leejo

Funny how the wheel turns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselection...83837,00.html?

For the record, I like the electoral college and don't think we should monkey with the constitution for tactical gain. We had this discussion a year or two ago. I wonder if my more liberal friends are still eager to do away with the college.

SmokingTarpan

I've never defined myself as a democrat, republican, liberal or conservative- though I'm sure I've been lumped in with the liberals by more than a few. I personally hate the electoral college, and believe it should simply be up to popular vote. A system where your candidates, in order to lead the entire country, only need to pay attention to about 1/3 of the country? Boo.

__________________

[squadl]
"I am the prettiest african-american, vietnamese..cong..person." -SugarNCamo

xTYBALTx

Also, I want Senators chosen by the state houses, as they were meant to be. The Senate is supposed to represent the interests of the states, the House represents the people.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Kerostasis

Just for the record, the aspect of the Electoral College that they plan to change isn't actually IN the constitution. There's a lot of things the constitution leaves pretty vague, so we can fill in the details later.

That said, I support the current Electoral College system. At the very least, it can't be changed piece-meal like this.

__________________

Beatnik

One man, one vote. Pure and simple.

__________________

P8riot

Yeah - lets keep the women out of it!



Just kidding! Just KIDDING.. don't whip me!

__________________





Age of Conan: Tharashk (Taxiarchos), Thaumiel (alt), guild Ars Tactika - Cimmeria
XBox360 GamerTag: P8riotOne (but it might also be my son playing - he can game with TG tho!)

WhiskeySix

I think if they keep the E.C., they should make all states work the same WRT how electoral-votes are split. Some states it's all or nothing, while in others it's proportional to the popular vote. I think all states should use the latter mechanism.

__________________




PoE2 Version 2.5 Overview | Get started with PoE2 (for free!)

Santa

I dont think people quite realize how important it is that a candidate can only win an entire state, rather than parts of the state.

Lets say, hypothetically, that a candidate gains a point for each district he wins. With this situation, you would see a multi-party system (as opposed to a two-party system) develop because third parties will realize they actually have a chance in gaining points. This is the main reason we even have a two-party system, because third parties are unable to compete with the two established parties since they would actually have to win an entire state just to get a point.

So whats the problem with a multi-party system in a winner-takes-all format? If there were 3 parties or 3 serious candidates for an election, on average you could expect each candidate to gain only 33% of the vote. If someone were elected to office with 33% of the people wanting him, his legitimacy in power doesn't exist anymore. The last time we had a president elected with less than 45% of the vote, we had a civil war.

Other countries are able to run multi-party systems because each party runs (rather than candidates) and if a party won 12% of the vote, they would get 12% of the representation in their government. Personally, id rather vote for people than parties.

But all that crap is complicated. Like Tybalt pointed out (or this is how i read his post anyway), just because our constitution has something in it thats 200 years old doesn't mean we should continue using it. Things become outdated, and thats why we have an amendment process. It would be much easier and practical if elections were based solely on popular vote. We still would not have to worry about having more than 2 parties, so the winner of an election would still have legitimate power.

Lucky Shot

What's funny is that the states that split their votes for the electoral college see a dramatic drop in politicians visiting it. Apparently there is a bigger gain in the all in risk/reward system of a solid state's votes.

I also would like to see a return to senators appointed by the state as opposed to elected.

Personally, I like the way the electoral college works.

Lucky Shot

tHa_KhAn

I think the electoral college still serves its purpose. We may have access to information in real time, but how many people truly make their choices based on verified information? I believe that was the original goal to not have the uninformed making choices that affect the country as a whole.

I mean the #1 reason for keeping it should be that so many people are unaware of its existence, purpose, and function. I would like to see a more consistent state by state law governing the all or nothing. Needs to be one way or another.

__________________

Beatnik

Or, you can adopt the model of a multi-party system wherein a majority of the electorate is required to win, using multiple elections if necessary. i.e. Have the top 2 (or top 3 or 4) candidates without a majority "move on" to the next round.

Would that shake things up for the current parties/candidates? Yep. Is that a bad thing? Hell, no. All we see these days is political theater anyway.

__________________

WhiskeySix

__________________




PoE2 Version 2.5 Overview | Get started with PoE2 (for free!)

Santa

Dont we kind of already do this with primaries? Sure, we don't have to have primaries, and the losers in the primary can still run anyway for the general election, but its so detrimental to a party to have 2 people run that they very rarely do it.

We could use, and might need to have this system you suggested if we had more than 2 parties, but that wont happen unless we give 3rd parties a hope of winning.

Beatnik

In my specific example I was assuming whatever party had already had a primary for delegates eligible for the national election. But my main point was that having one man (or wo-man) per vote doesn't necessarily mean you have to elect someone with less than a majority of the vote.

I do like the playoff idea. Start of with 64 candidates. Instead of March Madness, maybe make it November Neurosis? ESPN and CSPAN could cover it. Scandals could break out over Romney's dogfighting hobby, or the fact that Fred Thompson used steroids to achieve his popularity.

Man, this electoral college reform sounds better by the minute!

__________________

Morganan

3rd parties cannot compete with the 2 established parties simply because they cannot get federal matching money for their campaign. They need to garner 10% of the popular vote for qualify for the matching money.

Having said that, the electoral college needs to be removed from the voting process. It was instituted back when it was a 3 day horse ride from NYC to Washington DC to make the process simpler and quicker to establish a winner. Since I think I can safely say communication's have improved since the late 1700's it might be time to revisit that system and find one that better represents the people who are doing the voting
.