You'd find yourself hard pressed to find an American that gets it! It needs to be changed. Its not representitive of the peoples wishes. IMHO
Electoral College
- Thread starter jimmoyer
- Start date
You'd find yourself hard pressed to find an American that gets it! It needs to be changed. Its not representitive of the peoples wishes. IMHO
why then does the number of electoral college votes go to whomever wins the state, instead of also based on how the districts voted. Like if the state sends 5 republicans and 2 democrats to Washington, but then in the presidential elections maybe the democrat wins by a small percentage. Those voters who voted republican have no representation in the elctoral college becuase the state gives all the votes to the democratic candidate, regardless of wins by republicans in say 3/7 districts.
-----------------------------Tonington-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you don't see how WINNER TAKES ALL shapes Presidential party politics
differently from a PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM.
A proportional system in Presidential politics would open the door to a 3rd party. And to a 4th.
And to a 5th party. And so on.
Why?
It is why Canada has more than 3 parties. It is why no party has a majority. It is why the
largest plurality has to give away some of its principles to a lesser party in order to form a
coalition to govern.
And your PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM appears more representational and yet still
what complaint does one hear ?
A lack of representing the voter's will ?
And perhaps a proportional system produces the largest plurality of pissed-off voters.
How ironic is that ?
You see One Man One Vote, proportional representation is more complex than
first glance intuition knows. Majority vote unregulated, unhampered is also
more scary and complex than most people ever think through.
-----------------------------Tonington-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you don't see how WINNER TAKES ALL shapes Presidential party politics
differently from a PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM.
A proportional system in Presidential politics would open the door to a 3rd party. And to a 4th.
And to a 5th party. And so on.
Why?
It is why Canada has more than 3 parties. It is why no party has a majority. It is why the
largest plurality has to give away some of its principles to a lesser party in order to form a
coalition to govern.
And your PROPORTIONAL SYSTEM appears more representational and yet still
what complaint does one hear ?
A lack of representing the voter's will ?
And perhaps a proportional system produces the largest plurality of pissed-off voters.
How ironic is that ?
You see One Man One Vote, proportional representation is more complex than
first glance intuition knows. Majority vote unregulated, unhampered is also
more scary and complex than most people ever think through.
Last edited:
I'm not saying one system is better than the other. I'm happy right now without a majority party Governing here.
What is wrong with having a 3rd or 4th party as a President? If that is what the people want that is what they get. Options are a good thing. A majority can make decisions without opposition, so a majority can effectively ignore the wishes of portions of the electorate. Whereas a minority must take into consideration the electorate as a whole, not the majority only.
I simply can't understand why a state gets electoral college votes based on the number of representatives, but for Presidential elections it's all or nothing. When the census dictates through some formula that another representative is needed, the state gets an extra electoral college vote for that extra representative, but when the presidential election comes around, that extra electoral vote may not even get representation in the national scheme of things. Enough electoral college votes wins the Presidency, even if the majority of Americans don't support that candidate. I don't know what wins a state, is it the number of districts won or the majority of votes state-wide?
Tonington
It's not quite the way you are interpreting it, or I'm just reading you wrong.
The US, as you know, elects it's Head of State via Presidential elections. You don't have to belong to any party to run for President. Ross Perot rings a bell. Ralph Nader keeps running and is getting nowhere. The Presidential Elections are up for grabs by anyone, all a candidate needs is a certain amount of signatures to get on the ballot in each state.
Now, as for the multiple party thing. There are multiple parties. In the last elections I had various parties to choose from (marijuana party ie) to elect a Senator and House of Representatives in my District. In the Senate and House mulitple parties make sense, and they exist. In the Presidential elections, they don't really make any sense, because when it comes down to it. You are voting for an individual and his or her principles and policies he/she sets forth during a campaign.
As for the Electoral College, it has served the US quite well since it's founding. Crticis will tell you it is outdated. This is true to a certain extent, it needs tweaking. But it has mechanisms that prevent a majority within the entire country having a louder voice than any minority.
For example; imagine the Cubans in Florida (numbering around 3 million) shouting for certain rights amongst 300 million people. Will their voice be heard? Not really, politicians go where the votes are, 3 million Cubans are nothing nationwide, but within the state of Florida, they are heard loud and clear.
Any other questions?
It's not quite the way you are interpreting it, or I'm just reading you wrong.
The US, as you know, elects it's Head of State via Presidential elections. You don't have to belong to any party to run for President. Ross Perot rings a bell. Ralph Nader keeps running and is getting nowhere. The Presidential Elections are up for grabs by anyone, all a candidate needs is a certain amount of signatures to get on the ballot in each state.
Now, as for the multiple party thing. There are multiple parties. In the last elections I had various parties to choose from (marijuana party ie) to elect a Senator and House of Representatives in my District. In the Senate and House mulitple parties make sense, and they exist. In the Presidential elections, they don't really make any sense, because when it comes down to it. You are voting for an individual and his or her principles and policies he/she sets forth during a campaign.
As for the Electoral College, it has served the US quite well since it's founding. Crticis will tell you it is outdated. This is true to a certain extent, it needs tweaking. But it has mechanisms that prevent a majority within the entire country having a louder voice than any minority.
For example; imagine the Cubans in Florida (numbering around 3 million) shouting for certain rights amongst 300 million people. Will their voice be heard? Not really, politicians go where the votes are, 3 million Cubans are nothing nationwide, but within the state of Florida, they are heard loud and clear.
Any other questions?
I get that you don't need to belong to a party, with independants and what not. That example about the Cuban population is kinda what I was getting at. For one, I don't know how the elections work, like is the winner in a state declared by winning the majority of districts? Or is it the total votes statewide that determine the winner? So I don't really know how best to put forward my questions.
To go back to the Cuban example, if a candidate has policies which they can empathize with and support, say they all vote for one candidate (heres where my ignorance is a problem I think), if the other candidate wins the state, but maybe the Cubans all supported the other candidate, then all electoral college votes go to the winner, and those Cubans votes aren't represented, even though their votes may have won some districts(if that's how things are done) or if not their votes don't even represent a portion of the electoral college votes coming out of Florida.
To go back to the Cuban example, if a candidate has policies which they can empathize with and support, say they all vote for one candidate (heres where my ignorance is a problem I think), if the other candidate wins the state, but maybe the Cubans all supported the other candidate, then all electoral college votes go to the winner, and those Cubans votes aren't represented, even though their votes may have won some districts(if that's how things are done) or if not their votes don't even represent a portion of the electoral college votes coming out of Florida.
Majority vote across the state wins the state electors. The electors then gather 41 days after the vote to officially cast their votes towards the President.
You lost me here.
If the Cubans support candidate A and candidate B wins (which can care less for the Cubans), then the Cubans shouldn't expect anything. Is that what you're saying?
What I'm saying is, why should the candidate who wins the state get all of the electoral college votes. The number of those votes is dependant on the number of representatives in the House, who can be from all different parties. Wouldn't it stand to reason that those electoral college votes should also represent how the different areas of a state vote, rather than the whole state?
Where do I start? Im all for dont fix whats not broke mentality BUT its broke. It doesnt represent the majority.
I don't know if that would work in conjunction with the electoral college, but I think that would be a better representation.
I did a little reading, and Maine and Nebraska are the only states where there is no "winner take all". It seems a little better, the overall vote winner gets 2 electoral votes, and the winner of the districts get one vote for each district they win. To me this way seems to be a better representation than simply giving all the votes to the overall winner.
I did a little reading, and Maine and Nebraska are the only states where there is no "winner take all". It seems a little better, the overall vote winner gets 2 electoral votes, and the winner of the districts get one vote for each district they win. To me this way seems to be a better representation than simply giving all the votes to the overall winner.
----------------------------------------------------------Tonington------------------------------------------
Let's clarify a major fallacy in most thinking about whether a vote is meaningful
and whether a vote is represented.
The Winner Takes All System makes people think their vote didn't count ONLY IF their candidate
did not win.
Come on !!!
If you put on your sneakers and run a race and you lose, was your effort meaningless ???
Likewise if you vote and your guy didn't win, is your vote meaningless ??
The Winner Takes All System has the hidden advantage of making a narrow victory look
huge and unifying later in history. For example JOHN F KENNEDY squeaked in a victory in
1960 and yet the perception appears that the country unified a great majority favoring him.
Coalitions resulting from proportional representation never appear to achieve that perception.
By the way, ITN, great example on the Cubans in Florida. They would have no voice if
the Winner Take All system Electoral College was not in place.
----------------------------------------------------------Tonington------------------------------------------
Let's clarify a major fallacy in most thinking about whether a vote is meaningful
and whether a vote is represented.
The Winner Takes All System makes people think their vote didn't count ONLY IF their candidate
did not win.
Come on !!!
If you put on your sneakers and run a race and you lose, was your effort meaningless ???
Likewise if you vote and your guy didn't win, is your vote meaningless ??
The Winner Takes All System has the hidden advantage of making a narrow victory look
huge and unifying later in history. For example JOHN F KENNEDY squeaked in a victory in
1960 and yet the perception appears that the country unified a great majority favoring him.
Coalitions resulting from proportional representation never appear to achieve that perception.
By the way, ITN, great example on the Cubans in Florida. They would have no voice if
the Winner Take All system Electoral College was not in place.
It's not always supposed to. Besides whoever said the majority is always right?
Would a neck and neck race with a difference of a few thousand votes make the majority correct?
Getting rid of the Electoral College would totally change the way Presidential Campaigns would run.
The first thing that would NEVER happen is you watching a candidate
walking around in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Why?
Think about it.
The concentrated population is in the big cities.
All campaigns of hand pumping flesh would ONLY occur in the cities, NOT in the farm lands,
NOT in the burbs, sub or exurbs.
Majority rules. Urban dwellers will call all the shots.
And why would that be bad ?
Rural people can tell you why.
But go dig and research that avenue.
Instead, one man one vote majority rule would eradicate the diversity
and omni-presence of seeing candidates
beg for votes in each state.
The electoral college forces them to gather as many states electoral votes as they can.
The first thing that would NEVER happen is you watching a candidate
walking around in Iowa or New Hampshire.
Why?
Think about it.
The concentrated population is in the big cities.
All campaigns of hand pumping flesh would ONLY occur in the cities, NOT in the farm lands,
NOT in the burbs, sub or exurbs.
Majority rules. Urban dwellers will call all the shots.
And why would that be bad ?
Rural people can tell you why.
But go dig and research that avenue.
Instead, one man one vote majority rule would eradicate the diversity
and omni-presence of seeing candidates
beg for votes in each state.
The electoral college forces them to gather as many states electoral votes as they can.
Wouldn't a system where you have to win a majority of states also ensure that candidates visit all states. How much campaigning takes place in small states where there is only 3,4 or 5 electoral college votes compared to California with 54? The candidate could focus on California and effectively ignore the smallest 15 states.
I don't think that the electoral college vote should be scrapped, but I think it could be ammended to work better. I also don't know how much zeal there is in America for electoral reform, probably not high on peoples list of priorities.
I don't think that the electoral college vote should be scrapped, but I think it could be ammended to work better. I also don't know how much zeal there is in America for electoral reform, probably not high on peoples list of priorities.
What happens though if it's a minority that isn't all in one state? They're all spread out, and a candidate can ignore them in each state without losing much. If you have 3 mill. in one state, they'll gain from the electoral college, but if you have a quarter mill. in 12 states they lose power even though they're 1% of the population.
What do you mean by "right"? Isn't democracy about the people deciding on the basis of their votes?
Is there a distinction made between "right" and "wrong" in the electoral process?
Americans elected George Bush ...twice...
I'd offer that this hardly represents "right".....
I'm not sure you can blame Americans for the first Bush win, what with what went on in Florida and his cousins network Fox calling him the leader when all the other networks were calling Gore.
I think our democracies in North America are indirect enough as it is, an electoral college puts too much power in too few hands. If you're an elitist I can see how that would be appealing.