Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College

[Back]

Sorry for the long post, but its subscription only from the NYTimes.

Basically, this guy has developed the idea of using state legislation to agree to put all electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. Its a way to skirt the electoral system on a state level. A bill is on Schwazenegger’s desk right now to do this.

Innovator Devises Way Around Electoral College (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/22/us/politics/22electoral.html?_r=1&hp&ex=1158897600&en=3ec7cd25d3ba875d&ei=5094&partner=homepage&oref=login)
[/i]By RICK LYMAN
Published: September 22, 2006[/i]

LOS ALTOS HILLS, Calif., Sept. 21 — In his early 20’s, John R. Koza and fellow graduate students invented a brutally complicated board game based on the Electoral College that became a brief cult hit and recently fetched $100 for an antique version on eBay.

By his 30’s, Dr. Koza was a co-inventor of the scratch-off lottery ticket and found it one of the few sure ways to find fortune with the lottery.

Now, a 63-year-old eminence among computer scientists who teaches genetic programming at Stanford, Dr. Koza has decided to top off things with an end run on the Constitution. He has concocted a plan for states to skirt the Electoral College system legally to insure the election of whichever presidential candidate receives the most votes nationwide.

“When people complain that it’s an end run,” Dr. Koza said, “I just tell them, ‘Hey, an end run is a legal play in football.’ ’’

The first fruit of his effort, a bill approved by the California legislature that would allocate the state’s 55 electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, sits on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s desk. The governor has to decide by Sept. 30 whether to sign it, a decision that may well determine whether Dr. Koza’s scheme takes flight or becomes another relic in the history of efforts to kill the Electoral College.

“It would be a major development if California enacts this thing,” said Tim Storey, an analyst for the National Conference of State Legislatures. “It will definitely transform it from a smoldering thing into a fire.’’

There have been many efforts over the decades to kill the Electoral College, the little-known and widely misunderstood body that actually elects the president based on the individual states that a candidate wins. Most recently, former Representative John B. Anderson of Illinois and former Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana spearheaded a drive, Fair Vote, for a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College.

The brainstorm behind Dr. Koza’s effort, led by a seven-month-old group, National Popular Vote, was to abandon that approach and focus on creating interstate compacts. Those are contracts that bind states over issues like nuclear waste and port authorities.

Dr. Koza’s compact, if approved by enough legislatures, would commit a state’s electors to vote for the candidate who wins the most national votes, even if the candidate loses in that state.

Robert Hardaway, a professor of law at the University of Denver who wrote “The Electoral College and the Constitution: The Case for Preserving Federalism” (1994), has counted 704 efforts to change or abolish the Electoral College. Most, he said, were ill advised, including this one.

“It’s legal, but it would be a terrible idea,” Professor Hardaway said. “Look at the trauma the country went through having a recount in Florida. Suppose what would happen, in the face of a close national election, if we had to have a recount in every little hamlet.”

Dr. Koza, whose dissertation at the University of Michigan was titled “On Inducing a Nontrivial, Parsimonious Grammar for a Given Sample of Sentences,” said the idea came to him in early 2004, although he and Barry Fadem did not go public with it until February. Working with state lotteries as chief executive of Scientific Games in Atlanta, he had learned how interstate compacts work. Multistate lotteries like Powerball are based on such compacts. What, he wondered, if a similar agreement bound states together to thwart the Electoral College?

“The bottom line is that the system has outlived its usefulness,” said Assemblyman Thomas J. Umberg, the Anaheim Democrat who sponsored the bill here. “It’s past time that Americans should elect their president by direct vote of the people.”

Mr. Umberg and his staff met some of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s top staff members on Wednesday and came away encouraged about the prospects of the legislation. Although they received no commitment, it was clear that the governor, a Republican, was seriously considering the question and had not made up his mind about it, Mr. Umberg said.

“It’s anybody’s guess which way he’ll go,” Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, an Irvine Republican who opposes the bill, said. “He’s not your normal partisan politician.”

National Popular Vote bills were proposed in six legislatures this year. California’s was the only one to pass it, though the Colorado Senate voted for a version. The group has found sponsors for bills in 22 states next year.

“And we fully expect that by Jan. 1 we will be able to say that we have sponsors in all 50 states,” said Mr. Fadem, an East Bay lawyer who specializes in referendums and initiatives and is president of National Popular Vote.

The goal is to create a snowball effect. The measures may be unlikely to pass in time for the 2008 presidential race, Mr. Fadem said, but the idea could find enough traction as an issue for candidates to address.

As attractive as it is to guarantee the White House to the winner of the national vote, Dr. Koza said, he has other goals in mind.

“More important,’’ he said, “is changing the way presidential campaigns are conducted in this country. Now, the candidates spend almost all of their time in a handful of battleground states like Ohio and Florida and ignore the rest of the country. This would force candidates to campaign nationally for every vote.”

Mr. Storey said he remained skeptical that the idea would pass in enough legislatures to take effect. Almost certainly, he said, the states that are usually highly contested will oppose it, fearing the loss of attention and campaign spending. Also, Mr. Storey said, the battle might become partisan, as it did in California, where just one Republican legislator ended up supporting the bill.

Mr. DeVore said, “I just took a look at who was behind the movement, and they were left-wing partisans.”

Dr. Koza acknowledged that he had been a Democratic elector, twice, and his living room is festooned with photographs of him beside former Vice President Al. Gore and former President Bill Clinton.

He insisted, however, that the movement was fundamentally nonpartisan, and he pointed to the many Republicans who had agreed to co-sponsor bills on his plan. In New York, five lawmakers, all Republican, sponsored the bill this year.

Jerry F. Hough, a professor of political science at Duke, said that he was “an enthusiastic supporter of a popular vote for president,” but that he had problems with Dr. Koza’s plan. Professor Hough said he would like runoff provisions, for instance.

He also agreed conservatives could see the effort as a liberal stealth move to regain lost power, comparing it to the Republicans’ successful effort, after Franklin D. Roosevelt won four terms, to limit presidents to two.

“The two-term limit was clearly in the face of F.D.R.,” Professor Hough said. “And I would say this is clearly in the face of Al Gore’s loss in 2000.”

[Atlanteax]

This is a bad idea, for reasons already mentioned in past debates.

Primarily that the Founding Fathers intended the Electoral College to accomplish two things.

1) Preserve the power of the smaller states in comparision to the larger states. As if it is just the national vote, then there is no purpose in campaigning in anywhere but California, Texas, and NY (and other high population states).

2) Protect the citizens from themselves. Traditionally, the Electors will vote for who "wins" their state. But it is non-binding, with the FF's intention that the Electors will opt for the better candidate and not vote for some maniac. (Unfortunately, modern politics prevents the fielding of competent candidates). The FF did not trust the average American citizen to be informed enough to vote for the "best" candidate.

[Back]

Its been over 200 years. I think things have changed. Just a tiny bit.

Did you read the article? I The plan is for each state to turn its electoral votes over to the national popular vote winner regardless of the popular vote of that state. I don’t see how one state more than another could effect the national popular vote.

[Usurper83]

This is a bad idea, for reasons already mentioned in past debates.

...

The FF did not trust the average American citizen to be informed enough to vote for the "best" candidate.

Completely agreed. While the Electoral College is sometimes exceedingly complicated and hard to understand to the layman (WHY DIDN'T THEY VOTE IN WHO I VOTED FOR?! RAWR!), it is necessary for the smaller states, as mentioned, and to keep a balance.

That said, I feel that the Electoral College also keeps us from getting 3rd party candidates to the top (which isn't necessarily a bad thing--it is just that the standard Demublican/Republicrat format is starting to wear me out). There needs to be a way to change that, but with enough 3rd party representation in Congress and then the Senate, it won't matter much who is at top, because it would (should, in theory) balance out more. The two party system is what I have a problem with, because I identify with major ideals on both sides of the fence.. and I hate to have to call myself a Libertarian, I'm more of a Whig.

I don't see how something like this will make candidates campaign nationally. You still have the battleground states where people are firmly on both sides, and you'll still have states like NJ and RI that will always vote Democratic, and states like Kansas and whatnot that will always vote Republican. I don't know how this changes that, by just going on popular numbers.

[Some Rogue]

Yeah, I don't like this idea very much. It takes away the smaller states' representation and puts more power in the hands of the more populous states.

[TheEschaton]

Uhh, this is a bad issue solely because it'll allow national candidates to focus on only big population states and maybe even cities, and forget, oh, say, the whole middle of the country.

The purpose of the electoral college is to put a populationally-disproportionate amount of power in small population states, to make the say more even handed among the 50 States. Even though I am a citizen of New York, I don't want South Dakotans to think they have no say on national elections. And they won't under the new rules.

-TheE-

[Back]

Yeah, I don't like this idea very much. It takes away the smaller states' representation and puts more power in the hands of the more populous states.

Doesn’t that already happen now? California has 55 votes vs Alabama’s 9.

[Some Rogue]

Doesn’t that already happen now? California has 55 votes vs Alabama’s 9.


Uhh, this is a bad issue solely because it'll allow national candidates to focus on only big population states and maybe even cities, and forget, oh, say, the whole middle of the country.

The purpose of the electoral college is to put a populationally-disproportionate amount of power in small population states, to make the say more even handed among the 50 States. Even though I am a citizen of New York, I don't want South Dakotans to think they have no say on national elections. And they won't under the new rules.

-TheE-

What he said.

[Sean of the Thread]

Its been over 200 years. I think things have changed. Just a tiny bit.



Maybe we should just scratch what the founders laid and start over?

[TheEschaton]

Nope....but the Constitution IS A LIVING DOCUMENT.....and it should be interpreted and amended as current situations apply....

...but not in this case.

-TheE-

[Sean of the Thread]

You guys need to make up your minds... it's not okay to amend it to current situations and changed times (war on terror)...it is okay .. it's not okay.. ....



(hook line and sinker)

[Back]

What he said.


Doesn’t that already happen now? California has 55 votes vs Alabama’s 9.


Uhh, this is a bad issue solely because it'll allow national candidates to focus on only big population states and maybe even cities, and forget, oh, say, the whole middle of the country.

The purpose of the electoral college is to put a populationally-disproportionate amount of power in small population states, to make the say more even handed among the 50 States. Even though I am a citizen of New York, I don't want South Dakotans to think they have no say on national elections. And they won't under the new rules.

-TheE-

I think you are thinking of the Senate, where every state has two reps. The electoral college reflects the house, so large population states have more of a say than low population states as it stands now.

[TheEschaton]

But by reducing it in numbers, Ohio's small number of electors is more statistically significant than Ohio's actual population.

And if you believe in the Constitution as a living document, and believe it should be able to be interpreted and amended, Xy, you need a standard of why it should be in a given case. IMO, this case doesn't warrant an amendment to the Constitution. Neither does gay marriage. The 14th Amendment was warranted.

-TheE-

[Atlanteax]

Backlash, re-read my response.

You seem to be overlooking that a candidate can just focus in campaigning in the most populous states. If the candidate can win the 4-7 most populous states easily, it's basically a given that he will win the national vote. Thus if he wins the national votes, all the middle and small states are "automatically" voting for him.

The result is that the smaller states are ignored as there is no need to campaign there.

[Back]

Backlash, re-read my response.

You seem to be overlooking that a candidate can just focus in campaigning in the most populous states. If the candidate can win the 4-7 most populous states easily, it's basically a given that he will win the national vote. Thus if he wins the national votes, all the middle and small states are "automatically" voting for him.

The result is that the smaller states are ignored as there is no need to campaign there.

The only difference is giving the election to the candidate with the popular vote. As it stands now, candidates only need to campaign so many states to get a majority of the electoral votes anyway.

[Sean]

The result is that the smaller states are ignored as there is no need to campaign there.

I agree with you guys who think this is a bad idea... but in reference to candidates not having to campaign in the smaller population states for the most part candidates just focus on swing states now with their campaigns anyway. I can't think of the last time there was a heavy focus on campaigning in New Jersey as opposed to say Ohio. So would it really be all that different?

[Some Rogue]

Going off the 2000 census data, a candidate would have to only win the top 9 states to automatically win and have all the other states' votes become meaningless.

Of course, many of those top 9 just happen to historically lean towards the Democrats.

[Sean]

Going off the 2000 census data, a candidate would have to only win the top 9 states to automatically win and have all the other states' votes become meaningless.

Of course, many of those top 9 just happen to historically lean towards the Democrats.

How do you figure? The electoral votes would goto the winner of the national vote not the winner of a states vote...

[Some Rogue]

You're right...I was mixing our current method with the proposed method.

It doesn't negate the fact that more than half of this country's population lives in just 9 states.

[Goldenranger]

I think this would help ease the frustration of citizens of states where the minority party really has little chance of winning their state's popular vote for President and thus getting their party's electors out to DC. There would likely be a higher turnout of these minority parties like the Rs in CA, IL, and NY and the Ds in TX, the rest of the South/Midwest/Mountain states. This higher turnout could lead to more competitive races on the state and local levels and probably bring both candidates closer to moderate values shared by voters in both parties. It would also likely lead to state party organizations really driving increased registration and get out the vote efforts knowing that 5,000 more Republican votes in my state of Idaho could offset another 5,000 votes from Democrats in say Illinois.

Smaller states still would retain a major source of power through their representation in the Senate, which is where the power of the smaller states truly lies. With the Presidential elections only being every four years, this really is a small decrease in their power, with the possibility of greater power depending on how much they better they might energize their base in a number of states in relation to the other party.

My only great concern about this reform is that it is going to make politics for the Presidency even more of a rich person's game. Commercials will no longer be played in a relatively small number of markets. The Dems and Repubs will have to focus on markets in all areas off the nation which have a certain population base and favor that party. In order for state parties to be able to register and get out voters there will need to be more substantial amounts of money given to them. The media will love it, it will just be a constant horserace rather than multiple shoo-ins and relatively few horseraces for them to report on.

My .02

[ElanthianSiren]

Don't like it, simply from having studied history -- particularly German governing before WW2 and Hitler's rise to power. It leaves the door open for a tiny minority in each state to elect the president.


-M
edit: that is assuming that the potential for minority parties to actually gain seats spawns many minority parties btw.

[Latrinsorm]

It leaves the door open for a tiny minority in each state to elect the president.I don't really think that's a failure of the proposed system. Examine Goldenranger's point; with what we have now, 5000 votes either way in Ohio and Florida could have decided the Presidency. Under the new system, 5000 votes in New York can balance out that tiny minority in Ohio.

[Sean]

the only advantage i can see to this system is that it gets a little closer to the every vote counts mantra. The number of people i know who don't vote because they know what the outcome in my state will be regardless of their vote is astounding.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't really think that's a failure of the proposed system. Examine Goldenranger's point; with what we have now, 5000 votes either way in Ohio and Florida could have decided the Presidency. Under the new system, 5000 votes in New York can balance out that tiny minority in Ohio.

Yes, but from Goldenranger's post, it seems like he is still viewing what will be as a two party system (last paragraph on dems and republicans and running ads).

Consider what happens when you have 10 parties running candidates for executive office. Consider then what happens when you splinter the entire populus of the US over 10 different views on issues.

If you think the capital protests when Bush was put into office prior to Sept 11 were bad, this would create nothing short of rioting whenever someone wins by 1/10th of a percent and starts enacting things that are unpopular with 70, 80, 90% of the country. We don't possess (IMO) the compromise skills to deal with a system that is more than 2 major parties in this country. It's further unwise IMO from a stability viewpoint, though I wish that wasn't MO.

-M
ps. If nothing else, think of the increase in election year ads! ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

[TheEschaton]

ps. If nothing else, think of the increase in election year ads! ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

I do have to agree about this. I'm glad I've only ever lived in two states (well, I lived in PA for a year, but I was 3, and politically unaware) who've been so overwhelmingly Democratic, that no one has ever bothered running a political ad there....at least not for national politics.

If I lived in a swing state - I might've thrown myself off a cliff.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

I don’t see how one state more than another could effect the national popular vote.

Are you serious man?

It's simple math. No one would give a fuck about a state like say...Wyoming which has half a million people or Montana with just under a million.

The thing is, that both states are some of the most important when it comes to environmental issues.

In a popular vote the city of Chicago is worth twice as much as these two states.

It's a horrible idea and I don't see any state outside of NY, Cali, Illinois even seriously considering it.

[Back]

Are you serious man?

It's simple math. No one would give a fuck about a state like say...Wyoming which has half a million people or Montana with just under a million.

The thing is, that both states are some of the most important when it comes to environmental issues.

In a popular vote the city of Chicago is worth twice as much as these two states.

It's a horrible idea and I don't see any state outside of NY, Cali, Illinois even seriously considering it.

I must be missing something because as I see it, even with the House of Representatives, states with low populations are already at a loss.

Its the Senate that gives them all an equal voice, not the House or the electoral college.

[Goldenranger]

Yes, but from Goldenranger's post, it seems like he is still viewing what will be as a two party system (last paragraph on dems and republicans and running ads).

Consider what happens when you have 10 parties running candidates for executive office. Consider then what happens when you splinter the entire populus of the US over 10 different views on issues.

If you think the capital protests when Bush was put into office prior to Sept 11 were bad, this would create nothing short of rioting whenever someone wins by 1/10th of a percent and starts enacting things that are unpopular with 70, 80, 90% of the country. We don't possess (IMO) the compromise skills to deal with a system that is more than 2 major parties in this country. It's further unwise IMO from a stability viewpoint, though I wish that wasn't MO.

This is a very valid point to take into consideration, though I think in perhaps 50 years or so. In the 2004 Election only 4 parties other than the main two got more than 100,000 votes. These being the Libertarian Party, Constitution Party, Green Party and Nader running under the Reform Party. There were less than 100,000 other votes for all other parties and write-in votes combined. The best example for the problems you foresee would be the 1992 election where Perot got a little under 20,000,000 votes and around 19% of the votes. Leaving Clinton around 43% and Bush around 37%. When a third party candidate is able to muster this level of support consistently, I still think we really don't have to worry too much because I believe our political system will adapt to handle the political situation as it evolves. Other countries are able to handle more than three parties, and though most of them use a parliamentary system of government I don't see it being particularly difficult to adjust it to our system of governance.

A check to the Executive will always be Congress and unless some sort of proportional system is set into place I really don't think there is a huge worry about some sort of uber-radical President. (Though I know some would already say this check has been destroyed by our current President.) Even if the Executive outmaneuvers Congress and the courts we're already fucked. But anyway I'm rambling when all I meant to really say is that I think this concern is really one living in the world of theory and what ifs rather than a practical one to concern ourselves with at this time.

[Daniel]

You misunderstand. The Electorial college is not meant to take away the advantage of being a big state. There's a very good logic behind the bigger states, with the biggest interests at risk have a bigger political pull.

HOWEVER, it is equally important to ensure that the smaller states have some sort of say in what goes on.

Let's go back to Wyoming. Right now, they have 3 electorial votes, that means that Wyoming is worth 1.2% of the elections. A small amount to be sure, but lets look at the power they would have in a popular vote.

Under a popular vote, the citizens of wyoming would collectively comprise .16% of the voting power in federal elections. That's nearly ONE HUNDRED times less than what they had before.

[Jorddyn]

If I lived in a swing state - I might've thrown myself off a cliff.


I tried last election. Unfortunately, not many cliffs in Iowa.

It is freaking amazing how much money is spent for our 7(?) electoral votes.

By the way, isn't the electoral college a reflection of the combined house and senate? That is, we have 5 memebers in the house + 2 senators, so 7 votes?

Jorddyn

[Parkbandit]

Who else thinks Backlash will be the first one to bitch, moan and cry if this is enacted and the Republican wins the popular vote, but essentially loses the Electorial College and yet he gets elected.

Cry more over 2000 bitch. The Republicans stole that election fair and square.

[Sean of the Thread]

Who else thinks Backlash will be the first one to bitch, moan and cry if this is enacted and the Republican wins the popular vote, but essentially loses the Electorial College and yet he gets elected.

Cry more over 2000 bitch. The Republicans stole that election fair and square.

Was the first thing that came to mind but I held back.. having caught the "quit picking on backlash in political threads" card lately.

[Jorddyn]

Cry more over 2000 bitch. The Republicans stole that election fair and square.

This isn't a 2000 election issue (though it was an issue in the 200 election). I remember debating this is high school government class, which was... well... um... before 2000. By about a decade.

Jorddyn

[Back]

You misunderstand. The Electorial college is not meant to take away the advantage of being a big state. There's a very good logic behind the bigger states, with the biggest interests at risk have a bigger political pull.

HOWEVER, it is equally important to ensure that the smaller states have some sort of say in what goes on.

Let's go back to Wyoming. Right now, they have 3 electorial votes, that means that Wyoming is worth 1.2% of the elections. A small amount to be sure, but lets look at the power they would have in a popular vote.

Under a popular vote, the citizens of wyoming would collectively comprise .16% of the voting power in federal elections. That's nearly ONE HUNDRED times less than what they had before.

Certainly an advantage to the smaller state... by less than 1%. It still doesn’t stop candidates from only canvasing large population states like California as opposed to Wyoming. What they are doing to change the primaries is more on par with giving states a narrower range of power, as some who have posted suggested the system works that way now.

Giving states a Senate-like voice would be inequitable for other reasons people have posted as being unfair. That people in Wyoming have the same sense of what should happen to the country just as much as the people in New York.

But when you really break it all down, its Americans, not states, that make up the democracy. What Goldenranger suggested... that 5000 votes in Ohio could be offset by 5000 votes in Delaware... or any other place across the country would be more in line with the voice of the people no matter where they were from.

This system was set up when there were 13 states and 4 million people. After reading a bit on the Electoral College’s own site... our FF did this not because they thought people were stupid, but so they could narrow down candidates for a clear majority... at least thats how I see it.

[Back]

Who else thinks Backlash will be the first one to bitch, moan and cry if this is enacted and the Republican wins the popular vote, but essentially loses the Electorial College and yet he gets elected.

Cry more over 2000 bitch. The Republicans stole that election fair and square.

Man, you are really turning into a drama queen these days. More of a hypocrite as well. I know you want election reform and have expressed doubts about the electoral system in the past.

At least you have reconciled with the truth about 2000.

[Apathy]

This would lead to a ridiculous strength for special interest groups.

It's bad enough, don't make it worse.

[Jorddyn]

This would lead to a ridiculous strength for special interest groups.


Could you please explain this?

I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying that it perhaps needs a little backup.

Jorddyn

[Back]

This would lead to a ridiculous strength for special interest groups.

It's bad enough, don't make it worse.

How do you figure?

Oh, BTW, I doubt the angle this guy proposes would ever see the light of day. I mean, its a good idea to enact election reform at the state level if the federal won’t. But I can’t see all 50 states on the same page on something like this with the bipartisan system so firmly entrenched.

How the constitution defines a majority would have to change.

[Apathy]

How do you figure?

Oh, BTW, I doubt the angle this guy proposes would ever see the light of day. I mean, its a good idea to enact election reform at the state level if the federal won’t. But I can’t see all 50 states on the same page on something like this with the bipartisan system so firmly entrenched.

How the constitution defines a majority would have to change.

Easily agreed.



Could you please explain this?

I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying that it perhaps needs a little backup.

Special interest groups already buy favor with legislative members regularly and openly. Would you prefer to have them buying votes from people?

[TheEschaton]

But when you really break it all down, its Americans, not states, that make up the democracy. What Goldenranger suggested... that 5000 votes in Ohio could be offset by 5000 votes in Delaware... or any other place across the country would be more in line with the voice of the people no matter where they were from.

I think this is fundamentally against the idea of what America is. We're not a single unified country, we are a united confederation of 50 states. For the voice of one state to be drowned out by another is against this constitutional republic idea we have.

-TheE-

[Kefka]

On a state level, it wouldn't be so bad. Whoever wins the state should get all the electorates of that state. After watching the primaries in 2004.... well the democratic primary :D, I noticed that some of those electoral votes were leaning towards some unknown candidate. Both repubs and dems had their own set of people who would be voting for them should their guy win the popular vote in their state. Why?

Looking back at the 2000 election, there were some in the electoral college that chose not to vote in protest of the supreme court's decision. That's stupid. The way it's setup right now, in the case of a close election, the clear winner could end up losing due to protest or an electorate chosing their own candidate. Eliminate the college. Electorates should be a number given to the winner of that state.

[Daniel]

Certainly an advantage to the smaller state... by less than 1%. It still doesn’t stop candidates from only canvasing large population states like California as opposed to Wyoming.


No. It just makes it 100 times worse.

[Daniel]

On a state level, it wouldn't be so bad. Whoever wins the state should get all the electorates of that state.

^

That's pretty much what happens...

[Parkbandit]

Man, you are really turning into a drama queen these days. More of a hypocrite as well. I know you want election reform and have expressed doubts about the electoral system in the past.

At least you have reconciled with the truth about 2000.

LOL.. use the term hypocrite in the correct manner please Backlash. Just because I call you one, for reasons even you agree with.. doesn't mean you can just call someone calling you out one. Look up the word again if you are still having trouble.

[Kefka]

On a state level, it wouldn't be so bad. Whoever wins the state should get all the electorates of that state.

^

That's pretty much what happens...

Not necessarily. Some of those votes goes to third party candidates. In a state that will give 40 electoral votes, there's cases where 37 will go to the main candidate. It creates a scenario where a candidate needs to win an extra state just to make up the difference.

[TheEschaton]

Most states give the whole amount to the winner, as far as I know.

-TheE-

[Daniel]

O rly?

What states has this happened in?

Keep in mind, one state has 40 or more votes, and only 3 have over 30.

[Kranar]

Most states give the whole amount to the winner, as far as I know.


Every state gives the whole amount to the winner and has done so for decades now.

In most states, it is actually the law. I forget in which states the electors do not have a legal obligation to cast their vote for the majority, but it's only like 2 or 3 of them. The overwhelming majority of states legally require that the elector vote for the popular candidate in that state.

Personally, and I know this will be the least popular opinion expressed here... I think the president should be chosen by Congress. The population should elect its congressmen and the congress should pick its leader. In otherwords... the Electoral College would be made up of congressmen instead of people no one has ever met or even knows about.

The current system, while understandably was made as a compromise which applied some 200+ years ago, today makes little sense and is very inconsistent.

Right now, some people's votes are worth 2-3 times as much as others, not to mention that apart from raising money, a Presidential candidate has no need to campaign in the interests of any state other than Florida, Ohio or next election's swing state.

Regardless of the history which clouds this issue, just from a common sense point of view, a voting system should value every single vote equally. The fact that it doesn't right now should make one reconsider it.

[Back]

LOL.. use the term hypocrite in the correct manner please Backlash. Just because I call you one, for reasons even you agree with.. doesn't mean you can just call someone calling you out one. Look up the word again if you are still having trouble.

Well, I looked it up. There was a black and white picture of this old guy with a walker wearing black socks and mandles standing next to a minivan in his driveway accompanied by pink flamingo lawn ornaments.

[Back]

Regardless of the history which clouds this issue, just from a common sense point of view, a voting system should value every single vote equally. The fact that it doesn't right now should make one reconsider it.

QFT.

It amazes me how some Canadians know more about our system than some Americans.

Now, I know nothing about Canada’s system. How does it work there?

[Jorddyn]

Every state gives the whole amount to the winner and has done so for decades now.


I think Nebraska and one other state do it either proportionally or by district. Not that it matters - this would probably often lead to the same result.

Jorddyn

[Parkbandit]

Regardless of the history which clouds this issue, just from a common sense point of view, a voting system should value every single vote equally. The fact that it doesn't right now should make one reconsider it.

There is a very good reason why we don't do that Kranar... it would give Congress far too much power... as the majority would put a puppet into the Presidency and be able to control 2 out of 3 branches of our government. And that appointed President would then what.. allow Congress to nominate the Judges?

No thanks. Congress already has too much power imo.. they don't need any more.

[Latrinsorm]

How does it work there?It's pretty amusing. The Senate, for a long time, was appointed and didn't have term limits. The new PM just recently put in a plan so that eventually (decades from now) the Senate will be entirely popularly elected.

In general, they have a parliamentary system like England. They also have four majorish parties, which means that it's hard for any one party to get a majority government. The party with the most MPs gets to have the PM. If you think towing the party line is bad here, MPs literally vote the way their party tells them to every single time. When a party has the most MPs but not enough to actually be a majority, you can imagine that things don't run very smoothly.

Speaking of what you think might be bad here, the PM appoints judges with complete autonomy. It's only recently that the Parliamentary body has been allowed to even *interview* these guys, and their interviewing process has no impact on whether the PM appoints the judge or not.

Then there's a nebulous office called the Governor-General. I'm not really sure what's up with that, beyond that she's supposed to be the (British) Queen's representative in Canadian government.

[Back]

Agreed with PB here... to an extent. I mean, if Congress were to decide, the entrenched partisans would elect their entrenched candidate. What is interesting about this idea is that it would make people know more about their Senators and Representatives. But again, we fall into the same problem of population.

And yes, Jordynn, each state has the same number of electoral votes as they have Senators and Representatives.

Esch brought up a good point. We are called the United States. We are also a republic in the true sense of the word. With everyone harping about how Democracy is so great, without us even being a good example of a true Democracy, it boggles my mind and returns me to the word hypocrite.

[Kefka]

O rly?

What states has this happened in?

Keep in mind, one state has 40 or more votes, and only 3 have over 30.

I was giving a scenario based on the tally of the last democratic primary. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Else I would've provided a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

It hasn't happened to the point that it changed the result of an election, but it's happened several times.

[Daniel]

I was giving a scenario based on the tally of the last democratic primary. Sorry I didn't make myself clear. Else I would've provided a link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector

It hasn't happened to the point that it changed the result of an election, but it's happened several times.

Next time, READ the link you post.

In the last two elections, a total of TWO votes have not gone the way that they should have. That doesn't even come close to what you said.

[Back]

You have a talent for exaggerating. 1.6% is ONE HUNDRED TIMES more than .6%. lol


On 158 occasions, electors have cast their votes for president or vice president in a different manner than that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represent. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was in 1836 when 23 Virginia electors changed their vote together. Still, no faithless elector has ever changed the outcome of any election.

From the source Kefka cited.

[Daniel]

You have a talent for exaggerating. 1.6% is ONE HUNDRED TIMES more than .6%. lol







.00016 X 100 is equal to ?

[Back]

.00016 X 100 is equal to ?

Yeah, ONE HUNDRED TIMES more than .00016. You made the miniscule scale seem large with your all-caps.

[Kranar]

America is definitely not a poor example of a democracy and I wasn't trying to imply that with my post. I think the way that Congress works, by having one house based on territory and the other based on population works very well.

I just have a problem with the way the President is chosen. He isn't, by law, democratically elected. It's only by a convention adopted by the states that the President happens to kind of be elected.



It's pretty amusing. The Senate, for a long time, was appointed and didn't have term limits. The new PM just recently put in a plan so that eventually (decades from now) the Senate will be entirely popularly elected.


Canadian Senators are nothing like Senators in the U.S. Regarding it as amusing is like regarding the head of the Treasury in the U.S. amusing since he isn't elected either. In fact, Senators in Canada have nothing more than a ceremonial role. I bet less than 5% of Canadian's can name a single Senator or even knows that Canada has a Senate. It's just tradition, and frankly, one that costs too much money and serves no purpose.



In general, they have a parliamentary system like England. They also have four majorish parties, which means that it's hard for any one party to get a majority government.


Except that for the great majority of Canada's history, a majority government has been in power. A minority government usually only lasts about a year and a half to two years and typically only as a result of people having doubts about that party and not wanting to give it the absolute authority for 4 years that a majority government typically has.

The idea behind electing a minority government is kind of a "test" to see if the party means what it says, in which case that party will end up being the majority party after two years, or if that party really was full of crap, in which case it is thrown out of parliament.



If you think towing the party line is bad here, MPs literally vote the way their party tells them to every single time.


This is an entirely false statement. It is by tradition and convention that MPs will ultimately support their party even if they disagree, but it is by no means a requirement. The philosophy behind this is so that a party stands united and also simplifies the representation of a party to the population.

Traditionally, people in Canada vote based on the party and not a particular individual. People didn't vote specifically for Stephen Harper to be Prime Minister, nor do people know or really care to vote for the MP who represents their district. Elections would be completly complicated if every individual candidate running for MP ran commercials, ads, and campaigns representing their individual self as opposed to just saying they are representing an ideology expressed by their party. All Liberals are expected to vote the same way so that the Liberal Party of Canada shows that they have a clear stance on an issue, similarly for most parties. People voted for a conservative ideology that the Conservative Party of Canada is expected to represent.



Then there's a nebulous office called the Governor-General. I'm not really sure what's up with that, beyond that she's supposed to be the (British) Queen's representative in Canadian government.


It's a cermonial position.

Anyhow, I'm not saying that Canada's government is better than the U.S. or anything like that, in fact I find discussions like that mostly counter productive. The Canadian government has its problems too, we have our fair share of political corruption and all the political junk that goes along with being a democracy. I just saw some glaring examples of what seemed like 10-15 minute research into how our government works and well, I thought I should weigh in on the issue being one of the few Canadians here.

[Latrinsorm]

Except that for the great majority of Canada's history, a majority government has been in power. When was the last one?
but it is by no means a requirement.How many times have you heard of an MP breaking rank?
It's a cermonial position.Well that clears it up. :D

[Back]

America is definitely not a poor example of a democracy and I wasn't trying to imply that with my post. I think the way that Congress works, by having one house based on territory and the other based on population works very well.

I just have a problem with the way the President is chosen. He isn't, by law, democratically elected. It's only by a convention adopted by the states that the President happens to kind of be elected.



Canadian Senators are nothing like Senators in the U.S. Regarding it as amusing is like regarding the head of the Treasury in the U.S. amusing since he isn't elected either. In fact, Senators in Canada have nothing more than a ceremonial role. I bet less than 5% of Canadian's can name a single Senator or even knows that Canada has a Senate. It's just tradition, and frankly, one that costs too much money and serves no purpose.



Except that for the great majority of Canada's history, a majority government has been in power. A minority government usually only lasts about a year and a half to two years and typically only as a result of people having doubts about that party and not wanting to give it the absolute authority for 4 years that a majority government typically has.

The idea behind electing a minority government is kind of a "test" to see if the party means what it says, in which case that party will end up being the majority party after two years, or if that party really was full of crap, in which case it is thrown out of parliament.



This is an entirely false statement. It is by tradition and convention that MPs will ultimately support their party even if they disagree, but it is by no means a requirement. The philosophy behind this is so that a party stands united and also simplifies the representation of a party to the population.

Traditionally, people in Canada vote based on the party and not a particular individual. People didn't vote specifically for Stephen Harper to be Prime Minister, nor do people know or really care to vote for the MP who represents their district. Elections would be completly complicated if every individual candidate running for MP ran commercials, ads, and campaigns representing their individual self as opposed to just saying they are representing an ideology expressed by their party. All Liberals are expected to vote the same way so that the Liberal Party of Canada shows that they have a clear stance on an issue, similarly for most parties. People voted for a conservative ideology that the Conservative Party of Canada is expected to represent.



It's a cermonial position.

Anyhow, I'm not saying that Canada's government is better than the U.S. or anything like that, in fact I find discussions like that mostly counter productive. The Canadian government has its problems too, we have our fair share of political corruption and all the political junk that goes along with being a democracy. I just saw some glaring examples of what seemed like 10-15 minute research into how our government works and well, I thought I should weigh in on the issue being one of the few Canadians here.

I have no idea who you are quoting, but thanks for the details.

[Sean of the Thread]

Canada sucks.

[Kranar]

When was the last one?


The last one ended in 2004.



How many times have you heard of an MP breaking rank?


I beleive I explained why they do not break rank. It is considered by Canadians to be a bad thing to break rank with the party whom you campaigned with and with whom you said you would represent in parliament. They can though, and they do. It is considered dishonest though. A Liberal should vote and represent the Liberal Party, when that guy was elected, he was elected with the foreknowledge that he would represent the Liberal Party. If he wants to break party lines and come up with his own political ideology, he can run as an independent.

[HarmNone]

In the context explained, it makes good sense to me why an MP would not break rank, even though he/she might have that option. If they are a part of a given party, they are expected to support that party's platform.

Thanks for explaining, Kranar. I've known very little about Canada's government, so this is very enlightening for me. :)

[Sean of the Thread]

Thanks for explaining, Kranar. I've known very little about Canada's government, so this is very enlightening for me. :)


...be sure to wipe your lips clean of the brown.

[Stanley Burrell]

I want the parliamentary system.

Like, four years ago.

[HarmNone]

I find myself wondering if the Liberal Party in Canada can be compared, from the viewpoint of platform and ideals, to our Democratic party. Are they similar, Kranar, or is Canada's idea of "liberal" different that what we North Americans define?

[Back]

I find myself wondering if the Liberal Party in Canada can be compared, from the viewpoint of platform and ideals, to our Democratic party. Are they similar, Kranar, or is Canada's idea of "liberal" different that what we North Americans define?

South America considers this Administration as Neo-Liberal. Go figure.

[Sean of the Thread]

I find myself wondering if the Liberal Party in Canada can be compared, from the viewpoint of platform and ideals, to our Democratic party. Are they similar, Kranar, or is Canada's idea of "liberal" different that what we North Americans define?

From the ten or so Canadian friends I have their gov't gives causes them much disappointment. Very liberal in the "pussy" sense.

[Kefka]

Next time, READ the link you post.

In the last two elections, a total of TWO votes have not gone the way that they should have. That doesn't even come close to what you said.


Maybe you should read a lil closer. I stated my numbers were based on the primary, not the last 2 elections. I merely stated a possible scenario and posted where it has happened in the past.


'The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone.'

When personal interests affects the will of thousands or maybe millions of voters, then the system is flawed.

[Sean of the Thread]

O rly? Personal interests effect thousands/millions of voters? Who knew.

[Kefka]

We learn something new everyday. :D