I have stumbled upon this site:

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Which is lobbying for us to change to the national popular vote in the presidential election. yeah, cool, nothing we haven't heard before, right? But...

Quote :

"Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland Enact National Popular Vote Bill"

What? Doesn't this change everything?

Theoretically, states can always give their delegates to whoever they want to. So if all the states decided to wait until all votes in the nation were counted, and then have their delegates all vote for the popular vote winner - then we would be effectively be voting by popular vote by means of the electoral college.

But why do we need all the states? With just the 5 states listed above, if they all went went with the popular vote, then provided that this is a 45%-55% kind of election (which it should be) then we will already be effectively voting with popular vote AS IT STANDS.

Are the days of the electoral college coming to an end?

538 electoral votes
270 for majority
4+11+15+10 = 40 already pledged to the popular vote and enough to determine the election??!

Or does this legislation really mean nothing? Or maybe it'll just complicate things to make a bigger mess than 2000?

5/14/2008 11:17:56 AM

One can only hope the electoral died a quick death. It is really outdated.

5/14/2008 11:21:35 AM

Nebraska already proportionally splits its electoral college, and has for years. While the intent may be to move towards an electoral college, all it really does is waters down the state's influence. Why would a candidate spend time campaigning for one more vote from a proportional states than trying to win the block of votes in a competitive state?


The electoral college is not outdated, and here is why: elections are run at the state level. While there are certainly Federal guidelines, the election is a state responsibility. As long as that is the case, there is a strong argument for keeping vote tallies segregated between states. Think about it this way: if shenanigans happen again in Florida under the electoral college, a tight election and Florida's electoral votes would be tainted (there still should be recourse in the courts). On the other hand, if a corrupt or mismanaged election in one state counts 50,000 or 100,000 illegitimate votes under their rules, that would contaminate the popular vote tally and be mixed in with the votes of all other states.

You may argue that that we need to go to nationalized elections, but as long as they are primarily the perogative of states, something like the electoral college fits.

5/14/2008 11:49:39 AM

After much thinking on teh subject; I support an electoral college where each state must splits its electors proportionally representing the popular vote more so then a direct election.

With 250 million people i beleive the electoral college acts as a filter for voting irregularties, fuck ups, corruption, and other skewing factors.

The winner takes all system has several bad aspects which i don't agree with.
1.) Places emphasis on the so-called "swing states" which get more attention then other states.
2.) Nearly disenfranchisizes those that favor the minority party within one of the polarized states (conservatives in California; liberals in South Carolina) fpr the presedential election.
3.) Waters down public opinion in favor of the aristocratic consensus



[Edited on May 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM. Reason : a]

5/14/2008 11:52:22 AM

Your opinion is great, really is.

But if what I was questioning in the first post really is true then we are no longer in the electoral college system, it's nothing more than a vestigial organ.

Quote :

"While the intent may be to move towards an electoral college, all it really does is waters down the state's influence. Why would a candidate spend time campaigning for one more vote from a proportional states than trying to win the block of votes in a competitive state?"

NO! You didn't read what I was saying right. This isn't about allocating your delegates by your state popular vote. This is about allocating ALL your delegates to the winner of the NATIONAL POPULAR vote. As long as the election is somewhat close, then the winner of the national popular vote will win the election, it won't even matter how the other states allocate their votes, unless they do some in some illogical fashion.

A voting block of 5 states is enough to determine the election in the modern world (provided they weren't all D or R to begin with). This would completely tear down the system of the past, and you have completely different issues to deal with - the last two posts are talking about something completely different.

5/14/2008 12:17:59 PM

^
No state would ever do that independently though b/c the argument can be made to voters that they're squandering their influence. That's why even the states enacting the popular vote legislation include a trigger stating it doesn't take effect until X number of other states sign on (the North Carolina Senate adopted a similar bill last year with the same language)

And as more states enact the legislation, and we get closer to that tipping point where it becomes "active", new states will be increasingly less likely to implement it b/c they don't want to be the ones bearing responsibility in the public mind if it turns out to be a disastrous idea

5/14/2008 6:56:44 PM

holy shit

TGD is back

5/14/2008 7:29:47 PM

Why would you be less likely to do it if it's closer to the tipping point? I mean, come on, bandwagon.

5/14/2008 9:24:36 PM

good thing for the dems tthat they didn't do popular vote in the primaries!!

lol, b/c hillary is winning popular now.

5/14/2008 9:28:12 PM

to win a popular vote, you only have to be ahead at the moment people vote.

We also don't have an accurate count for that. Polls are inaccurate and we don't have a net count of x people voted for hillary in the primaries.

5/14/2008 10:20:16 PM

Popular vote:
Obama 16,680,827---47.6%
Clinton 16,710,298---47.7%

Spread
Clinton +29,471 +0.08%


"head at the moment people vote."<-what the fuck are you trying to say

5/14/2008 10:28:35 PM

Quote :

"We also don't have an accurate count for that. Polls are inaccurate and we don't have a net count of x people voted for hillary in the primaries. "

that is why i support having the electors split in proportion of the popular vote. Chances are following the laws of probability the variation do to the irregularities would be filtered out given each elector would count for a large % of each population. States would then be allowed to create the rules in how they are split. Toughest would be the small states since they have less electors to break down. For example Alaska has 4. Thus they could create it where if candidate x gets at least 25% of the vote he gets one elector. or if there is an odd number the "additional" vote would go to the majority winner.

5/14/2008 10:32:55 PM

An interesting proposal to mend the electoral college from Arthur Schlesinger Jr.

His idea is to award two extra electoral votes for the popular winners in each state. This would put an extra 102 votes into play while still maintaining the individual states as political units.

5/15/2008 12:08:41 AM

Quote :

"One can only hope the electoral died a quick death. It is really outdated."

i cannot fucken stand the electoral system. didn't the Union win the civil war?

5/15/2008 12:49:08 AM

47.6 vs. 47.7 is pretty close. The degree to which I trust the polling method for these numbers dwarfs the difference. In other words, as far as I'm concerned, no one is winning the "popular opinion".

But that's the thing, and election isn't a poll. I support a popular vote over some fucked up system for similar reasons to what HUR was saying there. But despite the quick shifts in public opinion, you must give people credit for taking the time to get out there and vote.

Even if you were loosing 98% of the time and you come just a few thousand votes ahead when votes are cast, that's still a respectable choice by the voters. They physically went to the polling station and slightly more people voted for one candidate than for the other. That's about the fairest way you can do this.

5/15/2008 11:38:51 AM

It will not go into effect this nov. There are provisions in the law that make it go into effect when there are enough states and for the election following that one.

5/15/2008 11:46:37 AM

Quote :

"theDuke866: holy shit TGD is back"

haha not sure for how long though -- TSB has a tendency to go downhill fast, even after periods like this one where there's semi-coherent discussion...

5/15/2008 12:24:38 PM

Well, let me know when it does become law because I need to get down to my district and start stuffing the ballot box. Afterall, the party that controls the state controls the election process and riggin' the system, which would be rediculous today since the vote is going to go that way anyway and winning by even more votes would be a waste of time. But, if we use the popular vote, I suspect the voting population of most states on paper would suddenly shoot up as democrat run-states find it hard to turn democrats away from voting due to something as silly as not being registered.

5/15/2008 12:43:14 PM

^Is that why North CArolina, which is controlled by Democrats is making the electoral college in North Carolina vote for the Democratic nominee?

5/15/2008 1:05:18 PM

I'm glad this country isn't a democracy. The electoral college is designed to protect us from the tyranny of demagogues and others who would trample our Constitution on the whim of the mob. The founding fathers were wise not to put the reigns of power directly in the hands of the public.

Our populace is somewhat more educated now than it was then and our technology is better, but human nature hasn't changed.

5/15/2008 1:09:19 PM

^ that makes no sense.

please cook me up an example where someone could get away with something bad in a complete majority election that could not be done with the electoral college.

Seriously, I can't think of anything. Maybe somebody wanted to... implement national healthcare, which sounds good to a normal citizen who is too stupid to know that it would really destroy the nation. Oh, but the system will stop that irresponsibility right. It will not.


I'm 100% for region based representation in the national government. Someone's gotta look out for, say the Raleigh area, in the national arena - and we have those people in the house and senate (even different levels of locality). But that doesn't mean we should group the votes together in some crazy way for a genuinely national election.

5/15/2008 4:36:01 PM

Quote :

"please cook me up an example where someone could get away with something bad in a complete majority election that could not be done with the electoral college."

The purpose of the electoral college is to eliminate the incentive of ballot stuffing by local government. Specifically, if the Chicago government "discovers" a rediculous sum of votes in the Mayors trunk, unless the fraud swung the electoral votes of Illinois, then the impact would be irrelevant. Meanwhile, under a complete majority system, whenever there is a close election every state and every county must immediately be under suspicion of fraud, as any one of them could have turned the election. Meanwhile, if only Florida is close, then only the districts of florida need to be investigated.

What this means is that if fraud ever worked then you are likely to be caught, as everyone will know where to look (Florida). Meanwhile, in 2001 no one would have known where to start looking for fraud, as any fraud in the whole nation would have swayed the election.

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 7:13 PM. Reason : .,.]

5/15/2008 7:11:50 PM

Quote :

"that makes no sense. please cook me up an example where someone could get away with something bad in a complete majority election that could not be done with the electoral college."

Well, I guess Hamilton and others were idiots.

Quote :

"The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states. The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers: It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief. (See All of the Federalist 68) Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to insure that only a qualified person becomes President. They believed that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry. It would act as check on an electorate that might be duped. Hamilton and the other founders did not trust the population to make the right choice. The founders also believed that the Electoral College had the advantage of being a group that met only once and thus could not be manipulated over time by foreign governments or others. The electoral college is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have representative in Congress, thus no state could have less then 3. The result of this system is that in this election the state of Wyoming cast about 210,000 votes, and thus each elector represented 70,000 votes, while in California approximately 9,700,000 votes were cast for 54 votes, thus representing 179,000 votes per electorate. Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states. One aspect of the electoral system that is not mandated in the constitution is the fact that the winner takes all the votes in the state. Therefore it makes no difference if you win a state by 50.1% or by 80% of the vote you receive the same number of electoral votes. This can be a receipe for one individual to win some states by large pluralities and lose others by small number of votes, and thus this is an easy scenario for one candidate winning the popular vote while another winning the electoral vote. This winner take all methods used in picking electors has been decided by the states themselves. This trend took place over the course of the 19th century. While there are clear problems with the Electoral College and there are some advantages to it, changing it is very unlikely. It would take a constituitional amendment ratified by 3/4 of states to change the system. It is hard to imagine the smaller states agreeing."

http://www.multied.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

[Edited on May 15, 2008 at 8:48 PM. Reason : durka]

5/15/2008 8:46:28 PM

1) THAN, not THEN. Jeez, people.
2)

Quote :

"Obviously this creates an unfair advantage to voters in the small states whose votes actually count more then those people living in medium and large states."

I guess the fact that California has 57 votes and Wyoming only has 3 is lost on this fool when he tries to argue that Wyoming has more influence... Per voter? Sure. but California still has 19 times the fucking votes as Wyoming. So it works out in the end. That's why it's called a "compromise"

5/15/2008 9:03:15 PM

Quote :

"The purpose of the electoral college is to eliminate the incentive of ballot stuffing by local government. Specifically, if the Chicago government "discovers" a rediculous sum of votes in the Mayors trunk, unless the fraud swung the electoral votes of Illinois, then the impact would be irrelevant. Meanwhile, under a complete majority system, whenever there is a close election every state and every county must immediately be under suspicion of fraud, as any one of them could have turned the election. Meanwhile, if only Florida is close, then only the districts of florida need to be investigated. What this means is that if fraud ever worked then you are likely to be caught, as everyone will know where to look (Florida). Meanwhile, in 2001 no one would have known where to start looking for fraud, as any fraud in the whole nation would have swayed the election."

This doesn't sound much like an instrument to insulate voters from the national government - more of isolating the local governments from the national government. Either that, or just... making voting less work for the organizers.

I don't think humanitarian arguments go out of date, i.e. most of our constitution. I do think logistical arguments often expire as society changes.

^ and yeah, I don't see how it shifts power any more than the house of representatives.

5/15/2008 11:11:51 PM