THE NYT IS WRONG....AGAIN.

[Bogart]

When Republican delegates nominate their presidential candidate this week, they will be doing it in a city where residents who support George Bush have, for all practical purposes, already been disenfranchised. Barring a tsunami of a sweep, heavily Democratic New York will send its electoral votes to John Kerry and both parties have already written New York off as a surefire blue state. The Electoral College makes Republicans in New York, and Democrats in Utah, superfluous. It also makes members of the majority party in those states feel less than crucial. It's hard to tell New York City children that every vote is equally important - it's winner take all here, and whether Senator Kerry beats the president by one New York vote or one million, he will still walk away with all 31 of the state's electoral votes.

The Electoral College got a brief spate of attention in 2000, when George Bush became president even though he lost the popular vote to Al Gore by more than 500,000 votes. Many people realized then for the first time that we have a system in which the president is chosen not by the voters themselves, but by 538 electors. It's a ridiculous setup, which thwarts the will of the majority, distorts presidential campaigning and has the potential to produce a true constitutional crisis. There should be a bipartisan movement for direct election of the president.

The main problem with the Electoral College is that it builds into every election the possibility, which has been a reality three times since the Civil War, that the president will be a candidate who lost the popular vote. This shocks people in other nations who have been taught to look upon the United States as the world's oldest democracy. The Electoral College also heavily favors small states. The fact that every one gets three automatic electors - one for each senator and a House member - means states that by population might be entitled to only one or two electoral votes wind up with three, four or five.

The majority does not rule and every vote is not equal - those are reasons enough for scrapping the system. But there are other consequences as well. This election has been making clear how the Electoral College distorts presidential campaigns. A few swing states take on oversized importance, leading the candidates to focus their attention, money and promises on a small slice of the electorate. We are hearing far more this year about the issue of storing hazardous waste at Yucca Mountain, an important one for Nevada's 2.2 million residents, than about securing ports against terrorism, a vital concern for 19.2 million New Yorkers. The political concerns of Cuban-Americans, who are concentrated in the swing state of Florida, are of enormous interest to the candidates. The interests of people from Puerto Rico scarcely come up at all, since they are mainly settled in areas already conceded as Kerry territory. The emphasis on swing states removes the incentive for a large part of the population to follow the campaign, or even to vote.

Those are the problems we have already experienced. The arcane rules governing the Electoral College have the potential to create havoc if things go wrong. Electors are not required to vote for the candidates they are pledged to, and if the vote is close in the Electoral College, a losing candidate might well be able to persuade a small number of electors to switch sides. Because there are an even number of electors - one for every senator and House member of the states, and three for the District of Columbia - the Electoral College vote can end in a tie. There are several plausible situations in which a 269-269 tie could occur this year. In the case of a tie, the election goes to the House of Representatives, where each state delegation gets one vote - one for Wyoming's 500,000 residents and one for California's 35.5 million.

The Electoral College's supporters argue that it plays an important role in balancing relations among the states, and protecting the interests of small states. A few years ago, this page was moved by these concerns to support the Electoral College. But we were wrong. The small states are already significantly overrepresented in the Senate, which more than looks out for their interests. And there is no interest higher than making every vote count.


NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

[Nym90]

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

YES, YES, YES, YES, YES!

In all seriousness, I do believe that every vote nationwide should count equally. Every other election nationwide is decided by the popular vote, and no one has any problem with that. Every vote should count equally.

[electcollfan]

The "tie" situation helps give the smaller states some power vs. the larger states in the House.
Popular vote would result in NY and CA control...not good. The electoral college mandates that you can not just focus on a few states and rack up votes. Kerry lost the last election because he could not win a southern state.

[Nym90]

No, it would result in every vote being counted equally. You can't win the popular vote by focusing on just a few states, either. If you lose big in large areas of the country, it's almost impossible to make up for that elsewhere and win the popular vote. It would actually be much easier to win the Electoral College with a narrow appeal to a few states than it would be to win the popular vote that way.

[ilikeverin]

Yay!  Someone has brought this up!  Now Nym can go into action!

[A18]

Live in Wyoming, and you have more say in the Senate. Live in California, and your vote for George Bush is buried. But live in a nation that heavily goes liberal, and your conservative vote is just as buried.

Republic. Not democracy. Democracy means nothing. Equality means nothing. No one cares at all. In any way. Whatsoever.

One county in the middle of the country has 700 trillion people. People on the other half don't want those 700 trillion making decisions for them. Too bad.

The electoral college stays until all decent blood is split.

So anyway...yeah...

[Bogart]

No, it would result in every vote being counted equally. You can't win the popular vote by focusing on just a few states, either. If you lose big in large areas of the country, it's almost impossible to make up for that elsewhere and win the popular vote. It would actually be much easier to win the Electoral College with a narrow appeal to a few states than it would be to win the popular vote that way.

No, acutally it would guarantee that unless you live in a major urban area and vote for the Democratic candidate, your vote becomes meaningless.

[ilikeverin]

Wyoming Population/EV: 164594/EV
California Population/EV: 627253/EV
Arizona Population/EV: 641329/EV

Every vote in Wyoming is worth 3.8109 times a vote in California... anywhere in California.

Every vote in Wyoming is worth 3.8964 times your vote in Arizona.

[Bogart]

Here is a good summary of my view as to why popular election is the wrong way to go.

"While I think intuitively direct popular vote seems the most appealing I don't favor it. I believe the Electoral College is necessary and should be maintained. I could possibly live with the Maine/Nebraska plan, but I would have to think about its national implications first.

My main concern is that if we were to elect the president by direct popular vote, a large portion of the population would not be likely to have any chance of electing a president who shares their views.  

I'll put it another way. People who live in highly urbanized areas (a majority) tend to have very different values and concerns with those who live in more rural areas (a minority).  Presidential candidates would only cater to the majority and would not need to concern themselves with the minority.  Keep in mind that many of our governmental systems are designed to keep the majority from construcing a "tyranny of the majority."  With the electoral system, a candidate who is not necessarily the favorite in all of the most populous regions of the country can still patch together enough support in other areas to be successful. In doing so, he must take into consideration the concerns of those who may not strictly belong to the majority."

Beyond this, I can crunch numbers another way from a party politics standpoint. California has a population of roughly 35.5 million, of which 43.2%, or 15.3 million, are self-identified Democrats.  Hypothetically, a Democratic presidential candidate could win those 15 million votes and out vote the entire state populations of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota with over a million votes to spare.  These are all states that traditionally go Republican.

Fair??? I don't think so.

[© tweed]

California has a population of roughly 35.5 million, of which 43.2%, or 15.3 million, are self-identified Democrats.  Hypothetically, a Democratic presidential candidate could win those 15 million votes and out vote the entire state populations of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota with over a million votes to spare.  These are all states that traditionally go Republican.

Fair??? I don't think so.

CA: 55
NV, AZ, UT, WY, ID, MT, SD, ND: 36

Still isn't 'fair' if you want to look at it your way.

[Bogart]

California has a population of roughly 35.5 million, of which 43.2%, or 15.3 million, are self-identified Democrats.  Hypothetically, a Democratic presidential candidate could win those 15 million votes and out vote the entire state populations of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota and North Dakota with over a million votes to spare.  These are all states that traditionally go Republican.

Fair??? I don't think so.

CA: 55
NV, AZ, UT, WY, ID, MT, SD, ND: 36

Still isn't 'fair' if you want to look at it your way.

Huh???

[© tweed]

Huh???

What you are saying is that California would outvote the rocky mountains in a PV system.  No sh**t!  They do already.

Plus you conveniently eliminate the people in CA who vote GOP, who would actually be more motivated to vote under a PV system because their votes would matter.

[Bogart]

Huh???

What you are saying is that California would outvote the rocky mountains in a PV system.  No sh**t!  They do already.

Plus you conveniently eliminate the people in CA who vote GOP, who would actually be more motivated to vote under a PV system because their votes would matter.

Did you even bother to read the the post? What I'm saying is that the 15 million Democrats who share similar values could completely disenfranchise 14 million over a multi state region who hold different values.

[© tweed]

Did you even bother to read the the post? What I'm saying is that the 15 million Democrats who share similar values could completely disenfranchise 14 million over a multi state region who hold different values.

Yes they could.  And what wrong with that?  If group A is bigger than group B, group A should have more say.

[A18]

There's a principle of geographic self-government. China doesn't decide things for us because they're bigger.

[2952-0-0]

I'm suspicious of the Maine/Nebraska plan because many CDs and hopelessly gerrymandered. And what would the parties do in a 269 tie? They bribe. Just go with popular vote.

[zorkpolitics]

Wyoming Population/EV: 164594/EV
California Population/EV: 627253/EV
Arizona Population/EV: 641329/EV

Every vote in Wyoming is worth 3.8109 times a vote in California... anywhere in California.

Every vote in Wyoming is worth 3.8964 times your vote in Arizona.

You are correct, but I'm OK with the differnece.  The US is a Federal Republic, in which sovereignty is shared between states, the federal government, and the people.  The Electoral College is part of that Federal Republic and emphasizes the role of the States.

[Bogart]

Did you even bother to read the the post? What I'm saying is that the 15 million Democrats who share similar values could completely disenfranchise 14 million over a multi state region who hold different values.

If you read the Federalist Papers, you find that there was a great concern for protecting the rights and concerns of minorities.  The Founders realized that majorities are capable and prone to tyranny.
Yes they could.  And what wrong with that?  If group A is bigger than group B, group A should have more say.

[A18]

Are you implying that the founding fathers weren't smart enough to make the system work the way they intended?

[Democratic Hawk]

I don't think I would favour a popular vote election per se but there may be grounds to modify the EV somehow to reflect the PV.

Dave

[NYGOP]

We should use both systems. Count the popular vote and the electoral college. In the event that they come out with different results then...