will dominate (2000), but also that there are enough rural voters to overcome that (2004). Never ever in any of my arguments did I say the rural voters will always win.

Actually, both elections were so close that the situation we have right now is that neither urban nor rural voters dominate under either system. So I wish people would move away from that argument, because it's a red herring that almost no resemblance to current reality.

I think one of the things about the electoral college that is seldom brought up in these discussions is the 270 requirement for election, and the mechanisms that are triggered if 270 is not met. It's important to realize that under our current system a third party candidate that say won Florida in 2000 (and no other state) would have sent the election to the House where the Presidency would be decided with each state having a single vote (North Dakota's .2% population now becomes 2% of the vote). I'm not sure how I feel about direct election, but I feel very strongly that a national third party cannot emerge until the EC system is amended again.

Not that I disagree with your overall point, but Kennedy won the popular vote.

I stand corrected - what a stupid mistake! :o

Having thought about it now for a few minutes I also think we should examine the ramifications of direct election on our fairly stable (and in my opinion comparably efficient to many other governments) two party system. Without the EC and the 270 requirement, who's to say that we won't see an explosion in the size of candidates, regional specialization, and a President like the founding fathers feared, representing only a handful of constituencies and with almost total incentive to pander to them completely? Direct election taped onto our current two party system sounds logical, but does its implementation to cure an occasional (and slight in my mind, but the stakes are obviously quite large) injustice destroy an otherwise effective system? I don't have an immediate answer, but there are serious ramifications that I think we are glossing over by getting bogged down in the urban/rural debate. I don't think it's absurd to think that depending on how it is implemented direct election could completely dismantle the republic as we know it and create a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge that many european countries are plagued with.

Edit: Nevermind - ignore me.

Having thought about it now for a few minutes I also think we should examine the ramifications of direct election on our fairly stable (and in my opinion comparably efficient to many other governments) two party system. Without the EC and the 270 requirement, who's to say that we won't see an explosion in the size of candidates, regional specialization, and a President like the founding fathers feared, representing only a handful of constituencies and with almost total incentive to pander to them completely? Direct election taped onto our current two party system sounds logical, but does its implementation to cure an occasional (and slight in my mind, but the stakes are obviously quite large) injustice destroy an otherwise effective system? I don't have an immediate answer, but there are serious ramifications that I think we are glossing over by getting bogged down in the urban/rural debate. I don't think it's absurd to think that depending on how it is implemented direct election could completely dismantle the republic as we know it and create a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge that many european countries are plagued with.

I don't agree that "a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge" is necessarily a bad thing. But I think that the argument for abolishing the EC doesn't imply any particular method for determining the winner, in the case that nobody garners > 50% of the vote.

I don't agree that "a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge" is necessarily a bad thing. But I think that the argument for abolishing the EC doesn't imply any particular method for determining the winner, in the case that nobody garners > 50% of the vote.

I always thought instant runoff voting seemed pretty sweet. What are the arguments against that?

I found this article quite interesting (and scary):

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen/1

I work in elections here and from my experience, 'rigging' these things would be extremely hard and even harder to keep secret. And a lot of the incidents that get reported as efforts to undermine voting are generally overblown and have very real, non-partisan reasons. For instance, our office was accused of trying to hold down the number of new registrations by running out of registration cards. There was no maliciousness involved though, we simply got overwhelmed by the number of groups coming in to pick up boxes of cards and for a couple days, we ran out until the new shipment arrived.

Suspect activity does take place with some voter registration groups, but it happens on both sides. If you ever want to register to vote, mail your registration in yourself, don't have someone else do it for you.

I don't agree that "a more pluralistic and bickering hodge podge" is necessarily a bad thing. But I think that the argument for abolishing the EC doesn't imply any particular method for determining the winner, in the case that nobody garners > 50% of the vote.

Yeah but I think that the lack of a necessity to garner at least close to that negates the need for two large parties and their organizational backing. We have to remember that Perot won 18% of the popular vote and people thought he was just wasting his time because there was no way he was winning an electoral college election. Without the EC, I think you have a lot more Perot's, and subsequently, a President elected by fewer and fewer Americans. I think this stresses our political system more than the current electoral process. A President elected by 20% of the voting population does not seem to have the popular mandate to do much of anything.

Yeah but I think that the lack of a necessity to garner at least close to that negates the need for two large parties and their organizational backing. We have to remember that Perot won 18% of the popular vote and people thought he was just wasting his time because there was no way he was winning an electoral college election. Without the EC, I think you have a lot more Perot's, and subsequently, a President elected by fewer and fewer Americans. I think this stresses our political system more than the current electoral process. A President elected by 20% of the voting population does not seem to have the popular mandate to do much of anything.

Well, but if you have a run-off election, where Perot drops off, and the top two candidates go at it, then you CAN'T have a Presidente elected by 20%, or even 48% (as has been fairly common in recent years). I do understand your point, though. I don't really know how I feel about this.

Aside from the tragic math going on in this thread, there's an awful lot of attention being paid to "visits" here... is that what really matters in presidential elctions? Do you vote for the candidate who most frequently or most nearly visits your home town? Does anyone?


Anyway... I think the supposed debate about big state/small state is mostly specious. The modern electoral college campaign, fueled by highly sensitive polling data, does not segregate based on the size of the state -- it segregates based on the "availability" of the votes in the state, much as several people here have intimated.

Under a direct election sysytem (however implemented), the biggest change would not be a refocusing onto specific large urban areas...it would be the diffusion of the campaign to reach the many areas that are not currently really a part of the campaign. Like Daimyo, I have basically been irrelevant to the recent presiedneital elections, living in a state that was never in play, and even my local media has largely been ignored -- as Maryland, DC, and even Virginia are all easy calls in advance. My mother in Ohio, however, was barraged by presidential ads all year long last go-round... for good reason, it seems.


While the conceptual injustice of the elctoral college is an affront to my philosophical sensibilities, it's the practical effect that is the much bigger issue. It's not really about big or small states... it's about hot or cold states...
and direct election would eliminate the artificial value of arbitrary state lines and count every vote the same, resolving the problems on both fronts.

I don't think it can be stated any clearer or more correctly than this, the electoral college goes against the very democratic process we claim to love so dearly, it takes every vote and makes them all but irrelevent to the grande scheme of things.

Direct Elections NOW.

EDIT: and to add, for all those arguing that direct elections change the focus to the two big state of CA and NY, its rather odd that the republicans have won two straight elections without winning either of those states. They haven't in a VERY long time. If anything a direct election will take power away from those states as it will break up the total votes to each party instead of all for one.

I have basically been irrelevant to the recent presiedneital elections, living in a state that was never in play, and even my local media has largely been ignored -- as Maryland, DC, and even Virginia are all easy calls in advance. My mother in Ohio, however, was barraged by presidential ads all year long last go-round... for good reason, it seems.I hadn't considered this angle... maybe I'm glad I live in a state decided before the election. Is the slim chance of my vote counting (even in 2000 Florida it was a difference of about 500 votes, not 3) worth a year of political advertisements? ;)

I don't think it can be stated any clearer or more correctly than this, the electoral college goes against the very democratic process we claim to love so dearly, it takes every vote and makes them all but irrelevent to the grande scheme of things.

Direct Elections NOW.

This would be a good point if it were true.

The fact that the Senate exists, and furthermore exists as the higher of the two legislative bodies, disputes your theory that this country is about 100% direct voting.

We directly elect our legislators and the document that founded our government provided for the Electoral College. I find it hard to swallow the idea that it goes against what "we claim to love so dearly" when it is in fact what we were founded on.

Meanwhile, what you should really campaign for is a modified electoral college. The winner of the state gets both "Senator" electors and the "House" electors are apportioned by percentage of the vote.

So in 2004 California had 55 electoral votes. Kerry gets 2 for the win. He gets 29 for the percentage and Bush gets 24 for the percentage. California goes 31-24 for Kerry.

Texas gives 2 to Bush. Then 20 to him and 12 to Kerry. 22-12 for Bush.
And so on down the line. I'm working on the election results if it were done this way. Should be interesting. So far it's 62-58 for Kerry after California, New York, and Texas. That sure doesn't look good for Kerry.

The new method results in Bush 288, Kerry 250. Real results were Bush 286, Kerry 252 IIRC.

Still, I like this method as it reflects how we elect our federal legislature. No decisions are made directly by the people in Washington. I don't see why the Presidential election should be different. We directly elect our state leaders and our state's representatives in Congress.

This would be a good point if it were true.

The fact that the Senate exists, and furthermore exists as the higher of the two legislative bodies, disputes your theory that this country is about 100% direct voting.

We directly elect our legislators and the document that founded our government provided for the Electoral College. I find it hard to swallow the idea that it goes against what "we claim to love so dearly" when it is in fact what we were founded on.

Meanwhile, what you should really campaign for is a modified electoral college. The winner of the state gets both "Senator" electors and the "House" electors are apportioned by percentage of the vote.

So in 2004 California had 55 electoral votes. Kerry gets 2 for the win. He gets 29 for the percentage and Bush gets 24 for the percentage. California goes 31-24 for Kerry.

Texas gives 2 to Bush. Then 20 to him and 12 to Kerry. 22-12 for Bush.
And so on down the line. I'm working on the election results if it were done this way. Should be interesting. So far it's 62-58 for Kerry after California, New York, and Texas. That sure doesn't look good for Kerry.

So, your premise for keeping a broken system like the electoral college is "because we started out with it"?

Preposterous. Its antiquated and unnecessary in todays era of mass communications and access to information. Your so called "modified electoral college" is no more useful than the old one, it doesn't change the election , it does get closer to a true vote for each american, but its still not complete.

There is NO valid reason to not have direct elections of all officials. Save perhaps a genuine fear of what the american populace might choose. From both sides. Turning a possible 300 million votes into 600 or so is idiocy and fraudulates the actual voting numbers.

Is fraudulates a real word? it sounded good....ahh well. Invalidates sounds too harsh for what I'm trying to say.

So, your premise for keeping a broken system like the electoral college is "because we started out with it"?

Preposterous. Its antiquated and unnecessary in todays era of mass communications and access to information. Your so called "modified electoral college" is no more useful than the old one, it doesn't change the election , it does get closer to a true vote for each american, but its still not complete.

That's the thing. It isn't broken.

The United States were* not set up with one American, one vote as the only division of powers. Not only is each citizen to be equal, but also each state, which led to the Senate's design. It was a perfect compromise to appease both sides of the debate. There is a house where each American is equal and a house where each State is equal. This is how our national government is designed.

So, in fact, there most certainly is a valid reason to not elect our President by direct vote. And that reason is because this is not the way that our federal government was designed to work.

I highlighted the portion of your post where it becomes quite clear what your real problem with the electoral college is.

* - Typically speaking the United States were referred to as a plural noun pre-Civil War and a singular noun after. When designed, they were plural in common usage. This is another hint that the States are to be distinct and equal.

Oh, Bubba... by "you" here, he doesn't mean the generic third person... he means you personally. Have at it.

Who are you? Who rattled your cage? You one of them 'fleet followers?"

That's the thing. It isn't broken.

The United States were* not set up with one American, one vote as the only division of powers. Not only is each citizen to be equal, but also each state, which led to the Senate's design. It was a perfect compromise to appease both sides of the debate. There is a house where each American is equal and a house where each State is equal. This is how our national government is designed.

So, in fact, there most certainly is a valid reason to not elect our President by direct vote. And that reason is because this is not the way that our federal government was designed to work.

I highlighted the portion of your post where it becomes quite clear what your real problem with the electoral college is.

* - Typically speaking the United States were referred to as a plural noun pre-Civil War and a singular noun after. When designed, they were plural in common usage. This is another hint that the States are to be distinct and equal.

See this is the ting, it was desgned that way over 200 years ago, it IS broken in modern society. This current system was antiquated as soon as telephones reached 99.99 percent of homes back in the 30's and 40's. The designers had to deal with the fact that 200+ years ago the young states and new territories had little or no population and would have been steamrolled buy the original colonies in any election.

That isn't the case today. As it is the electoral college doesn't give every state any real say in things as has been shown before, its design and implementation make all but a dozen of the large states all but irrelevent.

Create a direct election and suddenly everyone, everywhere matters, its no longer a win these states and yer in election. its about individual votes. I don't care what effect this would have had on past elections, seriously, I'd still be pissed with W in office, I doubt I'd be any happier with a democrat, they're all bought and paid for losers. What I WANT to see is individual rights and votes of every american citizen to MATTER.

We might be one in 300 million, but thats better than being a 0 in the current system. Thats what about 40% of voters are right now, 0 meaning in elections.

See this is the ting, it was desgned that way over 200 years ago, it IS broken in modern society. This current system was antiquated as soon as telephones reached 99.99 percent of homes back in the 30's and 40's. The designers had to deal with the fact that 200+ years ago the young states and new territories had little or no population and would have been steamrolled buy the original colonies in any election.

That isn't the case today. As it is the electoral college doesn't give every state any real say in things as has been shown before, its design and implementation make all but a dozen of the large states all but irrelevent.

Create a direct election and suddenly everyone, everywhere matters, its no longer a win these states and yer in election. its about individual votes. I don't care what effect this would have had on past elections, seriously, I'd still be pissed with W in office, I doubt I'd be any happier with a democrat, they're all bought and paid for losers. What I WANT to see is individual rights and votes of every american citizen to MATTER.

We might be one in 300 million, but thats better than being a 0 in the current system. Thats what about 40% of voters are right now, 0 meaning in elections.

Your types always make this argument, the 'living Constitution' bullcrap. According to your logic, Citizen Kane should be colorized and Shakespear should be sold only in comic book form.

Shakespeare should be sold only in comic book form.

This is the platform of a potential 3rd party that I could get behind.

I think we should just split into two countries. Then let the most successful governing philosophy prevail.

Your types always make this argument, the 'living Constitution' bullcrap. According to your logic, Citizen Kane should be colorized and Shakespear should be sold only in comic book form.

So you are saying, Bubba, that the Constitution is a finite, unchangeable document? If it is not a living document, then it must be dead and static, correct? So, by your logic, why is it your types are pushing for an amendment to the Constitution to ban gay marriage? If it is a static document, unable to be changed, I guess they are just spinning their (Bubba) wheels.

Your types always make this argument, the 'living Constitution' bullcrap. According to your logic, Citizen Kane should be colorized and Shakespear should be sold only in comic book form.



Crawl back under "Ignorance is Bliss" Rock. If you think the constitution wasn't designed to adjust to the times and society then we wouldn't be able to AMMEND IT.

My god your an ass.

Crawl back under "Ignorance is Bliss" Rock. If you think the constitution wasn't designed to adjust to the times and society then we wouldn't be able to AMMEND IT.

My god your an ass.

Sorry, Rend, but I've got to point something out to you. Ignorance means currently unaware of something. Stupid means never will be aware of it.

First things first. My disclaimer - coincidentally being on the same "side" of a debate as Bubba Wheels should in no way be interpreted as support for him, his reasoning - if such a beast exists, or his philosophies. Now that that's out of the way:

See this is the ting, it was desgned that way over 200 years ago, it IS broken in modern society. This current system was antiquated as soon as telephones reached 99.99 percent of homes back in the 30's and 40's. The designers had to deal with the fact that 200+ years ago the young states and new territories had little or no population and would have been steamrolled buy the original colonies in any election.

That isn't the case today. As it is the electoral college doesn't give every state any real say in things as has been shown before, its design and implementation make all but a dozen of the large states all but irrelevent.

Create a direct election and suddenly everyone, everywhere matters, its no longer a win these states and yer in election. its about individual votes. I don't care what effect this would have had on past elections, seriously, I'd still be pissed with W in office, I doubt I'd be any happier with a democrat, they're all bought and paid for losers. What I WANT to see is individual rights and votes of every american citizen to MATTER.

We might be one in 300 million, but thats better than being a 0 in the current system. Thats what about 40% of voters are right now, 0 meaning in elections.

Nowhere in here did you offer any reason why equality of states should be removed from the equation. Every citizen's vote does matter. It matters as a citizen of your state. That is as it was intended and it's a good system. I don't believe it's perfect, but I also reject the notion that this country is supposed to be organized as a single entity with sub-departments. That is what each state can create for their own government. The nation is not that way. There are 50 equal states making up the USA. Not the USA and then lesser entities known as states.

Haven't read through it yet, but this might (or might not) be an interesting read/opinion: http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

So, your premise for keeping a broken system like the electoral college is "because we started out with it"?

Preposterous. Its antiquated and unnecessary in todays era of mass communications and access to information. Your so called "modified electoral college" is no more useful than the old one, it doesn't change the election , it does get closer to a true vote for each american, but its still not complete.

There is NO valid reason to not have direct elections of all officials. Save perhaps a genuine fear of what the american populace might choose. From both sides. Turning a possible 300 million votes into 600 or so is idiocy and fraudulates the actual voting numbers.

Is fraudulates a real word? it sounded good....ahh well. Invalidates sounds too harsh for what I'm trying to say.

That whole NO valid reason thing, I don't buy for a second. I'm happy that I live in a Republic, and not a direct Democracy. Direct Democracy is too much to me like government by whim of the masses. The masses are wrong from time to time. I prefer the status quo. In my mind it was devised by men far wiser than the average citizen today. They had their reasons, and some may certainly seem outdated today, but I believe that some of their motives are still relevant today. The simple insulation from a direct democracy is enough for me.

I think one point that has been missed in all of this discussion is that the members of the Electoral College aren't bound legally to vote for the candidate their state chose. I think that might be a little bit of the friction people feel about the process. Maybe people might feel a little bit better if the electors themselves were removed, and the process of the electoral votes is automatic, to elminate the "rogue" electoral voters.

I myself don't have a problem with the whole Electoral College concept, but I do have a little bit of uneasiness about the big loophole that doesn't bind an elector to vote for who their state wants. It has never been a problem in the past, but to me that isn't a reason to keep that loophole open.

I think one point that has been missed in all of this discussion is that the members of the Electoral College aren't bound legally to vote for the candidate their state chose. I think that might be a little bit of the friction people feel about the process. Maybe people might feel a little bit better if the electors themselves were removed, and the process of the electoral votes is automatic, to elminate the "rogue" electoral voters.

I myself don't have a problem with the whole Electoral College concept, but I do have a little bit of uneasiness about the big loophole that doesn't bind an elector to vote for who their state wants. It has never been a problem in the past, but to me that isn't a reason to keep that loophole open.

The slate of electors are essentially chosen by the Party hardliners. You don't become an elector if the party mucky mucks don't approve of you. If you seem like you have an inkling of integrity, individuality, or any other characteristic they think might conceivably cause you to stray from the "party" line, they you aren't elector material.

The slate of electors are essentially chosen by the Party hardliners. You don't become an elector if the party mucky mucks don't approve of you. If you seem like you have an inkling of integrity, individuality, or any other characteristic they think might conceivably cause you to stray from the "party" line, they you aren't elector material.

I completely understand that. But there still isn't a legal requirement, once picked, to vote as your state deemed you to vote. There's a world of difference between pissing off political party members, and committing a federal crime. That's the point I was trying to get at. There have been cases in the past when an Elector cast a vote other than what their state decided. But, as I mentioned, it didn't affect the outcome. Why wait for a situation to occur, instead of acting before then to make sure it doesn't happen, using something more than just peer pressure?

Some states do bind their electors, but it's doubtful you will get a change when it really matters. There was an elector that switched for Bentsen over Dukakis in 1988 and it's happened a few other times. There was a Gore supporter who tried to convince Bush electors to switch but the Gore campaign took alot of heat for that. I found that hypocritical. If the argument is about how the founders intended elections to work, well the electors weren't bound back then, so why should they be now?

If the argument is about how the founders intended elections to work, well the electors weren't bound back then, so why should they be now?

I think it was something that was overlooked in the 12th Amendment. Prior to that, the President was the one who received the most electoral votes, and the Vice President was the one who received the second most. The original Constitution was written before political parties really existed in the US. The 12th Amendment came about when Jefferson and Burr both ended up with the exact same number of electoral votes, and there was also a deadlock in the House of Representatives. It took some dealmaking for them to finally choose Jefferson as President. After that, they decided to make Electors for both President and Vice-President, and put in the proviso that in case no one got a plurality of votes, the top 2 were sent to Congress to be decided on.

So the process has changed since the founding fathers originally wrote the Constitution. It's not true that the way it currently works is the way that it has always worked, although the current method has been in place a long time.

FWIW, the article I posted was a good informative read, and gave pros and cons on both sides of the issue.

What? Read that or the article that kicked off the thread. That's ridiculous. We're here to engage in uninformed debate. Don't bother us with facts, please.

Colorado just joined the multistate compact. I feel like there has been more recent conversation on this here, but this is the best I could find for some thread necromancy.

BNL NEWS on Twitter: "BREAKING: Colorado's Governor will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a country-wide coalition one step closer to circumventing the electoral college." (https://twitter.com/BreakingNLive/status/1100465563078443009)

This has nothing to do with anything, but Quik necromancyed this thread, and the last post was from Vinatieri for Prez from 2006.

It is 2019, and Vinateri is still in the NFL.

he's running

Does this really accomplish anything if it's just the blue states doing it?

Every state doesn't need to participate, only enough states to guarantee 270 electoral votes. That probably wouldn't be just blue states, but even if it was, it still guarantees the winner of the popular vote becomes President.

Colorado just joined the multistate compact. I feel like there has been more recent conversation on this here, but this is the best I could find for some thread necromancy.

BNL NEWS on Twitter: "BREAKING: Colorado's Governor will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a country-wide coalition one step closer to circumventing the electoral college." (https://twitter.com/BreakingNLive/status/1100465563078443009)

lots of measured responses in the twitter thread there.

Former Gov. Paul LePage (R) tore apart a bill currently in the Maine state legislature that proposes essentially eliminating the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote because it would only “be minorities that elect” the President.


According to a Thursday Maine Beacon report, LePage told local radio station WVOM that the legislation would render him and other whites “a forgotten people.”

“Actually what would happen if they do what they say they’re gonna do is white people will not have anything to say,” LePage said. “It’s only going to be the minorities that would elect. It would be California, Texas, Florida.”

I think he was supposed to keep this part quiet.

Colorado just joined the multistate compact. I feel like there has been more recent conversation on this here, but this is the best I could find for some thread necromancy.

BNL NEWS on Twitter: "BREAKING: Colorado's Governor will sign a measure to award his state’s electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, moving a country-wide coalition one step closer to circumventing the electoral college." (https://twitter.com/BreakingNLive/status/1100465563078443009)

Just so I understand...

If the people of Colorado vote for Gerald Ford to be President, but the rest of the country votes for Jimmy Carter, then the Colorado electoral votes will be placed for Jimmy Carter instead?

Can we eliminate the senate after this?

If the legislature of a state who signed up for this didn't like the results of a popular vote could they just repeal their version of the statute and swing a close election themselves?

There'd be legal challenges (and the Supreme Court could decide another election - yay), but but would the voters of a state be constitutionally harmed if the state changed course and awarded the state's electoral votes to whom the people actually voted for?

Edit: And I don't think other states would have standing to argue something like reliance, since its unconstitutional to enter into an agreement with other states absent congressional approval. All the states have to be on their own on this, even if there's a potential cumulative effect.

If the legislature of a state who signed up for this didn't like the results of a popular vote could they just repeal their version of the statute and swing a close election themselves?

There'd be legal challenges (and the Supreme Court could decide another election - yay), but but would the voters of a state be constitutionally harmed if the state changed course and awarded the state's electoral votes to whom the people actually voted for?

Edit: And I don't think other states would have standing to argue something like reliance, since its unconstitutional to enter into an agreement with other states absent congressional approval. All the states have to be on their own on this, even if there's a potential cumulative effect.

The states have the Constitutional right to dictate the "times, places, and manner" of elections, but I'd guess that Congress would hold that any changes have to affect the next proximate future election. Otherwise, for example, you could see an election where a gubernatorial candidate wins on the strength of early voting and the Legislature, controlled by the opposite party, votes to retroactively kill early voting to take those ballots off the table so Their Guy gets to be governor.

Or like what happened with the Maine dude who sued to kill ranked voting because he lost. He wanted to be declared the winner because he won a plurality of first-choice ballots. Maine voters voted knowing that their 2nd and 3rd place choices could impact the election, but that dude wanted the rules to change after he lost, and the courts said 'nope.'

Just so I understand...

If the people of Colorado vote for Gerald Ford to be President, but the rest of the country votes for Jimmy Carter, then the Colorado electoral votes will be placed for Jimmy Carter instead?

If the pieces were to all fall into place, then yes... but only if enough states to represent an electoral college majority sign onto the compact. If the thing worked as designed, then the electoral college would effectively be overridden by the nationwide popular vote.

Small correction. It's not just the rest of the country. It's the rest of the country including Colorado. Carter would need to win the other states by more than he lost to Ford in Colorado.

The states have the Constitutional right to dictate the "times, places, and manner" of elections, but I'd guess that Congress would hold that any changes have to affect the next proximate future election. Otherwise, for example, you could see an election where a gubernatorial candidate wins on the strength of early voting and the Legislature, controlled by the opposite party, votes to retroactively kill early voting to take those ballots off the table so Their Guy gets to be governor.

Or like what happened with the Maine dude who sued to kill ranked voting because he lost. He wanted to be declared the winner because he won a plurality of first-choice ballots. Maine voters voted knowing that their 2nd and 3rd place choices could impact the election, but that dude wanted the rules to change after he lost, and the courts said 'nope.'

The difference here is that in a Presidential election, Article 2 gives specific mention of state legislatures - "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,"

In Bush vs. Gore, three justices (Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas) argued this meant that the state courts couldn't even review the legislature's decision to appoint electors. Kennedy and O'Connor didn't sign on to this (and Kennedy basically made fun of the guy who tried to argue this during oral arguments), but they're not on the court anymore.

I agree with you that the clause doesn't authorize the legislatures to make an ex post facto change of the "manner" they already determined, but I don't know how confident I am of the current court makeup.

Interesting twist from my state, and its 10 electoral votes. Bill introduced to create a small-scale version of this, where MD and another red state with the same electoral votes would join in a bilateral pact to just do this on our own. The weakness in the specifics is that the natural counterpart is Wisconsin, and they were only red last go-round by a narrow margin, and are really more purple (or if you're Clinton2016, solidly blue).

It won't pass... but it's yet another clever assault on the electoral college, and as far as I'm concerned, the more the merrier.

Even if Maryland isn't the right place, this could conceivably catch on:

MA - IN (11)
CT/OR - OK (7)
Lots of 4s and 3s

Or get nutty and put CA in with TX,LA,AL for 55 each

You could do this piece by piece and while not assuring the popular vote prevails, you could certainly put the rest of the country much more in play than is currently the case, which is kinda the point.

The Movement To Skip The Electoral College Is Picking Up Steam | FiveThirtyEight (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-movement-to-skip-the-electoral-college-is-picking-up-steam)

Not only is getting to 270 difficult, but I have no doubt that this pact would end up at the Supreme Court. If the court decides to okay partisan gerrymandering this term, I expect they would also be willing to say this is unconstitutional.

Pretty clearly loaded with asterisks, but there is a very solid argument that this is a matter of states' rights. Of course, as we've seen from all parties involved, previous thoughts about structure of government and so forth tend to go right out the window when it becomes a matter of who gets to run the place.

Yeah. I think this term is going to be revealing as to how far the conservatives will be willing to go in overturning precedent and past rulings.

WTF

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">This just in <br><br>WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court to decide whether Electoral College voters are required to support presidential candidate who wins state.</p>&mdash; Jamie Dupree (@jamiedupree) <a href="https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/1218274813078396928?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 17, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

There's a federal v. state split on that they'll resolve. Colorado and Washington are two states that can, under their state law, impose punishment to faithless electors. Washington state said it was fine, the 10th circuit said it was unconstitutional for Colorado to do so. Here's the petition for writ that they granted if you want a deep dive into the weirdness of faithless electors.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-465/118334/20191007154112674_19-_PetitionForAWritOfCertiorari.pdf

Of course, faithless electors are very rare, but, they could theoretically swing an election. There were 7 Dem electors that didn't vote for Clinton in 2016, though, I'm sure they would have if that would have made a difference in the election.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/08/opinion/filibuster-electoral-college.html

Interesting article on how we came close to abolishing the electoral college in 1970, and why it didn't happen.