posted
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.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
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.
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).
Posts: 1466 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
If dagonee cannot admit that there is a problem in that, I will not respond to his responses, simple as that.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What attempts have you made to fix a national issue? You critize my attempts at justification, yet make no endeavor yourself.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
California voted for Reagan twice in the 80s. The South used to be staunchly Democratic, and now is mostly safe for Republicans. Things change. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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!
Posts: 894 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 33 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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. Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 535 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.*
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 33 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
