Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2007 April
2005 February
2005 January
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
My essay: The Immorality of Marriage
The Onion
SelectSmart
Games to test your logic, faith, morality, and philosophical ideas!
Tom Robbins Quotes
Funny Name Analysis
Bushisms
Letters From the Earth by Mark Twain
Why I Am Not A Christian by Bertrand Russell
Life, Liberty, Logic
Wasting My Time
RedTigress's Blog
Jimmytherighteous's Blog
Octo6er's Blog
Nivek's Blog
Magicjoejoe's Blog
Littlemrmahatma's Blog
Kurtmaddox's Blog
Winstonsmith's Blog
Drforbush's Blog
Juniperflux's Blog
Iron Blog Religion!
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| A synopsis of the Electoral College and possible reforms |
| 07.14.04 (10:21 pm) [edit] |
|
By popular demand (or by the request of mblog), here are some excerpts from a term paper on the Electoral College. Because this paper was very low quality, lengthy, and not very entertaining, I will not post it in its entirety. I'm not that cruel. :wink: But here is the basic gist for those interested: [line] …One criticism of the Electoral College is that voters in rural states are over-represented. For example, in 1998, the seven least populous jurisdictions had 21 electoral votes. Florida, whose population was three times the combined population of the seven jurisdictions, also had 21 electoral votes. Another example of how the Electoral College misrepresents voters based on population is California. "California represents only 11% of the U.S. population, but its 54 Electoral College votes represent 20% of the needed 270 votes." (ww.reformitnow.com) The current system also causes voter apathy. In states where one political party is favored by a clear majority, voters who wish to vote for the candidate representing the minority party, in effect, waste their votes because the majority of the popular vote in the state will most likely go to the candidate of the majority party, and, as a result, the state's electoral votes will go to that candidate. Another criticism of the Electoral College is that under the Constitution, electors are allowed to use their discretion, meaning that an elector could conceivably cast his vote based not on the people's will, but on his own preference. However, electors usually pledge to support a party's candidate. and there are only about seven cases where an elector did not vote for the people's choice. (Sung) Also, though the electors do represent the people's will, they are not chosen by the people, they are chosen by the political parties in each state (with the exceptions of Maine and Nebraska). The political parties each select a slate of electors (a group of delegates equal in number to the number of electoral votes allotted to the state) and, on the day of the general election, the voters indirectly select the slate of electors. The slate of electors for the political party whose candidate is given the majority of the popular vote in the state determines the slate of electors that are then selected as members of the Electoral College. This is not entirely representative of the people's will. The main complaint against the Electoral College is that in every state (except for Maine and Nebraska, which use a different system for nominating electors), the electoral votes are awarded on a "winner-take-all" basis. The candidate who wins a majority of the popular votes in the state wins all of the state's electoral votes. This is the reason that it is possible for a candidate to win the popular vote but not win the Presidency. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the people that can be blamed on the current setup of the Electoral College. ... The current system also makes it impossible for a third party candidate to get elected. The political parties generally select the members of the Electoral College, and there are no third party Electoral College delegates. Since the electors generally pledge to vote according to one of the major parties, third party candidates rarely receive any of the Electoral College votes. ... Under this system, this will always occur; no third party candidate can win the Presidency. It is mainly in this respect that the Electoral College is viewed as an archaic system. When the founding fathers implemented the Electoral College, there was no anticipation fo the profound influence of political parties and the rise of the two-party system we have today. The knowledge that third party candidates are incapable of winning the Presidency also causes voters to feel as though their votes do not matter, and if they vote for a candidate that is not affiliated with the two major candidates, they are throwing their vote away. Voter apathy is a symptom that the system is not working and undermines the democratic foundations of our country. ... The best possible solution to the faults found with the Electoral College system would be a simple reform to eliminate the "winner-take-all" outcome in each state. This has already been done in Maine and Nebraska under the Mundt-Cordier Plan. Using this plan, the statewide election result decides two of the electoral votes (the two generally allotted to the senators) and the rest of the electoral votes are determined by the result in each congressional district. Also, with the Mundt-Cordier Plan, it would be possible to reform the Electoral College without having to amend the Constitution. "A reform based on the Mundt-Cordier Plan would enhance the benefits of the Electoral College." (Ross) As long as gerrymandering laws were stricter, the Mundt-Cordier Plan, in conjunction with the Electoral College system already established, would allow for the further equalization of voter strength and also limit disputes in elections. ... Another possible option of Electoral College reform and the option that is most often discussed when dealing with the issue of Electoral College reform is pure popular vote. The main drawback to this is that it does nothing to eliminate the problems associated with the two-party system. Yet another possibility would be to allot a certain number of bonus points to the winner of the popular vote in addition to the current system. Depending on the designated number to be given, this could be a good solution, or it could be just like a direct popular election. The proposed number of bonus points was 102 (two votes for each state and two for Washington D.C.), which would more than likely seal the Presidency for the popular vote winner, unless there were extremely bizarre circumstances surrounding the election, which is highly unlikely. However, if the number of bonus votes is less than 102, it might be an advantageous addendum to the preexisting Electoral College in that it would provide for a more exact representation of the people's will by awarding points based on the popular vote. One solution to the problems involving the Electoral College could potentially have a very favorable outcome. This system would use a preferential voting method, where the voter ranks the candidates. If the candidate a voter ranks the highest is not in the majority, the voter's second choice gets their vote. The ballot would, however be very complicated and the counting process much more tedious. It would require implementing new voting machines, which would be very costly. Also, it would take away the population weight, meaning the smaller states would not want to pass it. A similar proposition would give votes on a point system based on the rankings received. For instance, if there are seven candidates, the candidate ranked number one by the voter would receive seven points and the candidate ranked last would receive only one point. The disadvantage of this would be that it would cause voters to rank not according to issue, but according to threat. A voter might rank one candidate number one based on his issues, but rank his opponent that supports the same issues very lowly in the hopes that their candidate would win. If enough of the voters did this, it would cause those candidates in the middle to receive higher ranks than they otherwise would and possibly win without a true mandate. A system of simply voting "yes" for as many candidates as you can tolerate and voting "no" for those you cannot tolerate is yet another option. This is similar to the preferential voting system, but not quite as complicated. The main drawback of this situation would be that there would be no differentiation between the candidates that are actually favored and those who are merely tolerable. But, it would allow for the voters to voice their opinion on which candidates they like without having to deal with primaries. [line]And another argument against the Electoral College lost in the middle: ...even if a candidate wins the popular vote by a narrow margin in large states, it compensates for losing the small states by a great majority. For example, if a candidate wins California's 54 electoral votes by only one popular vote, it accounts for losing by tens of thousands in Alaska, Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. As a result of this, the "...arithmetic of the electoral college has focused presidential elections on a small number of populous states." (Goldstein 59) |
posted by: Shark99 (reply)
post date: 07.14.04 (7:35 pm)
Very informative, the electoral college was originally intended to protect the less populated states from being dominated by the more populated states, either that or the slave thingy.
posted by: therealspartacus007 (reply)
post date: 07.15.04 (6:59 am)
I agree. The Electoral College may have made sense back in the olden days when people from different states had radically different interests than from people from other states, but now, when so many decisions affecting individuals' personal lives are made at the federal level, the electoral system just doesn't make sense.
And you're right. If you live in any state besides the 11 swing states, your vote isn't going to help anyone. (except maybe help the 3rd parties look good) Ross Perot won a large percentage of the popular vote, but did not win a single electoral vote.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.19.04 (3:18 pm)
You made some interesting arguments, but there are some problems with some of them.
You said that some states are overrepresented, but did not make a case for it. Although you established that the proportion of electoral votes is not proportional to state populations, you neglected to make an argument why such a system is inherently better. So I'll make the counter argument in a while.
In the mean time, you said that California has 54 electoral votes out of 270 needed to win, or 20% of them with only 11% of the population. That's what George H Bush might have called "fuzzy math." California has 54 out of 538 total electoral votes, or about 10% of them with 11% of the population. So you might say that it's underrepresented if you want to stick to your original argument. However what your argument here boils down to is saying that the system is unfair because 50% of the people can determine what goes for 100% of the people. (50%+ 1 really if it were a popular vote.) The California number appears doubled because somebody can win an election with a bit more than half the votes.
Then you go on to reject the "winner take all" concept for states without looking at the relative merits of that compared to a proportional vote reporting.
If we look at the origins of our nation, we were set up as a union of separate states. Each state came from a largely autonomous colony. The notion was that each state should get to decide what person it wants to represent it because it has some unique needs. The reason that the senate has two persons per state and the House has proportional representation is to allow the smaller states to have a say on par with other states in one arena, and not have their views ignored, but to also give the larger states more power in another arena given their size. It was about balance.
If you do away with this, then state borders become mere geographic convenience, and the notion that states have a degree of autonomy and their own governments becomes unimportant.
Now imagine if we had a pure popular vote. 49.99% of a big state would be fine if a handful of extra voters in some smaller states made up for it, or if there were lopsided victories in some of them.
This would create some advantages for candidates. Regional campaigning would be out, since winning any given state would not be relevant. If candidates stuck to issues that most people agreed on, a broad national campaign would suffice.
It would no longer be necessary to worry about the black vote in New York, because 48% of that state might be quite good enough. Worrying about miners here, or high tech workers there would not be all that relevant either.
I personally think it's a major plus that candidates must convince the majority of voters in a state to vote for him (or her) for that state to count. If an issue is important for a particular state or region, it should not be ignored simply because it does not resonate on a national level. The president must be the president for all people and should be concerned with the particular concerns of individual states. If a candidate loses California or Florida by 20 votes each because he alienated the Hispanic vote, it means that the majority of people in those states did not feel that he should be the president. I think such a candidate deserves to lose those states.
The alternative of saying that blacks, for instance, are only 12% of the population and one could win without them by coming close to a majority in states with large black populations means that issues concerning black voters would be considered peripheral issues. And naturally, the same would be true for any other group with a small population whether it be ethnic or labor related. I don't think it's better to switch to vague national campaigns that ignore the real issues that do not affect a large group in the middle.
If it's not fair to favor small states by giving them a larger proportion of electoral votes, it would be even less fair to have a popular vote, run even more divisive campaigns that get overwhelming support in these small states and shallow losses in the big ones. It may result in a majority vote, but at the expense of disenfranchising many groups of people.
If you want to argue that a pure popular vote is better, you need to first argue that viewing the nation as a collection of states is not the way to go, and that the very basis on which this nation was founded is no longer relevant. If you do that, you must show how such a system would meet the needs of individual states that differ in character from others, or show why we as a nation should no longer care.
Plus, you'd have the even bigger problem of explaining why California has 22% of the votes needed to win the 50% majority, if all Californians agreed to vote the same way, which is even more power than in the old system. ;-)
posted by: DragonBait22 (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (1:05 pm)
Reply to: mblog
Well, this was actually a research paper (for an English class) and I wasn't allowed to really provide much of my opinion, so everything's just whatever information I found and felt like including. So I do agree that there are lots of problems with just about every proposal and argument, but it isn't a very simple issue to resolve. A lot of the problems are political (smaller states would be against reforming the current system), or functional (amending the constitution to alter the system on a federal level would be difficult). None of the solutions I have read about or thought about are really all that great, and that is why it is such a problem. And I definitely wouldn't argue that having a pure popular vote would be the way to go. Not at all.
posted by: mblog (reply)
post date: 07.23.04 (4:39 pm)
Reply to: DragonBait22
I agree that those problems are there, but the solutions I consider worthwhile would not require any constitutional amendments, but merely state laws.
posted by: P. S. Sundararaghavan (reply)
post date: 08.25.04 (10:52 am)
A Simple Amendment to fix the Electoral College
The electoral college was the most intriguing, nuanced, logical national electoral system I came across as I studied the American constitution en route to becoming a U.S. citizen decades ago. As I watched the recent elections, I have been wondering about how to make it “more perfect”. The basic logic of forcing the candidates to fight for each state is laudable. The role of the electoral college in empowering minorities and preventing oppressive majorities from winning by disenfranchising the minorities is worth preserving. The unfair advantage gained by small states may be a contract we would have to abide by, for the foreseeable future. The college’s disenfranchising effect on voters in solid blue or red states needs to be ameliorated in order to make it “more perfect”. My suggestion is to add 50 at large delegates, chosen on the basis of popular vote in the entire union. We are all familiar with hanging and dimple chads. Hence this at large delegates should be awarded on the following basis: If a candidate has a statistically significant lead in the national election over all other candidates, he/she will be declared the winner and get all the 50 delegates. Otherwise, each candidate gets delegates in proportion to the votes cast in their favor. This will also avoid recount on a national scale in case of close elections, which is an important objective in and of itself. These new delegate award rules may be adopted by individual states at their discretion.
(Sundararaghavan, P. S.)
