Electoral College Reform Take Two

[fatsheep]

The the last topic I started on this subject didn't get anywhere. The main objection to reforming the electoral college was that it could would reduce the influence of small states (as they currently have more EVs per capita than big states). So I have a compromise:

Keep the electoral college but have each state award electoral votes proportionately to the results as done in the democratic primaries. Say a state has 10 electoral votes and candidate A wins 70% to 30% against candidate B. Candidate A would get 7 EVs from that state and candidate B would get the remaining three (if such a reform were passed). Under the current system, candidate A would get all 10 electoral votes and the popular votes for candidate B would essentially be thrown out.

In other words, the people who voted for candidate B might as well not turned out because their state is fully backing the opposing candidate. They had no effect on the election. This discouragement is, I think, one of the reasons why many do not turn out to vote in the first place.

That's one of the biggest problems I have with the current "winner takes all" system. The minority voters (republicans in blue states and democrats in red states) do not increase their candidate's likelihood of getting elected. Voters in swing states have a lot of influence but voters in loyal red or blue states do not. If delegates were awarded proportionally, these "minority" voters, as I call them, would at least add to their candidate's electoral vote count regardless of how the rest of the state votes. This seems fair to me.

So, in summary, small states would retain their influence with more electoral votes per capita (no change here). The electoral college would stay in place. The change would be that electoral votes from each state would be awarded proportionally instead of having all EVs go to the candidate with the majority of popular vote in the state. This would allow political minorities in loyal red and blue states to have their say. Fair?

[fatsheep]

Four votes and no posts (topic was about to slip to the second page...)?

[Senno]

Must do much maths to figure out consequences of system. I'm primarily lazy today.

[fatsheep]

Must do much maths to figure out consequences of system. I'm primarily lazy today.

It would just mean that the general election would run like the democratic primaries which both candidates getting some EVs out of each state instead of all of them. That way, if your a Republican in New York, your vote still counts.

[Sosobra]

I think it would improve voter turn out as your vote would mean something no matter what. currently if you live in a state thats heavy one way your vote means squat.

[Senno]

Fair probably, until you have a third party that comes up with a showing in a Presidential election. That happens more often that we really remember.

If no one reaches 270 electoral votes the House chooses the winner, which invalidates all our votes.

Not sure how much of a vote a third party needs to get siphon off enough electoral votes so that no one reaches 270.

I hates maths.

[fatsheep]

Fair probably, until you have a third party that comes up with a showing in a Presidential election. That happens more often that we really remember.

If no one reaches 270 electoral votes the House chooses the winner, which invalidates all our votes.

Not sure how much of a vote a third party needs to get siphon off enough electoral votes so that no one reaches 270.

I hates maths.

Well there are 538 electoral votes. If three candidates split that evenly then they'd each have ~180 EVs. You do have a point. However, this would also allow third parties to have more influence in elections and put more choices on the table. If a proportional electoral college were implemented then the provision that sends the House to vote for the president if no candidate reaches 270 EVs would have to be removed or lowered.

Don't countries in Europe have several parties? Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Christian Democrats, Socialists, etc... ? How do they handle this?

[Scar Face]

Well there are 538 electoral votes. If three candidates split that evenly then they'd each have ~180 EVs. You do have a point. However, this would also allow third parties to have more influence in elections and put more choices on the table. If a proportional electoral college were implemented then the provision that sends the House to vote for the president if no candidate reaches 270 EVs would have to be removed or lowered.

Don't countries in Europe have several parties? Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrats, Christian Democrats, Socialists, etc... ? How do they handle this?

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking what they do in the event of a minority Government? Sometimes the Minority Government forms a coalition with another, sometimes [Canada for example] it just takes power under shaky foundations. I don't think any nation overturns the vote of the people.

[fatsheep]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you asking what they do in the event of a minority Government? Sometimes the Minority Government forms a coalition with another, sometimes [Canada for example] it just takes power under shaky foundations. I don't think any nation overturns the vote of the people.

I mean how do they handle the fact that there are so many choices on the ballot? The fact that some parties could undermine the other party? Like if you have two leftist parties and one right wing party then the leftist parties split votes while the right wing party gets an easy victory. Problems like that - how do they address them?

[Scar Face]

I mean how do they handle the fact that there are so many choices on the ballot? The fact that some parties could undermine the other party? Like if you have two leftist parties and one right wing party then the leftist parties split votes while the right wing party gets an easy victory. Problems like that - how do they address them?

They don't. Its a fact of life. They don't try to balance between left and right, thats not for the system to do. The people decide which party or ideaology is dominant, thats the end of it. For example, Canada has 3 left wing parties, and another left wing nationalistic party, but only 1 right wing party. Because of this, the Conservatives can win an election if they play their cards right, even though they have only around a 25-30% of the populations support.

[Senno]

I'm not sure, Sheep. I'm for it in the 2 party system, I think. A 3rd party might be a rare event, but in the event it occurs, and House votes opposite of the nation, would be bad.

They have to form coaliition governments that might be prone to falling. At least in some of the governments. We like stability for our 4 to 8 years, at least.

We'd have to go nation by nation for a better comparison.

That's kinda why I keep coming back to: it's the fairest system for what it does. I'm not obstinate, I promise.

[Gaidin]

Ask the individual states whether they want their electors to be proportional or winner takes all.

[Sidmen]

Ask the individual states whether they want their electors to be proportional or winner takes all.

I'd have it in a referendum, I'm sure that proportional would win hands down in nearly all states.

[Gaidin]

I'd have it in a referendum, I'm sure that proportional would win hands down in nearly all states.

Pretty sure as well. IIRC, a lot of states have laws to switch to proportional voting in the event that all the other states do the same. Enough want winner take all though, that that just doesn't happen.

[Admiral Piett]

Pure and simple - abolish the electoral college. If we end up with a split decision on candidates, put it up to a vote in Congress like we usually do.

[Sidmen]

Pure and simple - abolish the electoral college. If we end up with a split decision on candidates, put it up to a vote in Congress like we usually do.

Tallying the popular vote is ineffectual, clearly represented by the whole "Florida" fiasco. Nah, the college is fine, it just needs to be representative instead of winner takes all.

[Caelius]

Making the Electoral College representative would only allow for unrepresentative third party political factions to dilute the stability of the process.

The whole reason behind the college being winner takes all is that it maintains order. Without having to deal with the whole cacophony of problems that typically arise in European election systems.

[Scar Face]

Making the Electoral College representative would only allow for unrepresentative third party political factions to dilute the stability of the process.

Third parties are not unrepresentative, by the very fact that they are there. Their percentage of support in vote will be reflected by their numbers in congress and elsewhere.

The whole reason behind the college being winner takes all is that it maintains order. Without having to deal with the whole cacophony of problems that typically arise in European election systems.

It doesn't bring order, it brings stagnation. Some States with proper representation have chaos, the majority do not. Your argument against Representation is akin to the argument against Democracy in the past; stability. Both are patently untrue.

[Каие]

And people say the United States is the greatest and fairest democratic system.

[Senno]

And people say the United States is the greatest and fairest democratic system.

It is. Truth hurts, but it doesn't make the truth untrue. Show us a better system.

There's not absolute stagnation in the US. There's constant change, and growth.

Term limits as an option against stagnation is growing. We put in term limits in the California legislature by passing proposition 140. Propositions are proposed and voted on by the general public.

The effects of term limits are being evaluated, they may grow in populatity and be brought to the national stage in Congress.

Our President is subject to term limits.


Campaign reform is a major issue. Basically protecting the general public is a major topic right now. Is always should have been. The first middle-class bipartisan caucus has been formed in Congress.

Some steps are being taken to counter percieved "stagnation". Some more may be needed.

It's ironic that all this discussion of "stagnation" at the Federal level is due to the growth of the Federal government far beyond that envisioned by the founding fathers.