Hatrack River Forum: A New System for the Electoral College. -

This is topic A New System for the Electoral College. - in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=028724

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

For many days I have been speaking of the atrocity that is the electoral college. An institute that has in many instances denied the popular victor a victory, most recent in 2000. And so I propose a new alternative first to the people of this forum, and next to the nation once I work out all of the potential bugs.

The system I and some of my colleagues have worked out will be a split vote. Half of which is the electoral college, the second half being directly related to the popular vote.

There are 538 electoral votes given every election. I propose in addition to this that 538 votes be given in direct correlation to the popular vote. By this I mean that the percentage that each candidate receives multiplied by 538 decides how many additional votes the candidate receives.

ex. If a candidate receives 40% of the popular voting population, they will receive 215 votes. In this manner, we no longer worry about situations where a candidate can lose by a large quantity of votes yet still win an election.

In the case of a tie, the winner will be decided by the popular vote.

In the extreme rare case of a tie in the popular vote, the winner will be decided by the electoral college vote.

My colleages and I feel this format is much better than the current system.

Comments? Questions?

Johivin Ryson

Those who watch rarely speak up.
Those who speak rarely hear all.
But those who listen see all there is.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
An institute that has in many instances denied the popular victor a victory, most recent in 2000.

I think that if you are going to propose a policy change serious enough to require a constitutional amendment, you should avoid supporting that proposal with easily refutable facts.

The electoral college has selected someone other than the popular victor only 3 times in U.S. history.

Dagonee

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

3 times is still too many. And maybe you can give me some useful feedback on my plan rather than attacking my word choice. If you have nothing useful to say, I don't want to hear from you.

It does not do away with the electoral college, it uses it in addition to the popular vote.

Johivin Ryson

Those who watch rarely speak up.
Those who speak rarely hear all.
But those who listen see all there is.

[ November 01, 2004, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Johivin ]

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

Your proposal doesn't modify the electoral college, it does away with it altogether. Which is a legitimate proposal, but if we are going to do that, why have the middle man?

Edit: Aw, you edited your post. Mine is now less funny.

[ November 01, 2004, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :

quote:
I propose in addition to this that 538 votes be given in direct correlation to the popular vote.

If you're going to do it this way, then why have the electoral college at all? I mean - if it translates in direct proportion to the popular vote -- just have a popular vote, and no electoral college.

FG

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

(smiles) I haven't been able to figure out how to add a signature, so I keep having to cut and paste.

Forgot what I had saved in it.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

:sniffs snobbily:

THIS forum does not allow automatic signatures.

Neither do we encourage them.

Posted by Mr.Funny (Member # 4467) on :

quote:
If you have nothing useful to say, I don't want to hear from you.

Gee, I don't think your ideas about the electoral college are useful. If you don't have anything useful to say, I don't want to hear from YOU. [Roll Eyes]

If you seriously wish to gain the respect of people, calling people's comments useless is not the way to go, especially if they do have a valid point (as Dagonee did).

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
3 times is still too many. And maybe you can give me some useful feedback on my plan rather than attacking my word choice. If you have nothing useful to say, I don't want to hear from you.

You don't get to dictate the feedback you get. And a post that starts off with two gross hyperboles (calling it an "atrocity") is not likely to get the courtesy of detailed analysis on this board.

As to your plan, I think it worsens the problems caused by the Electoral College without providing its benefits.

Dagonee

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

In this way, not only do the states still maintain the population proportions that corresponds to the particular states, but also it will allow for the victor of the overall popular vote to actually receive something regarding that victory.

My colleages and I have a secondary plan that (instead of the popular vote addition) incorporates an additional number of votes by the difference in the votes in the popular vote, though that has not been worked out as of yet.

Johivin Ryson

Those who watch rarely speak up.
Those who speak rarely hear all.
But those who listen see all there is.

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

In what way does it worsen the problem? If you cannot see that a person can win an election when a majority of the voting population does not want that candidate as a problem,then I have no more words to say to you.

Three times is roughly 7% of the time. Which from statistical analysis is enough to reject a hypothesis.

[ November 01, 2004, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: Johivin ]

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

"I have no more words to say to you."

[Razz]

These words have never been adhered to. I'll beleive it when I see it.

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

If dagonee cannot admit that there is a problem in that, I will not respond to his responses, simple as that.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

So your proposal is only addressed to those who agree that the election of a president with slightly fewer popular votes is the worst possible outcome?

You have provided no normative support for preferring outcomes strictily in accord with the popular vote as opposed to a system which guarantees smaller states are not utterly ignored.

Further, your system isn't in accord with your stated principle of preferring popular winners to the exclusion of all else.

Either your proposal will never result in the election of a president contrary to the popular vote, in which case having any electoral college is useless, or the it will sometimes result in the election of a president contrary to the popular vote. If it does, why is it preferable to the current system or a proportion allocation system?

Your proposal is ill-thought out and inconsistent with your stated principles. You haven't even analyzed whether the three instances in which a non-popular victor was elected president would have resulted in a different outcome under your system.

Dagonee

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
If dagonee cannot admit that there is a problem in that, I will not respond to his responses, simple as that.

So essentially you're unwilling to discuss the premises upon which your entire post is premised.

Why, exactly, did you post this to a discussion board?

Dagonee

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

In fact, your system would NOT have changed the outcome of the 2000 election:

Out of 105,405,100 votes, Bush recieved 50,456,002, or 0.478686534, and Gore got 50,999,897, or 0.483846579. Bush received 271 electoral votes under the current system, Gore received 266.

Assigning an additional 538 electoral votes in this proportion would have resulted in 257 additional electoral votes for Bush, and 260 additional electoral votes for Gore.

Total: 528 for Bush, 526 for Gore.

So your system doesn't solve the problem you designed it to fix. Therefore I think it's a terrible idea.

Dagonee
Source for popular vote totals: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm

[ November 01, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posted by Ryoko (Member # 4947) on :

Game, Set, and Match...

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

First of all, the fact that the contrary has occurred justifies the need for a change. I am attempting to correc the answer by proposing a situation that is more justified than the current exchange. The electoral college has past its prime and does not promote voting. There is no reason for a democrat in Texas to vote at all. That is a key issue. If we as a nation desire people to be involved in the electoral process, we need a system wherein the voters feel that their vote is worthwhile.

The purpose of retaining the electoral college is to continue to force the polititians to still consider all of the states. As well the addition of the popular vote as a factor not only makes is possible to overcome the electoral college but also to drive the population into becoming active members of the government. It makes every vote count.

There will always be potential problems in every form of election be it electoral college or popular vote. They exist, period. The issue is not that they exist, the issue is finding a way to minimize the error factor.

Being as this is a new idea, I have not yet done the statistics to figure out who would have won the last election and such because I have been working. When I have a spare moment, I will post them.

The fact that your first attempt at a response was to immediately attack my wording rather than my idea is what I hold contempt in. Even from a statistical analysis of the situation, your own admitance to 3 times represents a 7% error factor. This is not acceptable in the majority of educational fields.

Johivin Ryson

Those who watch rarely speak up.
Those who speak rarely hear all.
But those who listen see all there is.

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

Yet under my situation, though Bush would have still won, there would be a more logical set of data to reach that conclusion.
A justification for the event which is more uncontested.

Johivin Ryson

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

What I hold in contempt is your proposal of a major change to our political system and your unwillingness to discuss, debate, or provide any support for your foundational principle.

I'm only mildly amused by the fact that the principle you are staunchly "defending" while refusing to defend it is not protected by your policy proposal.

Dagonee

[ November 01, 2004, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

My attempt is to justify situations so that when the issues are looked at, a logical conclusion can be reached. My system does just that. It rationalizes the victory and attempts to quell the frustration that many had after the last election.

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :

Whereas, I'm WILDLY amused with. . . just about everything.

Life is a joke that is just begun, etc., etc. . .

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

What attempts have you made to fix a national issue? You critize my attempts at justification, yet make no endeavor yourself.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

How on earth does it do that? If 3 counter-majority elections is too many, why is your system better if it would not have corrected the problem?

You express zero tolerance for counter-majoritarian results, so much so that you refuse to discuss the principle, but your solution tolerates at least 1, and possibly all 3.

Dagonee

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
What attempts have you made to fix a national issue? You critize my attempts at justification, yet make no endeavor yourself.

Generally, the one advocating change is expected to make some case supporting the change.

Usually such a case includes an explanation of the harm, including why it's a harm, and evidence that the change will alleviate the harm.

Dagonee

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :

I am curious. The stated proposal may be junk, but are there any other good ways to amend the electoral college?

Dag,

What would you think of nationalizing the Colorado proposition that would proportionalize the Electoral vote in-state, i.e. Texas would give about a third of its electoral votes to Kerry, and two-thirds to Bush. That would entirely eliminate the whole "swing states" concern, requiring the candidates to focus on all states. My only concern, is that it might undermine the original justification for the electoral college, that smaller states have a say.

Still, the problem of less populous states having a say rarely comes up anymore, since they are usually in the "safe" column anyway. The only states a candidate has to campaign for are the ones where one party does not vastly outnumber the other.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
What would you think of nationalizing the Colorado proposition that would proportionalize the Electoral vote in-state, i.e. Texas would give about a third of its electoral votes to Kerry, and two-thirds to Bush. That would entirely eliminate the whole "swing states" concern, requiring the candidates to focus on all states. My only concern, is that it might undermine the original justification for the electoral college, that smaller states have a say.

Still, the problem of less populous states having a say rarely comes up anymore, since they are usually in the "safe" column anyway. The only states a candidate has to campaign for are the ones where one party does not vastly outnumber the other.

I'm not sure what kind of proportionality would be best. The current realities of the two party system don't seem like great reasons to change the constitution, so I'm not sure how much weight I'd give to most small states being safe for one party or another. Besides, New Mexico is one of the most hotly disputed states right now.

I do know that the two states that currently use partial assignments cast electoral votes by district, which makes them extremely susceptible to gerry-mandering.

I think I'd favor the two senatorial electoral votes being allocated statewide, but the others going proportionally. I haven't done the math to know for sure if I'd prefer it. I do think it should be done nationwide the same way, however.

Dagonee

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :

S'what I thought. Of course it will never happen. After all, the Republicans will never give up half of Texas, and the Democrats will never give up half of New York or California. Still, it's an interesting idea.

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :

California voted for Reagan twice in the 80s. The South used to be staunchly Democratic, and now is mostly safe for Republicans. Things change. [Smile]

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Yes. That's why so much if this is hypothetical. The small states would never give up the power this gives them, and the large states are almost locked generationally by party due to the redistricting shenanigans.

Dagonee

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :

Yes, things change.

However, it's worth noting that California was Reagan's home state. Furthermore, the "Democrats" from the south voted with Republicans on most issues. In fact, a strong argument can be made that the only reason they called themselves "Conservative Democrats" and not "Republicans" was that the wounds of the Civil War and Reconstruction hadn't healed.

Anyway, that's sort of beside the point. My point was that it's doubtful either party would support a nation-wide proportionalization of the electoral vote. It just wouldn't be good for them. Hell, it might even let a third party in!

Posted by chase (Member # 6988) on :

I dissagree the electoral college is compleatly a pointless failure and no part of it should be carried forth. I know however that it well not be revised any time soon and sense the government well not revise it we have a responsibility to our forefathers to change it ourselvs

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
Hell, it might even let a third party in!

This is the reason Congress would never pass such an amendment.

The relative power between small and large states is why the States would never pass it.

I can't imagine any short-term events that could shake both power bases out of their ruts at the same time.

quote:
sense the government well not revise it we have a responsibility to our forefathers to change it ourselvs

We have no means of revising it short of Constitutional amendment, or state-by-state movement to proportional assignment of each state's electoral votes according to popular vote results. The Amendment process requires state-by-state action of some kind.

Dagonee

[ November 01, 2004, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :

I am enjoying this thread so much.

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :

I like the Electoral College. It helps insure the sovereignty of States. Instead, I think we need an independent body to oversee the voting process.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Just for fun, the proposed solution here would have changed the results of the 1876 election and would not have changed the results of the 1888 election.

Numbers for those who care to see the math:

code:

Candidate	Popular	% Popular	Electoral Votes	New Electoral	Total
Total Votes Received	8,420,063	N/A	369		
Rutherford B. Hayes	4,036,298	0.479367	185	176.8863204	361.8863204
Samuel J. Tilden	4,300,590	0.510755	184	188.4686267	372.4686267
					
Total Popular Votes	11,376,583	N/A	401		
Benjamin Harrison	5,439,853	0.478162	233	191.743079	424.743079
Grover Cleveland	5,540,309	0.486992	186	195.2839362	381.2839362

Dagonee

[ November 01, 2004, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :

This thread bothers me a lot.

First, Johivin is a newbie. He has posted only thirty times on Hatrack so far. That, in and of itself, is not a good reason for us to tiptoe around him, tell him his ideas are good when we feel they aren't. But what if a beloved regular posted this same idea? What if it was, say, T_Smith? Dagonee, would you have been as rude to Nathan as you were to Johivin?

You imply that he's being unreasonable and childish when he says that your comments aren't helpful and that he'd rather you didn't say anymore to him, but who can help acting like a troll when he's being treated in the way you treated him? Couldn't you have said the same things without such harshness and condescension?

And to be honest, I don't find the idea such a bad one. I have been talking to many people about how I feel that the electoral college, while it does good things, isn't the best solution. We just haven't come up with anything better. I see Johovin's post as a step in the direction of coming up with an answer.

And there are aspects of his idea that we haven't addressed yet. Like he said, there are states where voting against the obvious majority seems futile. Utah is one of those states. It always votes Republican, so I feel like it's useless to vote either way; what am I going to change? But if I knew that there was even a minute chance of my vote counting outside the electoral college, I would be more likely to vote (I think), and especially more likely to vote democrat on some issues. How many more people would vote if they felt it might change something?

Like Dagonee pointed out, the proposed system wouldn't change the outcomes of elections very often. But if, say, Bush wins the electoral vote and Kerry wins the popular, that will be two elections in a row where that happened. Inevitably, people are going to be talking about the electoral college in that case. I have seen news articles already challenging it.

Oh, and Kat, everyone voted for Reagan that year. That doesn't count as an example. [Razz]

Posted by HonoreDB (Member # 1214) on :

If it's a fundamental principle that the winner of the popular vote should win the election, then we should just have a popular vote. If it's not, then you should explain what your problem actually is with the electoral college, johovin.

Interesting idea, though, and maybe even defensible. I love this kind of speculation (see my website), and I agree with Brinestone that you don't deserve the tone you're getting. The criticisms are valid, though.

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :

quote:
Dagonee, would you have been as rude to Nathan as you were to Johivin?

From what I have seen, Dag doesn't have a big problem calling a stupid idea stupid no matter who is saying it. Especially when his initial, [reasonable] responses are dismissed or answered rudely.

[ November 01, 2004, 06:33 PM: Message edited by: saxon75 ]

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Actually, I'd say this is pretty consistent with my posting style, and can honestly say the fact that he was a newbie didn't change my posts at all. Nor was I rude in this thread.

In his first response to me, he said, "And maybe you can give me some useful feedback on my plan rather than attacking my word choice."

My feedback was useful. If you want to advocate for change, don't alienate people in your first two sentences. That's darn useful feedback.

In his very next post to me, he states, "If you cannot see that a person can win an election when a majority of the voting population does not want that candidate as a problem,then I have no more words to say to you." Here, he's insisting that the foundational principle of his proposal is beyond debate. This is pretty much the hallmark of the type of posts I come down hard on, no matter who does it. It's also quite a rude response, both in wording and in the underlying idea. His idea is so profoundly true that anyone who disagrees with it isn't worthy of response?

Then, he states he holds me in contempt. When I demonstrate that his idea doesn't actually solve what he considers to be the problem, he complains that I "critize my attempts at justification, yet make no endeavor yourself." THIS IS IN A THREAD WHERE HE POSTED AN IDEA AND ASKED FOR COMMENTS ON THAT IDEA.

It is not rude to express annoyance with misleading inflammatory rhetoric. It is not rude to refuse to accept the underlying assumptions of a post. It is not rude to provide negative feedback on a proposed policy change.

Dagonee

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

Johivin and HonoreDB, both your ideas have some merit. However, there is a vanishingly small chance of passing a constitutional amendment that would get rid of the electoral college. So, in my opinion, your ideas will remain theoretical oddities with no application to real presidential politics. The EC is like the weather: many complain about it, but nobody does anything about it.

Note that on DB's landmark thread I said weighted voting could have some application on a more limited scale.

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

I have made an attempt to correct what is a great problem that I observe. I personally believe in a popular vote as it gives the people the true power and makes them feel important in the process. As I feel that a popular vote will never be given a second glance as it takes away too much power from the states and the lack of desire to remove the electoral college from existance I attempted to make a compromise.

The people do not even elect their president. I attempted to give them at least the hope. When we have elections where less than fifty percent of the possible voters actually vote I see a major problem, as if the candidate only wins by a few votes it means that less than a quarter of the population actually wants them in office. If we had 75% or 80% of people voting I would let the system stand; but when the numbers voting does not efficiently represent the population, yes I do have a problem.

I see any case in which a candidate wins by having 51% when only half of the potential voters vote as a problem. We have taken the power to elect our president from the people and I want to give it back to them in some form. I did not feel that a straight popular vote would ever be accepted and so I attempted to form a system that gives the people some power.

My wordings may be misleading, however my desire is just. Just as well, I only critized after I was assaulted, not for my idea, but for the wording that I used in getting my point across. As well, I have shown a statistical view that has been overall ignored.

I have no problem with disagreeing with my idea. But when you accuse me based on my choice of words, you give me no useful feedback. I want information on my idea, not on my personal views.

*I would hope that my limited posts would not play an issue and that only my idea would be judged.*

Johivin Ryson

[ November 01, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Johivin ]

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :

I kinda like this idea, but I think it would simply defeat the purpose of the college-- to make canidates campaign by state and to ensure that groups favoring minority opinions within a state do have their voices heard. If a state was made up of a group of people who favor Idea A, and much of the rest of the country favors Idea B, it still might be advisable for the canidate to court the state's votes anyway.

Instead, I favor a system where each canidate gets a number of electoral votes proportional to the percentage of the popular vote won in a state. Take Maryland for instance. We have 10 electoral votes. If one canidate won 60 percent of the vote, and another won 40 percent, they would get 6 and 4 electoral votes, respectivly. This would help preserve the original intentions of the college, while giving greater value to the popular vote.

--j_k

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

My view on the Electoral College is simple. Every individual person is important and should be made to feel so in the election of the highest position in the United States. The American public may vote in higher number this year, but a decade ago we were at about fifty percent of the voting public actually able. This is in no way a good thing. This means that a large portion of the nation does not believe either that voting is worthwhile, that their vote counts, or maybe they just couldn't get to the polls. It is our civic duty to vote and the fact that such low turnouts occur is evidence that the people require something more out of the system.

Morbo, that's why I attempted to found a system that keeps both in the hopes that it could be a first step towards a popular vote.

I would agree to that system as well Kirk

[ November 01, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Johivin ]

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

I agree that the EC is an anachronism who's time has passed. But getting 3/4 of the states to agree with that is next to impossible. The smaller states would have to vote against their perceived self-interest.

Posted by chase (Member # 6988) on :

quote:
We have no means of revising it short of Constitutional amendment, or state-by-state movement to proportional assignment of each state's electoral votes according to popular vote results. The Amendment process requires state-by-state action of some kind.

Dagonee

you obviolsy miss understood my post, i well leave it at that however

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
I have no problem with disagreeing with my idea. But when you accuse me based on my choice of words, you give me no useful feedback. I want information on my idea, not on my personal views.

First, I've given more feedback on your idea than everyone else in this thread put together.

Second, your "personal views" are what you are using to justify the change. They are absolutely relavent to the discussion at hand.

Dagonee

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
you obviolsy miss understood my post, i well leave it at that however

Then please elaborate on your post.

Dagonee

Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :

quote:
This means that a large portion of the nation does not believe either that voting is worthwhile, that their vote counts, or maybe they just couldn't get to the polls.

There was an article in the Washington Post Magazine this Sunday about why many people don't vote. The person interviewed said that part of the reason that he doesn't bother anymore is because he feels that many politicians are, well, liars.

And who can blame him? Each side has villified the other to the point where neither seems appealing, and he wouldn't consider voting for any of the third party canidates, simply because he didn't agree with them at all.

He can get to the polls. He knows that his vote can count-- he lives in a swing state. So I agree with your third option: They feel that it's not worth it. He said that the one time he did vote, he felt "stupid", because when it all came down to it, things really didn't change much.

--j_k

Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :

Hey, Dag, when you posted after me, you sounded really reasonable. I don't know why your first posts rubbed me so wrong, but they did. Thanks for explaining.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Thanks, Brinestone. I note Saxon changed "polite" to "reasonable" in his post, though. I know my posting style can be less than gentle sometimes.

I'm glad you posted something to give me the chance to explain. Even if you didn't agree, I'd rather have someone knowing my reasons behind my posts they find objectionable.

Dagonee

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :

quote:
I have made an attempt to correct what is a great problem that I observe.

quote:
I attempted to found a system that keeps both in the hopes that it could be a first step towards a popular vote.

Please don't take this as an attack on your wording, but I'm kind of curious: what do you mean when you say you "have made an attempt" or "attempted to found a system"? Do you mean that you came up with an idea, or do you mean you have actually taken steps to try to effect this change?

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :

quote:
I note Saxon changed "polite" to "reasonable" in his post, though.

Personally, I didn't find any of your posts particularly impolite; I just wanted to be more accurate. I hope I didn't offend.

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :

I can testify that Dag has argued just as vehemently with “old timers” as he has with newbies. [Big Grin]

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
Personally, I didn't find any of your posts particularly impolite; I just wanted to be more accurate. I hope I didn't offend.

No, no, not at all. I just found it interesting.

Although I have had "reasonable" used as an epithet against me in at least one personal relationship. [Smile]

Dagonee

Posted by saxon75 (Member # 4589) on :

Same here.

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

Saxon,

I have done a little of both. This idea was created by myself and a few of my colleages who have become disgruntled by the lack of enthusiasm when it comes to voting. My idea was the combination of the two, my colleages came up with some of the potential ideas for it. We have other ideas regarding similar ideas, however we felt that this one regarded the popular and electoral voting styles at equals and would have a better result of impacting a change than the others we have designed.

I have been in contact with my local senators and representatives regarding my concern and bringing my issue to them. They have regarded them the way I expected them to. They listened to my argument, explained exactly what all others have spoken of regarding the electoral college and essentially told me that it is nearly impossible to change to a popular vote and that I should seek other ways to alter it.
Thus I brought about this issue, to attempt to raise discussion into creating a system that would eventually result in a system change towards a more democratic election.

I have found good ideas in Kirk's response of making the electoral votes more like Maryland's.

Johivin Ryson

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :

Dagonee...you're such a reasonable person. It's why I like you sooo much. Hah. 800 posts, yeah!

[ November 01, 2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]

Posted by chase (Member # 6988) on :

quote:
First, I've given more feedback on your idea than everyone else in this thread put together.

no dag you pretty much just atack mistakes or little details that are not the genral theisis of the post. I pretty much just ignore it now.

if you dont agree argue, not atack.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Riiiiigghhhhht. That's a fair assessment of page 1. I'd put together a nice little exhibit of quotations showing how utterly baseless your assessment is, but it would be pointless.

Since you're just ignoring and all.

But also because the only person who's analyzed the actual effects of the idea by comparing it to past elections has been me - including the person who came up with the idea.

Dagonee

Posted by Johivin (Member # 6746) on :

As I said Dag,

I'm going to when I actually get an amount of time large enough to actually do the statistical analysis. Perhaps within the next few days, however until then, I do not have the time. Work calls much more these days. If you would like to do it for the last dozen of elections to test it, it would be greatly appreciated. But I do not have the time today.

Posted by chase (Member # 6988) on :

i didnt say anything about your posts dagonee. your post are fine. just your analysis and feedback of others.

I looked back over your posts and it wasnt so much that they wernt helpfull, and i am only speaking of your reasponses in the past couple of days and generaly to things that i said, but it is more that they are sarcastic and cruel and oftin ignore the message behind it.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

quote:
Work calls much more these days. If you would like to do it for the last dozen of elections to test it, it would be greatly appreciated.

The analysis is done - your plan can only change results in elections in which someone other than the popular vote winner wins in the Electoral College. There have only been three: two had the same result, 1 had a different result. And the one with the different result was incredibly fraudulent, so it may be an outlier in any system.

Dagonee

Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :

quote:
chase came out to say:
I dissagree the electoral college is compleatly a pointless failure and no part of it should be carried forth. I know however that it well not be revised any time soon and sense the government well not revise it we have a responsibility to our forefathers to change it ourselvs

Since you're around this thread again, I'll ask you for some clarification on your thoughts.

Why do you believe the Electoral College is a pointless failure (and needs to be abolished)? It has a large effect in our elections and the results aren't all bad. As others have said, it forces candidates to campaign in the small states too. I doubt that we (here in Oregon) would have seen very much of any candidate at all if we had a strict popular vote system.

How do you suggest we change it if the government will not cooperate?

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :

I think the first thing that should change is a switch to standardised national voting laws (for the federal election at least. States can still make up whichever laws they want for local and state elections.).

Sure it doesn't do anything about the electoral college, but I think it would cut down on some of the problems.

Plus, it just makes more sense. All the cool countries are doing it, dontcha know? [Smile]

Posted by chase (Member # 6988) on :

Why does it matter where the campaigning takes place? It’s not like it isn’t all televised.

I live in Texas, a major contender based on the Electoral College and yet I have yet to see either party...why is that? Why should I vote if I'm voting for Kerry and I live in Texas?

I think that a president not making separate trips to separate states (where no real information is given and very few questions are actually answered) could be made up by counting everyone’s vote.

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :

[Hat]

to imogen

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :

This thread has been amusing. People arguing with Dagonee. He ALWAYS backs up what he says. (That I've seen, anyway.) I also don't think he was rude at all. If you can't take criticism to your views, maybe you need to think before you share them, you sensitive souls.

Long live the electoral college, so those wackos in California and New York don't control the entire country. (Remember, I didn't say ONLY wackos lived in those states, so if you're offended.. hmm....)

[Smile]

-Katarain

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :

quote:
People arguing with Dagonee. He ALWAYS backs up what he says

That doesn't mean, of course, that he is always right.
[Smile]

(Not that I'm actually disagreeing with him. This time. [Wink]

)

Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :

*grin* Yeah, he might not be always right, but it's really hard to argue with him. You have to... like... do RESEARCH! And who wants to do that??? [Smile]

-Katarain

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :

'Tis true, Dag's posts are very well substantiated. Keeps one on one's toes. [Smile]

Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :

Dag, his idea might have changed those elections. How many Democrats in Texas didn't bother voting in 2000 because they knew it wouldn't matter? With a system that includes the popular vote in the final analysis, more people might vote who don't under the current system.

You're analysis is spot on, but it can only consider the final vote counts (of course). It can't take into account whether the final tally might have been different if people who thought their vote didn't count actually voted.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

This is true. It would be an interesting analysis, with several questions:

1) Did Republicans in Texas decide to stay home because the state was "safe"?
2) Did Democrats in Texas decide to stay home because the state was unattainable?
3) What threshold of "safety" is needed to trigger this effect?
4) Are voters described in 1) and 2) who vote only under the new plan likely to vote in their same proportions to the actual vote in these circumstances?

Would be an interesting thesis for some poli-sci's master degree.

Dagonee

Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :

HOnestly, I really don't think those factors matter that much.

We can discuss and argue all day long why some people stay home or some people don't. Fact of the matter is, only a certain percentage of registered voters go to the polls. It's usually the same people. I've voted in every election since I was eligible. My stepfather isn't even registered. No matter how strongly he felt about an election, he never felt like it was worth registering and going to vote for.

People were on TV this morning talking about whether the fact that it's raining in Alabama might favor one candidate or another. It's ridiculous. If a person is committed to voting and cares about the proces, they're going to go. If something like needing an umbrella will stop them, then they weren't likely to be going even if the weather was clear.

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :

Keep the electoral college; drop the number of "senator" votes to one per state.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Irami, in your proposal are states winner-take all, proportional w/ the remaining senatorial electoral vote going to the statewide winner, or is this still up to the individual states?

Dagonee

Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :

winner takes all

Of course it's up to the state, but I can't imagine why a small state would vote against the winner takes all system.

My intuition tells me that this would make my vote count about 80 percent of that of a person from Jackson Hole. I think that's fine. There are symphonies and theaters here. I wouldn't give that up for 20 percent of a vote.

Currently, I think my vote is worth about 45 percent of their vote, and that's too bad.

[ November 02, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

quote:
I think the first thing that should change is a switch to standardised national voting laws

Imogen
I heartily agree. Much of the chaos in Florida in 2000 arose because of the labyrinth of county, state, and federal election laws.

Would standardising national voting laws require a constitutional amendment though?

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Irami, that sounds like the best proposal so far, although again smaller states have no incentive at all to go along with it.

Morbo, states pretty clearly have control over voting laws, but the 14th and 15th amendments allows Congress to pass remedial legislation to protect equal protection and voting rights.

To exercise this power, Congress needs to be acting to prevent state (as opposed to private) interference with the rights in question. Assuming the congressional action requires state action not required by the Constitution or prohibits state action not prohibited by the Constitution, there must be findings that:

1) There is a pattern of unconstitutional violations of protected rights.
2) There must be a discriminatory intent (unequal effects are not enough).
3) The protections enacted by Congress must be congruent and proportional to the state violations of constitutional rights.

If Congress finds discriminatory intent, then Congress can ban voting regulations with disparate impacts. This is the principle behind the Voting Rights Act.

Dagonee

Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :

Thanks for the quick response, Dag.

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :

Dagonee, we have a process where the States can yield power to the Commonwealth over a certain area of legislative power that is constitutionally not a commonwealth head of power.

It only gets done rarely, but is so in cases where it is in the best interest of all States to one, unified, law regulating a certain situation (a prime example is regulation of intrastate trade by trading corporations - while interestate trade is a commonwealth head of power, intrastate trade is more contentious).

Is this possible in the US?

Obviously, even if it was, it would be more practically difficult to get 50 states to agree than it is to get 6 states to agree here.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

In areas where the federal government has control, it's control is supreme. Interstate commerce is the best example; it's clearly the domain of the federal government. States can't "unduly burden" interstate commerce, which means at minimum they can't pass laws that discriminate against out-of-state businesses. It also means that if the federal government has "occupied the field" in a given area relating to commerce, the states cannot gainsay that federal policy.

The interstate commerce clause provides power in a lot of areas. For example, the civil rights laws are basically commerce laws, justified by the burden lack of public accomodation places on interstate commerce.

Another big area of federal power is taxing and spending. There are many instances where the federal government gives money to the states conditioned on regulations that, in and of themselves, the federal government lacks the power to pass. For example, drinking age laws are the sole domain of the states. But the federal government cuts the highway subsidy for any state that doesn't have a drinking age of 21. This has been deemed constitutional.

Dagonee

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :

That sounds similar to our system. I just realised that I didn't explain my terms very well. A commonwealth head of power is where the federal government has power to legislate on that area. Any state laws inconsistent with the federal law are invalid.

What I was wondering was where the federal government does not have the constitutional power to legislate (so in the case of voting laws) would it be constitutionally possible for all the states to agree to cede legislative power over that area to the federal legislature?

(Thus getting around any need for an amendment)

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

I don't know if they could cede it permanantly - i.e., bind future state legislatures to the new balance of power. There are several cases which suggest that federalism and state power are rights of the people, not the states.

Of course, if the states all passed laws acknowledging the federal regulation, those regulations would have force. But it's not clear if the federal government could enforce those laws - the states might have to. The regulations could also be tweaked by state legislatures, and there's no way all 50 states would resist this temptation.

So if the federal government doesn't have the power to supercede the states, the only real way to get it is via amendment. Otherwise it last only so long as no one complains about it.

Dagonee

Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :

Cool, thanks Dagonee.

(I find comparative Constitutional studies fascinating. Especially given that our Constitution was in part modelled on the US one, in part on the constitutional conventions of the UK, and in part on our own special blend of federalism down under.)