Electoral College or Popular Vote?

[Former Speaker Superique]

I was trying to say about Wasted Votes....

You should also notice that in the Popular Vote, the candidate who has more support from the electorate always win.

[Trueconservative]

Why do americans prefer the electoral college?

I live in Brazil and, with all do respect, the popular vote it is more fair and democratic.

Because then the president would already be decided by the time it gets very far west, and also the Candidates would only campaign in the big cities in the east. Also, that would mean that country people and westerners would have no say. Also the Democrats would probably always win.

[I left.]

Why do americans prefer the electoral college?

I live in Brazil and, with all do respect, the popular vote it is more fair and democratic.

Because then the president would already be decided by the time it gets very far west, and also the Candidates would only campaign in the big cities in the east. Also, that would mean that country people and westerners would have no say. Also the Democrats would probably always win.

lol

[Pacific Councillor Big Wiggly Style]

Yes. I believe the Electoral College is the greatest stab in the heart to democracy of anything imaginable.

[Lemon flavoured]

I don't mind the electoral college too much, but I think that all states should use the Maine / Nebraska method. As a matter of interest, has there been any serious attempt to introduce that anywhere else?

[I left.]

I don't mind the electoral college too much, but I think that all states should use the Maine / Nebraska method. As a matter of interest, has there been any serious attempt to introduce that anywhere else?

There have been a couple of "ideas" floating around. I've heard it discussed for North Carolina and California.

Bet you can guess which party thought it would be a good idea in each state.

[Insula Dei]

Pennsylvania too, no?

[Chaddyr23]

Popular vote rule is unfair to states like Vermont, who will then have virtually no say in the election, leaving places like Texas & California to decide for everyone else.

When's the last time VT has had a say in an election?

[Jayhawker]

I'm certainly not a proponent of the Electoral College, but I do prefer it to a popular vote.

My biggest concern with a popular vote is that campaigns would spent their energy predominantly on urban areas. I'm probably one of the few on here who can state that I've lived in rural areas my entire life, and I hate that we would likely be ignored. Even medium-sized cities that might usually see some attention, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, won't have any attention.

My compromise is transferring every state to a Nebraska/Maine-type system.

[muon2]

I'm certainly not a proponent of the Electoral College, but I do prefer it to a popular vote.

My biggest concern with a popular vote is that campaigns would spent their energy predominantly on urban areas. I'm probably one of the few on here who can state that I've lived in rural areas my entire life, and I hate that we would likely be ignored. Even medium-sized cities that might usually see some attention, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, won't have any attention.

My compromise is transferring every state to a Nebraska/Maine-type system.

I think this would only be truly successful with neutrally drawn congressional districts. If one party controls a majority of states during redistricting there will always be accusations of bias in the EC for the decade.

[I left.]

I'm certainly not a proponent of the Electoral College, but I do prefer it to a popular vote.

My biggest concern with a popular vote is that campaigns would spent their energy predominantly on urban areas. I'm probably one of the few on here who can state that I've lived in rural areas my entire life, and I hate that we would likely be ignored. Even medium-sized cities that might usually see some attention, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, won't have any attention.

My compromise is transferring every state to a Nebraska/Maine-type system.

Where does this common (idiotic) argument in the U.S. come from? Baffles me.

[True Federalist]

In a close election, allocating the EVs proportionally by vote within each state actually tends to tilt things slightly towards the Republicans (relative to their showing in the popular vote), since they tend to do a bit better in smaller states, which have a bigger proportional bonus in the EC with the +2 EVs for senators.

For example, I think if you allocated the 2000 EVs by popular vote in each state, then Bush wins the electoral college more decisively (without the need for a recount), despite losing the popular vote nationwide.

Wrong. While you're right Bush would get more EVs, he only gets a plurality. By one. And it's thrown to the House:
   G   B   N
AL   4   5
AK   1   2
AZ   4   4
AR   3   3
CA   29   23   2   
CO   3   4   1
CT   5   3
DE   2   1
DC   3
FL   12   12   1   
GA   6   7
HI   2   2
ID   1   3
IL   12   9    1
IN   5   7
IA   4   3
KS   2   4
KY   3   5
LA   4   5
ME   2   2
MD   6   4
MA   7   4   1
MI   9   8   1
MN   5   5
MS   3   4
MO   5   6
MT   1   2
NE   2   3
NV   2   2
NH   2   2
NJ   8   6   1
NM   3   2
NY   20   12   1
NC   6   8
ND   1   2
OH   10   10   1
OK   3   5
OR   3   3   1
PA   12   11
RI   3   1
SC   3   5
SD   1   2
TN   5   6
TX   12   19   1
UT   1   4
VT   2   1
VA   6   7
WA   6   5
WV   2   3
WI   5   5   1
WY   1   2
   262   263   13
   48.7   48.9   2.4

Gore would lose anyway Imagine the congress appointing Bush, that would be so unfair! And the Republicans would be crashed in the next mid-term election

Assuming party-line votes, this is how the House election would have gone.  (I'm guessing Sanders would have voted for Nader, but who knows?)

Bush: 28
AL AK AZ CO DE FL GA ID IN IA
KS KY LA MO MT NE NH NM NC OH
OK PA SC SD TN UT VA WY
Gore: 18
AR CA HI ME MD MA MI MN MS NJ
NY ND OR RI TX WA WV WI
Nader: 1
VT
Abstain: 3
CT IL NV

With the Senate tied 50-50, it would have been unable to elect a Vice President until Jeffords switched parties, and Lieberman would be elected.

If Jeffords was willing to switch before January 20, Bush likely would have found a place for Cheney in his cabinet, most likely as Secretary of Defense again or perhaps National Security Adviser.

[Jayhawker]

I'm certainly not a proponent of the Electoral College, but I do prefer it to a popular vote.

My biggest concern with a popular vote is that campaigns would spent their energy predominantly on urban areas. I'm probably one of the few on here who can state that I've lived in rural areas my entire life, and I hate that we would likely be ignored. Even medium-sized cities that might usually see some attention, such as Charlotte, North Carolina, won't have any attention.

My compromise is transferring every state to a Nebraska/Maine-type system.

I think this would only be truly successful with neutrally drawn congressional districts. If one party controls a majority of states during redistricting there will always be accusations of bias in the EC for the decade.

A fair point - something I didn't consider.

It actually more comes down to population density. I think it would be foolish for a candidate to spend time in a state with a low density, such as Iowa, when they could spend just as much and reach out to many more voters in a state like New Jersey.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Popular vote rule is unfair to states like Vermont, who will then have virtually no say in the election, leaving places like Texas & California to decide for everyone else.

When's the last time VT has had a say in an election?

1876.

[golden]

I don't mind the electoral college too much, but I think that all states should use the Maine / Nebraska method. As a matter of interest, has there been any serious attempt to introduce that anywhere else?

Noooooooooo!

If the undemocratic ME/NE method had been adopted in each state Obama might not have won the 2008 presidential election.
Take a look at Indiana and North Carolina, each of which he won:
Indiana would have given him 3 EV and 6 EV to McCain.
In North Carolina Obama would have received 6 EV, compared to McCain's 7 EV.

A proportional allocation of the electoral votes could be a good compromise.

[True Federalist]

I don't mind the electoral college too much, but I think that all states should use the Maine / Nebraska method. As a matter of interest, has there been any serious attempt to introduce that anywhere else?

Noooooooooo!

If the undemocratic ME/NE method had been adopted in each state Obama might not have won the 2008 presidential election.
Take a look at Indiana and North Carolina, each of which he won:
Indiana would have given him 3 EV and 6 EV to McCain.
In North Carolina Obama would have received 6 EV, compared to McCain's 7 EV.

A proportional allocation of the electoral votes could be a good compromise.

The calculation's been done, and while I don't recall the exact results, Obama would have still won under he Maine/Nebraska method.

[golden]

I don't mind the electoral college too much, but I think that all states should use the Maine / Nebraska method. As a matter of interest, has there been any serious attempt to introduce that anywhere else?

Noooooooooo!

If the undemocratic ME/NE method had been adopted in each state Obama might not have won the 2008 presidential election.
Take a look at Indiana and North Carolina, each of which he won:
Indiana would have given him 3 EV and 6 EV to McCain.
In North Carolina Obama would have received 6 EV, compared to McCain's 7 EV.

A proportional allocation of the electoral votes could be a good compromise.

The calculation's been done, and while I don't recall the exact results, Obama would have still won under he Maine/Nebraska method.

Okay, but it'd be possible that close elections like 2000, 1992, 1976 or 1960 could have come to different results with the CD-method.

[Lemon flavoured]

I don't mind the electoral college too much, but I think that all states should use the Maine / Nebraska method. As a matter of interest, has there been any serious attempt to introduce that anywhere else?

Noooooooooo!

If the undemocratic ME/NE method had been adopted in each state Obama might not have won the 2008 presidential election.
Take a look at Indiana and North Carolina, each of which he won:
Indiana would have given him 3 EV and 6 EV to McCain.
In North Carolina Obama would have received 6 EV, compared to McCain's 7 EV.

A proportional allocation of the electoral votes could be a good compromise.

The calculation's been done, and while I don't recall the exact results, Obama would have still won under he Maine/Nebraska method.

Okay, but it'd be possible that close elections like 2000, 1992, 1976 or 1960 could have come to different results with the CD-method.

I don't see why the fact that past elections would have had a different result is a reason to not want a system.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I don't mind the electoral college too much, but I think that all states should use the Maine / Nebraska method. As a matter of interest, has there been any serious attempt to introduce that anywhere else?

Noooooooooo!

If the undemocratic ME/NE method had been adopted in each state Obama might not have won the 2008 presidential election.
Take a look at Indiana and North Carolina, each of which he won:
Indiana would have given him 3 EV and 6 EV to McCain.
In North Carolina Obama would have received 6 EV, compared to McCain's 7 EV.

A proportional allocation of the electoral votes could be a good compromise.

The calculation's been done, and while I don't recall the exact results, Obama would have still won under he Maine/Nebraska method.

Okay, but it'd be possible that close elections like 2000, 1992, 1976 or 1960 could have come to different results with the CD-method.

I don't see why the fact that past elections would have had a different result is a reason to not want a system.

How about the fact that the Maine-Nebraska method allows gerrymandering to influence the results of Presidential elections? Obama narrowly won North Carolina in 2008. But the Republicans just recently gerrymandered that state to hell, and Obama would only have won five out of fifteen electoral votes from that state under the new lines. It's bad enough that gerrymandering affects the results of Congressional races without affecting Presidential races as well.

Even if the US had a neutral redistricting process, I would not approve of the Maine-Nebraska method as it would still allow Presidential elections to be decided based on arbitrary lines on a map even more than the current system does.

I oppose having electoral votes be allocated proportionally as well, though it's better than the current system. If the electoral votes are allocated proportionally at a nationwide level, then it makes no difference from the popular vote in any election where a candidate gets a majority, but it throws the election to the House in all other cases (such as 1992, 1996, and 2000). If the electoral votes are allocated proportionally by state, then small states would still be disproportionate (if a candidate wins by one vote in Vermont, that's a 2-1 margin in the Electoral Vote, but a candidate would need to break 60% in New Hampshire to not tie).

With a popular vote, one vote is one vote, and it carries the same weight no matter which state or district the voter lives in.

[True Federalist]

If the electoral votes are allocated proportionally at a nationwide level

What conceivable reason would one have to allocate electoral votes in any manner on a national level? The only way that even begins to make any sort of sense would be if instead of meeting in each State and voting once, the electors met together to choose a President and Vice President by a majority vote, and Congress was cut out of the process entirely.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

If the electoral votes are allocated proportionally at a nationwide level

What conceivable reason would one have to allocate electoral votes in any manner on a national level? The only way that even begins to make any sort of sense would be if instead of meeting in each State and voting once, the electors met together to choose a President and Vice President by a majority vote, and Congress was cut out of the process entirely.

I was just putting that out there as an example, but I suppose you're right. However, seeing as how I oppose it anyway, you're not really changing my mind about anything.

[defe07]

I have an idea! What about the following idea?

Why don't we allocate the electoral votes from each state by county? If you want to have an idea as to what I'm proposing, I'd suggest going to this website:

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/ID-R

[True Federalist]

Most states don't have counties of uniform enough population for that to be viable.  The selection of electors would presumably be subject to the same one-man/one-vote limitations as other offices are subject to (assuming that the State legislature chooses to have the electors selected by the people).

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Most states don't have counties of uniform enough population for that to be viable.  The selection of electors would presumably be subject to the same one-man/one-vote limitations as other offices are subject to (assuming that the State legislature chooses to have the electors selected by the people).

It's simple. Loving County Texas gets 1 Elector, and Los Angeles County California gets 119,739.[/sarcasm]

[I Can't Get That Sound You Make, Out Of My Head]

Support it, though not as passionately as most.

Doing it by electoral district would be awful, unless non-partisan boundaries were created.