The future of the electoral college.

[Buddha]

Will it last?
Will the way electors are chosen be changed?
(for example, the preponderance of
the winner take all in most states)
Will the the number of swing states decline
to single digits?
(like about 7 instead of 17 or whatever ,, etc etc)
Will the Republican party get more of
a lock?
(or if Ohio and Florida start leaning Democratic,
the Democrats could get a lock)?
Will the electoral college continue to reflect the popular will (as it does in 90% of the elections) or will it 'fail'
more often (the popular vote winner losing the electoral vote)?
Will a third party emerge making the likelyhood of no winner in the electoral college happen more often?
Can you think of any other questions germane to the topic of this thread?

[Democratic Hawk]

I quite like the electoral college. If it were ever a nationwide election (i.e. winner of national PV being elected president) it would be boooooooring!

I'm not decided as to whether the EV shouid be allocated proportionally from state-to-state.

Dave

[Beef]

The beautiful thing about the EC is that it forces candidates to appeal to a broad range of constituents.  Republicans can't just rally up huge numbers of voters in Texas, and Democrats can't just rally up huge numbers of voters in San Francisco.  They have to take their message to closely contested states and make it appeal to the swing voters in those states.  So, its overall effect is moderating, which is a good thing.

If EVs were proportionally granted in each state, I think the effect would be virtually the same as with a nationwide popular vote.  Bush would be rallying voters in TX to try to squeeze as many EVs out of that state as he could, and Kerry would be doing likewise in NY and CA.

If EVs were awarded one for each CD and two for each state (the ME/NE method), we would have chaos.  "Battleground Districts."  Guerilla tactics in every close CD, as the fate of its 1 EV may come down to a few votes.  Every election you'd have 10 or 20 Floridas, with recounts going into December.

So, I think the current system is best, and I don't think it will change considerably.

[Bugs]

If you live in a non battleground state you find yourself fairly removed from the process I don't think I've seen a presidential campaign commercial since Mondale ran them in Oregon when I lived there in the 80's.  I'm not complaining about that.  The system also favors the candidate who wins the biggest state, especially if it is much larger than the second largest, like California has been.  But even so, Calif voted for Ford in 1976 and Gore in 2000.  I know of no better alternative, however, and strongly favor the Electoral College, where the states, and not the people directly, elect the president.  

[Bogart]

The beautiful thing about the EC is that it forces candidates to appeal to a broad range of constituents.  Republicans can't just rally up huge numbers of voters in Texas, and Democrats can't just rally up huge numbers of voters in San Francisco.  They have to take their message to closely contested states and make it appeal to the swing voters in those states.  So, its overall effect is moderating, which is a good thing.

If EVs were proportionally granted in each state, I think the effect would be virtually the same as with a nationwide popular vote.  Bush would be rallying voters in TX to try to squeeze as many EVs out of that state as he could, and Kerry would be doing likewise in NY and CA.

If EVs were awarded one for each CD and two for each state (the ME/NE method), we would have chaos.  "Battleground Districts."  Guerilla tactics in every close CD, as the fate of its 1 EV may come down to a few votes.  Every election you'd have 10 or 20 Floridas, with recounts going into December.

So, I think the current system is best, and I don't think it will change considerably.

I agree completely.

[willhsmit]

I'd say the Electoral college will remain, because 2/3 of the states benefit from it and 3/4 would need to ratify a Constitutional change. The difference is too great to be overcome, in my opinion.

The electoral college tends to give different results from the popular vote when one candidate is deeply popular in a minority of the country, and narrowly unpopular in the remainder (and the other vice-versa). A good example of this is in the late 19th century, when Democrats had a deep base in the South, and rarely lost there, but had a narrow disadvantage in the larger North (depending on the candidate), resulting in two popular/ec disconnects. So, we'll see more popular/ec disconnects in the future if one party loses some support in its core states but builds up more in the battleground states. I can see arguments that either party is more likely to do this.

Or, a strong third party could develop and change the equation. One of the reasons Carter '80 was hammered so badly in the electoral college is that Anderson did well in exactly that states that Carter could have expected to lead in, giving Reagan a EC lead well beyond what you would normally expect from a 10-point lead by making the two-party margin atypically even across the states.

[Donovan]

Eventually it will be removed or rendered useless. But I think for indirect reasons. I think maybe altered to make sure that the person with popular vote always wins the electoral college vote too. There are ways of changing it so that this happens.

I disagree that it makes the candidates visit all the states. I also think it encourges people NOT to vote in non-battleground states.

How about an amendment to the Constitution that gives the winner of the popular vote an extra 10 electoral votes. That would also eliminate almost any chance of it happening again.

[Donovan]

Yes, you were correct then and you are correct now

I agree that Philip is not a conservative, he is a Nationalist. McCain is a conservative, Dole is a Conservative, Bush and Cheney are Nationalists.

[Volrath50]

No change, and people that want to change it should be shot

I've been on many a forum where that would warrent an instant  ban. I seen no reason why you shouldn't be banned for it now. I'm greatly considering leaving this forum, and the prime reason is your intolerant, hateful comments make me sick.

[A18]

If you leave, I'm sure I'll get over it

[J. J.]

If EVs were awarded one for each CD and two for each state (the ME/NE method), we would have chaos.  "Battleground Districts."  Guerilla tactics in every close CD, as the fate of its 1 EV may come down to a few votes.  Every election you'd have 10 or 20 Floridas, with recounts going into December.

I don't agree with part of the post.  We have 435 of such elections every two years, and yes, there are some close races (One of Hoffel's early races against Fox is an example).  We don't get 10 or 20 Floridas and it might produce broad support.  Gore, in 2000, while perhaps running up a huge total in PA 1 (a D district), would have to have a broader appeal to appeal to PA 12 (another D district, but a much more conservative one).  Such actions might produce winning candidates that are more mainstream.

Kerry couldn't completely rely on liberal cities, while Bush couldn't completely rely on conservative countrysides.

[muon2]

If EVs were awarded one for each CD and two for each state (the ME/NE method), we would have chaos.  "Battleground Districts."  Guerilla tactics in every close CD, as the fate of its 1 EV may come down to a few votes.  Every election you'd have 10 or 20 Floridas, with recounts going into December.

I don't agree with part of the post.  We have 435 of such elections every two years, and yes, there are some close races (One of Hoffel's early races against Fox is an example).  We don't get 10 or 20 Floridas and it might produce broad support.  Gore, in 2000, while perhaps running up a huge total in PA 1 (a D district), would have to have a broader appeal to appeal to PA 12 (another D district, but a much more conservative one).  Such actions might produce winning candidates that are more mainstream.

Kerry couldn't completely rely on liberal cities, while Bush couldn't completely rely on conservative countrysides.

I agree with JJ. The number of "recount" CDs would be no higher than any Congressional race today. In most years the margin of victory in the EC would be greater than the one or two electors that might need a recount, and in that case I doubt the count would be contested.

The swing CDs are spread out in more states. If a few states that were solid as a whole, but had swing CDs adopted it, campaigns would have to make some interesting decisions about appearances and advertising.

BTW, I would be much happier with CO if their ballot question would have propsed this system, so it least would be consistent with ME and NE. I don't mind state control of electors, but it is hard to explain to the public if there are too many variations for selecting electors.

[Andrew]

I don't mind state control of electors, but it is hard to explain to the public if there are too many variations for selecting electors.

What difference does this make?  Does it really matter if voters in Illinois understand the method that Colorado uses to choose electors?  People really only need to worry about the method in their own state.  Truth be told, most people don't even care about that--they just vote for the candidate they want, and then sit back and wait for someone to tell them who won.

[DaleC76]

The only change I would make to the electoral college is I would force electors to vote for the candidates they're pledged to.

[muon2]

I don't mind state control of electors, but it is hard to explain to the public if there are too many variations for selecting electors.

What difference does this make?  Does it really matter if voters in Illinois understand the method that Colorado uses to choose electors?  People really only need to worry about the method in their own state.  Truth be told, most people don't even care about that--they just vote for the candidate they want, and then sit back and wait for someone to tell them who won.

The difference is that most people learn there state systems of government from nation sources - TV, textbooks, etc. It's not correct , but it is what happens. Modern society has a high mobility and people move from state to state and get information mainly from national sources. the resut is that people are regularly confused when their state is different in obscure ways.

I strongly support the right of the states to determine their own laws, but I recognize that we are a nation and people will be confused over every issue where states act differently. See, for example, the current thread polling on the headlight requirement in the rain. Or the discussion a few months ago on direct election of judges. When these issue confuse people, I see a frequent reaction causing the public to avoid politics.

[Pictor Ignotus]

The only change I would make to the electoral college is I would force electors to vote for the candidates they're pledged to.

Yes, I agree with this. It is inane that electors can refuse to vote or can vote for someone not even in contention for President. I have mixed feelings about popular vote vs. electoral but generally favor the electoral. The electoral college system should remain, but be automatic. This practice of having 538  people go somewhere and vote for Pres is very outdated- remember the lack of communication systems when the constitution was written. It may well have been that a person or group of people truly needed to "testify" or pledge that that is the will of the state. We don't need that anymore.

But we are a Republic of states. I'd be happy for more states to do like ME and Ne and let districts send an elector that might be separate from the rest of the state. It reflects the makeup of congress better.

[swampdude]

If you live in a non battleground state you find yourself fairly removed from the process

I agree.  I teach Social Studies and my students see the political commercials on news programs and ask me why we aren't seeing Presidential ads, while seeing plenty of local political commercials.  As for myself, I am glad we don't get hammered daily by  pol.  ads.

[A18]

Do your students live in cities? Because if the EC is abolished, the only place you're going to see campaigning is NYC and LA.

[DaleC76]

Yeah, candidates don't have the time or money to visit every state, no matter what system is used.  The electoral college forces a more national campaign, I think.  Rural areas probably get more coverage, too (at least in battleground states).

Under the EC, we see candidates zipping across the country.  I don't think they'd do that under another system, when the votes 200 miles down the road count just as much as the ones 1500 miles across the country.

[A18]

Rural areas will get zero coverage

[Grad Students are the Worst]

Rural areas mostly don't get any coverage at this point already, unless you are in a battleground state with a good-sized electoral vote total. Those people in Centerville, Iowa, sure are lucky, though.

[Signet]

The beautiful thing about the EC is that it forces candidates to appeal to a broad range of constituents.  Republicans can't just rally up huge numbers of voters in Texas, and Democrats can't just rally up huge numbers of voters in San Francisco.  They have to take their message to closely contested states and make it appeal to the swing voters in those states.  So, its overall effect is moderating, which is a good thing.

If EVs were proportionally granted in each state, I think the effect would be virtually the same as with a nationwide popular vote.  Bush would be rallying voters in TX to try to squeeze as many EVs out of that state as he could, and Kerry would be doing likewise in NY and CA.

If EVs were awarded one for each CD and two for each state (the ME/NE method), we would have chaos.  "Battleground Districts."  Guerilla tactics in every close CD, as the fate of its 1 EV may come down to a few votes.  Every election you'd have 10 or 20 Floridas, with recounts going into December.

So, I think the current system is best, and I don't think it will change considerably.

I agree with what you are saying for the most part.  You hit some points square on the head that many opponents of the EC miss.

The EC discourages winning based solely on getting your partisan base to have near 100% turnout in states most strongly backing you.  If doesn't matter if Republicans outvote Democrats in Texas or if Republicans OUTVOTE!!!!!! Democrats in Texas, the result is the same.  If you only appeal to a few big cities, you can't carry the electoral college, even in you manage to win all 7 million votes from NYC (or whatever it is).  But if the only place you have appeal is the countryside, then you'll never carry the big states like CA, TX, NY, FL and you can't win based on small states alone.

I disagree that awarding electoral votes based solely on population would change this much.  True, states worth three electoral votes now would be completely worthless... only mattering if the rest of the electoral college was an exact tie.  But the principle that you have to win support across the entire nation would remain the same, only the specific strategies and "key states" might change.

I also disagree that the system used in Maine and Nebraska is that bad of an idea.  In fact, it further reinforces the idea of having to win broad support.  Currently you can win a state like CA just by winning LA and SF.  This system would force politicians to address the issues that the rest of the state cares about as well.

Moving to proportional awarding of electoral votes by statewide results (ie Colorado 36) would really give the smallest states a lot of power.  States worth 3 electoral votes would essentially become worth 1, a 2-1 split.  Colorado, on the other hand, would also be worth 1, a 5-4 split in almost all cases.  Pennsylvania would be worth either 1, 3, or maybe 5 votes.  Its ratio compared to the 3-vote state is currently 7:1, under this system it would be anywhere from 5:1 to 1:1.  States with an even number of electoral college votes like New Hampshire, on the other hand, would be split 2-2 unless a candidate wins 63% of the vote there, so why even bother addressing these voters' concerns?  It would essentially become whoever wins the most states that don't split evenly wins the election.  The ONLY way to make by-statewide-proportion electoral voting work is to award fractional electoral votes, to the nearest tenth or hundredth.

I completely favor getting rid of human electors and just awarding the votes automatically.  Many states effectively do this, by having laws in place requiring electoral to vote according to the winner of the state.

[No more McShame]

Rural areas mostly don't get any coverage at this point already, unless you are in a battleground state with a good-sized electoral vote total. Those people in Centerville, Iowa, sure are lucky, though.

Not true, both Bush and Kerry campaigned in rural areas in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Ohio, and Florida to name a few.