The Electoral College

I caught a tidbit of some moron comedian on Comedy Central earlier, talking about the Electoral College, and how silly it would be to explain the system to an outsider. Comedian aside, it got me thinking not about the importance of the College itself, but of the system.

We all know the original reasons for the Electoral College and we also know that it hardly amounts to anything more than a political nod to the important of a person to the winner's campaign. The Electors themselves do little to influence the outcome of the election (I don't know what the exact numbers are, but can anyone remember the last time that an Elector voted against the candidate that nominated him and it affected the outcome of the election? Has it ever?)

So while the College itself seems to have outlived its purpose, few people ever consider the underlying system, which is a limitation on the amount of influence any one state can have on the outcome of the election. This means that if California has only 3 voters, they exert the full influence of the state's population in the outcome of the election. Alternatively, if every single registered voter in California were to vote, then they can only affect the outcome of the election proportionate to their population, even though they may represent more than 50% of total voters in the election.

Taking out the mechanics of the Electoral College itself (vote for candidate, winning candidate nominates Electors, Electors vote for candidate of choice), do you still reject this system? Would you remove it entirely, or tweak it?

I personally dislike the Electoral College, it makes the vote of an American potentially useless, as the President is elected based on Electoral College numbers and not of the popular vote, but it is very rare that the popular vote would provide a different President than the electoral college, with the most notable recent occurrence being the 2000 Gore vs Bush election.

In my opinion no state is important enough to garner more sway than any other, it is the American People who should choose the President like any other public office. If more people happen to live in Texas or California, so be it. For example, for the last several elections, being a Democrat in Indiana was virtually worthless because our vote did not count at the end of the election, I say that because up until the 08 election, Indiana is historically an almost always a red state. Therefore the electoral college votes go to the Republican nominee since the popular vote doesn't mean anything. This works the other way as well, this time around all of the Republican votes in Indiana did not count as Obama won the electoral votes. Now the popular vote matters in a sense that the majority that wins usually ensures that the electoral votes go to that candidate, and in close states it can matter very much, where it is almost always 50/50, but in a situation like Bush vs Gore 2000 where 543,816 more voters wanted Gore to be President, yet Bush became president, clearly it is an outdated flawed system that needs to be done away with.

In states that are overwhelmingly vote to a certain party, such as California or Alabama, the minority party may as well not even vote, except to boost the popular vote, which again, means nothing.

I would be interested in hearing from someone who thinks the Electoral College is a good thing, and why?

Yeah, the heart of this issue is how effective a given voting system is. In a good democracy, ideally it would be the majority of the people within the country who decide who elected them, but the systems we use today don't accurately reflect that. As a Canadian example, we use the First Past the Post system, which is really just a fancy name for a plurality vote. Whoever gets the most votes wins. It sounds better than it plays out, especially when we look at the last Canadian election; Canada experienced an approximately 52% voter turnout, the lowest in this country's history. Of those, because there were 4 parties being voted for, the winners of the election (the Conservatives) ended up with another Minority Government based on winning the most votes out of everyone who participated, while still not having the majority of seats within Parliament.

It ends up with the votes of approximately 36%~ of Canadians who actually showed up to vote deciding who the governing party is going to be. One-third of half of Canadians effectively chose the government, with 30-40% being the approximate percentage to win in any given riding. The issue with this is that the true majority hasn't actually selected a candidate (much less the candidate they wanted). If 35% wins a riding, 65% of voters haven't voted for the winner. This is completely out of whack with the idea of a 'majority rules' democratic government.

There was a referendum in Ontario in the last provincial election calling for a change in the voting system; instead of using FPTP, we would use the Mixed Member Proportional system, which involved voting twice - once for the local candidate you wanted to elect, regardless of partisan affiliation and once for the party you wanted in government. As much as I liked the system (I see it as a step up in voting representation, although my understanding of it is extremely limited), it was defeated in a binding referendum in that election, the defeat coming mostly from media-related issues. The new system of voting wasn't explained properly, the government pretty much flat out refused to talk about it and there was a media storm of hatred towards it based more on a sense of traditionalism than actually comparing one system to the other, but that is a digression.

Well I disagree that a simple majority ought to win the election. All this does is mean a geographic region with high population density (and, therefore, relatively similar views) can rule the system to the detriment of the entire rest of the country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Well I disagree that a simple majority ought to win the election. All this does is mean a geographic region with high population density (and, therefore, relatively similar views) can rule the system to the detriment of the entire rest of the country.

---

Exactly, so if more people have similar views, then why shouldn't this count as a majority? America is made up of people, not land mass. What I mean by that is just because a population is more spread out such as parts of the south and the west, doesn't mean they should be given more power to compensate for their lack of population. The fact is that if 51% of Americans, regardless of location, share certain views, than so be it.

Regardless of which party wins, all laws & regulations made still need to fall within the confines of the constitution, I fail to see why lots of people in a small area devalues their vote any.

Also, why do you believe having the majority of the population rule be detrimental to the rest of the country?

Not necessarily - I mean a simple majority is all it takes to win in the current FPTP system. I would say that the win percentage should be 50% of the total votes. It's not necessarily an easy thing to achieve, and I think an absolutely stupid amounts of recounts and voting again would probably have to be done, but a majority based on less than 20% of the actual population is no majority and it's foolish to say that it is.

There really isn't any such thing as perfect representation of all interests, as much as we would like there to be, but so long as the inefficiencies can be held to a minimum, the system should be able to function over the long term without have those who voted being enraged at their leaders.

I do agree that a high population density doesn't mean that area should hold more clout, although it tends to translate that way. Unfortunately, I can't offer any real alternative to that system. High density is really just more and more demand for resources to be brought in from outlying areas, but without offering any real cost to those who actuall produce/refine the resources brought in. Is there a balance between the two that would make the system work better? Probably. Part of dealing with an issue like this is having those who are benefiting from the imbalance relinquish their perks, and there are surprisingly few people who would be willing to do so. As a wise man once said, it is surprisingly easy to live in hypocrisy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coqauvin

Not necessarily - I mean a simple majority is all it takes to win in the current FPTP system. I would say that the win percentage should be 50% of the total votes. It's not necessarily an easy thing to achieve, and I think an absolutely stupid amounts of recounts and voting again would probably have to be done, but a majority based on less than 20% of the actual population is no majority and it's foolish to say that it is.

There really isn't any such thing as perfect representation of all interests, as much as we would like there to be, but so long as the inefficiencies can be held to a minimum, the system should be able to function over the long term without have those who voted being enraged at their leaders.

I do agree that a high population density doesn't mean that area should hold more clout, although it tends to translate that way. Unfortunately, I can't offer any real alternative to that system. High density is really just more and more demand for resources to be brought in from outlying areas, but without offering any real cost to those who actuall produce/refine the resources brought in. Is there a balance between the two that would make the system work better? Probably. Part of dealing with an issue like this is having those who are benefiting from the imbalance relinquish their perks, and there are surprisingly few people who would be willing to do so. As a wise man once said, it is surprisingly easy to live in hypocrisy.

---

In the United States Presidential Election, there are only 2 viable candidates, therefore we avoid the problem of 3 candidates with 2 of them being similar splitting the vote. The last time the United States had a 3rd party take any notable amount of votes was in 1968 with Republican Nixon, Democratic Humphrey and 3rd party "American Independent" taking almost 10 million votes and 46 Electoral. In a 2 party system I think straight majority is the best way as the winner is almost guaranteed to be at 50% or slightly over counting the maybe 1% that all of the other 3rd party candidates get, if they are even on the ballot.

Sources: http://www.270towin.com/

If you remove the electoral college and allow the federal executive to be decided by a simple majority, surely then you'd have to devolve a large amount of federal powers back to the state level to provide another check on the president's power?

I don't think the electoral college system as it stands imposes any meaningful restraint on the president's power, so doing away with it probably wouldn't meaningfully increase executive power, certainly not enough that "a large amount" of federal power would have to be devolved back to the states to make up for it. How does direct election make the president more powerful?

I'm just following the argument that a directly elected president could pose problems for states with smaller populations under the current system. I should have worded my post to say 'a check on the electoral clout of large states' rather than a check on the president's office itself. My bad.

Ahh, I see. Well yes, it is true that if presidents were directly elected, the voting power of thinly populated states would be decreased (e.g., California has 18 times the voting power of Montana under the current system, but would have 36 times the voting power of Montana under a direct election system, because it has 36 times more people). I don't think it would necessitate any return of powers to the states though.

Well I'm supposing that the federal government has a fair lot more power than states do, so if presidents were elected directly by the population, then the federal executive would leave the powerless smaller states out in the cold. Devolving some powers (like, I dunno, dissolving the dept. of education) to the states would limit the directly-elected president's powers.

Well, the small states have their disproportionately large federal representation in the form of their Senators. My view is that the president is supposed to represent America and the American public as a whole, and really doesn't have anything to do with representing states, so I'm not really concerned about the possibility that he might care less about Montana vs. California or what-have-you if he was directly elected. I really don't see the interests of the smaller states as being protected by how much the president cares about them in the first place. I would rather that all voters have an equal hand in choosing the president, instead of voters from different states having their votes be valued differently for the sake of inflating the electoral importance of thinly populated states.

Bottom line, I don't see direct election of the president meaningfully reducing the role of small states at the federal level.

What would we use to replace this system though? We can't determine the next leader of the free world through the popular vote because they are so easily tampered with. There are plenty of flaws in the college (ask any resident in DC and they'll agree) but it's worked thus far. Why fix what isn't broken?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

What would we use to replace this system though? We can't determine the next leader of the free world through the popular vote because they are so easily tampered with.

---

What do you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

What do you mean?

---

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/se...vote-s14.shtml

http://www.correntewire.com/guarante...tory_this_year

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...lection_stolen

Take these stories for what you think they are worth and even if they aren't true, the possibility of tampering is out there. Also, now that most states have begun moving to electronic voting machines, the fear that someone (not the "inside man" for a political party which I'm sure every conspiracy buff is suspecting) would have the know-how or means to tamper with the votes.

I mean if Kevin Mitnick could wiretap the FBI (allegedly) what could someone like that do to voting machines guarded by senior volunteers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by no_brains_no_worries

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/se...vote-s14.shtml

http://www.correntewire.com/guarante...tory_this_year

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/sto...lection_stolen

Take these stories for what you think they are worth and even if they aren't true, the possibility of tampering is out there. Also, now that most states have begun moving to electronic voting machines, the fear that someone (not the "inside man" for a political party which I'm sure every conspiracy buff is suspecting) would have the know-how or means to tamper with the votes.

I mean if Kevin Mitnick could wiretap the FBI (allegedly) what could someone like that do to voting machines guarded by senior volunteers?

---

Uh, how is tampering with voting machines easier, or more of a concern, when the president is directly elected than when we have the electoral college? It strikes me as an equally serious concern either way. Obviously the possibility of tampering is out there, but going to a direct-election system doesn't make it any more severe.

Given enough pressure, you can hold someone accountable for being bought with the electoral college. There will always be someone ultimately responsible with the electoral college and those they represent. With a direct based election, there would be no representative and be harder to find a problem with the system and correct it.

I mean, could you imagine the headache, money, and time it would take to go through every single vote and to prove to everyone who asked whether their vote was accounted for? Deadlines would be shot to hell and demands for a recount is a near-impossible task as it is.

I'm not sure I follow you. Right now, under the electoral college system, if there's an allegation of voting machine tampering or voter fraud in a given election district, all the ballots from that district have to be manually recounted. If we went to the direct-election system, if there was an allegation of voting machine tampering or voter fraud in an election district, all the ballots from that district would also have to be manually recounted. What's the problem? Why is it harder under a direct-election system? It's not like a direct-election system would force us to recount every vote in the country when voter fraud or tampering was alleged in a given district.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Well I disagree that a simple majority ought to win the election. All this does is mean a geographic region with high population density (and, therefore, relatively similar views) can rule the system to the detriment of the entire rest of the country.

---

Considering that states like California, New York, Florida and Texas have far more electoral votes than Nebraska or New Jersey what you said doesn't really hold up. Cities will generally always have a higher say in matters since they are cultural and economic centers whereas rural regions aren't. In this case electoral votes should be all equal if you want industrialized/populous regions to not skew the results at the detriment to rural/low-population regions.

I'm also critical of the Canadian system (and, well, the Westminster system in general) since if we want more democracy then the federal and legislative branches should both be elected by popular vote, as opposed to the people elect parliament, parliament elects federal government, etc. Though at least the Westminster system tends to help third-parties gain more prominence. I'm surprised that it's so widespread though as even the DPRK uses a variant of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Well I disagree that a simple majority ought to win the election. All this does is mean a geographic region with high population density (and, therefore, relatively similar views) can rule the system to the detriment of the entire rest of the country.

---

Yeah, this makes no sense whatsoever. The electoral college is set up to bear some proportionality of electors to each states' population, just like the number of representatives in the House allotted to each state rises

And it's obvious what you mean by this: you're saying that as the system stands now, it makes it more likely that the liberal and more highly populated east and west coasts can't have the largest effect on the presidential election "to the detriment of the rest of the country." Har har.

Well, arguably there was only one election where the electoral college clearly elected the candidate into office that did not win the popular vote, which happened in 1888 when the memorable Benjamin Harrison won the election in between Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms in office.

In the other 3 cases where the candidate who did not win the popular vote got into office, the electoral college did not truly ultimately determine the outcome. The first was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams got in due to a vote by the House of Representatives, as no candidate got a solid majority of electors as required (he actually also lost the electoral vote.) The second was in the close presidential election of 1876, where technically Hayes did win the electoral vote by a 1 vote. In reality, many of the electoral votes were contested, and the election was truly determined by back-door deals between the Democratic and Republican parties. The third is one that is in all of our recent memories, in 2000, when the Supreme Court essentially determined who the winner was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

And it's obvious what you mean by this: you're saying that as the system stands now, it makes it more likely that the liberal and more highly populated east and west coasts can't have the largest effect on the presidential election "to the detriment of the rest of the country." Har har.

---

This is a good point; it's probably important to bear in mind that a direct presidential election would decrease the voting power of thinly populated states, which tend to be conservative, in comparison to that of the less conservative high-population states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

This is a good point; it's probably important to bear in mind that a direct presidential election would decrease the voting power of thinly populated states, which tend to be conservative, in comparison to that of the less conservative high-population states.

---

Yes, but why is it fair to dramatically increase the voting power of these smaller percentage of populations? If America is liberal and wants to vote liberal, then so be it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syme

This is a good point; it's probably important to bear in mind that a direct presidential election would decrease the voting power of thinly populated states, which tend to be conservative, in comparison to that of the less conservative high-population states.

---

Again, however, almost every presidential election follows the popular vote. The only example after the 19th century in which this wasn't the case was in 2000, though even then Gore only had a slim margin of 0.5% thanks to motherfucking Nader. But I mustn't dwell on it lest I have a heart attack...

If this weren't the case, there would be a far louder outcry against the electoral college. And to be quite frank, at this point there is little to no reason for it. Every reason I've heard for its existence is specious. The arguements I've heard for it are so convoluted I can't even recall them, aside from Atmosfear essentially saying here that he approves of the electoral college only because its existence along with the Supreme Court ruling got Bush into the White House in 2000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrTroy

Yes, but why is it fair to dramatically increase the voting power of these smaller percentage of populations? If America is liberal and wants to vote liberal, then so be it.

---

I wasn't saying it's a bad thing, just pointing out that it's a consequence. I agree that America's vote should be exactly as liberal or conservative as America is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sycld

Yeah, this makes no sense whatsoever. The electoral college is set up to bear some proportionality of electors to each states' population, just like the number of representatives in the House allotted to each state rises

And it's obvious what you mean by this: you're saying that as the system stands now, it makes it more likely that the liberal and more highly populated east and west coasts can't have the largest effect on the presidential election "to the detriment of the rest of the country." Har har.

Well, arguably there was only one election where the electoral college clearly elected the candidate into office that did not win the popular vote, which happened in 1888 when the memorable Benjamin Harrison won the election in between Grover Cleveland's two non-consecutive terms in office.

In the other 3 cases where the candidate who did not win the popular vote got into office, the electoral college did not truly ultimately determine the outcome. The first was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams got in due to a vote by the House of Representatives, as no candidate got a solid majority of electors as required (he actually also lost the electoral vote.) The second was in the close presidential election of 1876, where technically Hayes did win the electoral vote by a 1 vote. In reality, many of the electoral votes were contested, and the election was truly determined by back-door deals between the Democratic and Republican parties. The third is one that is in all of our recent memories, in 2000, when the Supreme Court essentially determined who the winner was.

---

Actually, what I'm saying is that the total number of votes in the election should not be the major factor in deciding the influence of any one region. My issue with the simple majority is that it allows the 51% majority to abuse the 49%.

The point is that California can only count for X percentage of the total outcome. If all 36 million California voters turned out in an election that totaled 50 million votes, they could elect a candidate who serves only their own agenda. As it is now, even if the voters from a single state total a majority of the overall election, their influence on the outcome is limited by their actual size. Fortunately, we don't usually see a major skew in voter turnout (most states have roughly the same turnout as a percentage of registered voters), but it could happen and the system shouldn't be exploitable by that.

I don't know why I try to do this at 12:30am.

tl;dr I think neutralizing voter turnout disparity is the most important quality of the Electoral College and while I do not oppose a shift from the winner take all system, I think the Electoral College must continue performing this important function. The President of the United States should not be decided because Texas had a big gubernatorial election on the ballot and California, Florida, and New York did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

The point is that California can only count for X percentage of the total outcome. If all 36 million California voters turned out in an election that totaled 50 million votes, they could elect a candidate who serves only their own agenda. As it is now, even if the voters from a single state total a majority of the overall election, their influence on the outcome is limited by their actual size. Fortunately, we don't usually see a major skew in voter turnout (most states have roughly the same turnout as a percentage of registered voters), but it could happen and the system shouldn't be exploitable by that.

---

I actually disagree with this. In principle, yes, it would be great to have the system be immune to any sort of exploitation, but since the practical upshot of defending against this particular exploitation is that some votes count more than others, I think the cure is worse than the disease--especially since the disease is probably never going to actually be a problem. I don't think we should be distorting the value of the vote in order to guard against a form of exploitation that is frankly unrealistic and implausible. I would rather have a system a system that gives equal value to all votes but can theoretically be exploited by unrealistic state-to-state voter turnout disparities, than a system that can't be exploited in this way but means that a Californian's vote only matters half as much as a Montanan's vote.

EDIT: Actually, we could address both these problems by retaining the electoral college, but changing the system by which states are given electors; instead of a state having a number of electors equal to it's combined number of senators and reps, they would only have electors equal to their number of reps, and therefore based on population. This would require amending the Constitution, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Actually, what I'm saying is that the total number of votes in the election should not be the major factor in deciding the influence of any one region. My issue with the simple majority is that it allows the 51% majority to abuse the 49%.

---

In terms of general governance in a democracy, I absolutely agree, and it is also one of the major reasons why we have our systems of representative government.

But we're not talking about representative democracy in general. We're talking about electing a president. Unfortunately, there can only be one winner, and if it comes down to a 1% spread, then the candidate that got 1% of the vote should win. Of course, we could go back to having the winner with the 2nd highest total be the vice-president, but that's obviously a different discussion.

Quote:

---

The point is that California can only count for X percentage of the total outcome. If all 36 million California voters turned out in an election that totaled 50 million votes, they could elect a candidate who serves only their own agenda. As it is now, even if the voters from a single state total a majority of the overall election, their influence on the outcome is limited by their actual size. Fortunately, we don't usually see a major skew in voter turnout (most states have roughly the same turnout as a percentage of registered voters), but it could happen and the system shouldn't be exploitable by that.

---

That's not preventing the other Americans from turning out to vote, though I see what you're saying, and to be honest of all the arguements I've heard for an electoral college, this is the probably the best I've heard thus far.

Nonetheless, I feel like there is even more danger of this in sweetheart deals to buy support from officials on the federal level, namely among senators and representatives that include kickbacks to their states in bills in order to secure their vote. I seriously doubt that such kickback deals for certain states or regions could be easily sold to individual voters.

Um those things already happen, sycld, they are called presidential promises and they aren't worth the breath wasted to make them. Oh hey, I'm in Detroit, better tell them we're going to save the auto industry and give them their jobs back.

Syme: Voter turnout is affected by a million factors from weather, to other elections on the ballot, to what's happening the night before, none of which are related to the decision at hand. Are you happy with knowing an early blizzard in the North East could be the cause for a presidential election turning out?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Syme: Voter turnout is affected by a million factors from weather, to other elections on the ballot, to what's happening the night before, none of which are related to the decision at hand. Are you happy with knowing an early blizzard in the North East could be the cause for a presidential election turning out?

---

But that doesn't really matter since the other North East states besides New York, Philadelphia, New Jersey and Massachusetts would have to band together and all vote for the Republicans (which they did) to get a decent enough number of EVs that would beat a Democratic New York. (NY had 31, this would be about 39)

The electoral college is useless at protecting smaller states because the big states have more electoral votes, and in places where it 'works' (trying to balance the two parties pretty much which doesn't really matter because it isn't like they need balancing with EVs) it's irrelevant anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Syme: Voter turnout is affected by a million factors from weather, to other elections on the ballot, to what's happening the night before, none of which are related to the decision at hand. Are you happy with knowing an early blizzard in the North East could be the cause for a presidential election turning out?

---

I'd be happier with that than with knowing that some people's votes are always going to count for more than other people's votes, yes. I might just as well ask you if you are happy with the fact that the presidential election could be decided because some people have twice as much voting power as other people. And I don't really have a problem with the fact that if a given state has low voter turnout, it contributes correspondingly fewer votes to the election. Barring certain extreme cases like early blizzards that make it literally impossible for people to get to the polling places, voter turnout is determined by how many people choose to vote. Yes, it's affected in a predictable way by factors like what else is on the ballot, but that doesn't change the fact that, generally speaking, everyone who votes chose to vote, and everyone who doesn't vote chose not to. If they really wanted to have a say in choosing their president, they could damn well make it to the polls in 99% of cases. So it doesn't usually break my heart when states where few people choose to vote have a correspondingly small say in electing the president. That's how democracy works.

EDIT: In other words, if lots of New Yorkers bother to vote and few Californians bother it vote, it does not bother me in the slightest that New York plays a larger role than California in electing the president. What would bother me would be if they each played a role proportionate to their total populations even when their respective voting populations weren't proportionate to their total populations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Atmosfear

Um those things already happen, sycld, they are called presidential promises and they aren't worth the breath wasted to make them. Oh hey, I'm in Detroit, better tell them we're going to save the auto industry and give them their jobs back.

---

Yes, that is one example. But wouldn't you agree that it is relatively rare for a presidential candidate to make a specific policy promise to a specific region of the country that mostly only affects that region of the country?

Usually, when presidential candidates campaign in a region, they emphasize parts of their platform that would gain support by people in that region, but they don't often promise to specifically do something for that region that has little impact outside of that region.