|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Electoral College | |||||||||||||||||||||||
JOEBIALEK  Inactive Member |
The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.
Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census). Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. The debate has started again as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. For example, in Alabama, President Bush won 63% of the popular vote and therefore would be awarded 5.67 electoral points as compared to Senator Kerry with 37% of the popular vote and 3.33 electoral points. In the event of a tie, the national popular vote results would decide the outcome. If one tabulated the final totals from Election 2004, they would find Bush with 274.92 electoral points versus Kerry with 257.71. The existing electoral college votes shows Bush 286 to Kerry 252. I believe this compromise would reflect a truer intent of the will of the people as exercised through their states. This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminSylas Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum. This debate board is for evolution/creationism, and so none of the Main Topic forums fit this post. However, contributors can discuss anything they like here in the Coffee House. I think you can start new topics here without going through "Proposed New Topics". The missing post #2 is one of mine; sorry about that.
Cheers -- AdminSylas This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 01-16-2005 14:57 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Verzem Inactive Member |
The only change I'd like to see in the Electoral College is that the input to it from the Senate should be removed. This gives the less populous states a skewed advantage that their population doesn't warrant. Votes from the Electoral College should be assigned only according to the House of Representatives, which is reflective of the population.
The political clout of small population states is already allowed for in the construction of the Senate itself. It is an unfair advantage for them to have the same clout in the Electoral College. Any guesses as to who our next President would be were it done this way in the last election? Verzem
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
This does get around the problem of needing a constitutional ammendment to implement, as each state determines how their electors are proportioned (not all are "winner take all" btw, just most of them).
Do you need to carry the division of electoral votes into decimals? My feeling is that rounding it to the nearest person is good enough (and I'm a liberal here) Your calculation also neglects to included Nader and other "3rd" party members, who would recieve enough votes in larger states to get some electoral college votes this way (and that could easily be used as a criteria for matching funds rather than the absurd arbitrary system we now have). In the event that no one candidate received a majority of EC votes, then each state eliminates it's last place finisher and recalibrates their results. In the event of a 50-50 tie the choice would then be made as outlined in the constitution -- or else you need a constitutional ammendment again, and that is unlikely for many reasons, not least of which is the current politicians not being willing to relenquish that decision. also see (my) other topics on vote reformEvC Forum: VOTE reform ... EvC Forum: A Voting Declaration of Rights The other question is how do you hold a fair election with more than two candidates if you limit the voters to only one vote? consider an election with 3 candidates, two extremists and one moderate, with a 35% extreme A, 30% mod B and 35% extreme C backing in the population ... you will end up with either A or C with a one vote system every time. You can end up with C even though A and B are very similar. You see this in the primaries in each party. There has to be a better way. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 477 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Besides, if we have a true democratic election where whoever gets the popular vote wins, there would be no need to look to the lesser populated areas for votes. All the megalopolitan areas, like California, New England States, and Florida, would elect the president.
We can see such an example in the State of Illinois. If you look at a map of red and blue counties, you'd see that Illinois is almost covered in red. However, Kerry got Illinois because of Chicago and a few remote areas. Here is something to relieve stress. a + b = t(a + b)(a - b) = t(a - b) a - b = at - bt a - at = b - bt a - at + t/4 = b - bt + t/4 (a - t/2) = (b - t/2) a - t/2 = b - t/2 a = b Since all numbers are the same, math is useless.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
that would require a constitutional ammendment that would require those states to agree to give up that (small) advantage. I don't think it is necessary.
Consider instead a dividing of california into 3 states, division of massachusetts into 2 states, etcetera until the populations of the states are more equal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Let's raise the ante on this issue -- rather than discuss what we can do to bandaid the US electoral college system, what about a discussion on what is the best way to construct a democratic form of government given all that we know now about the {workings\failures} of (our\other} systems.
Take the opportunity that was presented with Afghanistan (before the invasion of Iraq and that whole side-track), where we had taken over a country from a harsh repressive regime with a people used to a feudal system of {petty-kingdoms\warlords}, and where there {was} a high degree of international support: what better place to instigate a program of transition from a {dependency\duty} mindset to an {independency\rights} mindset and to investigate what would be the rational way to run such a country (1) during the transition phase from war-torn to productive, (2) an interim phase to transition further from {old ways} to {a developed future model viable for the people concerned}, and finally, (3) what they could expect to set up in a fully realized modern application of the concepts of freedom, liberty, justice and equality. What should such a government look like? ps -- I think the UN would be a good place to work on model governments for new societies, including various transition models needed to get to the final results models. I also think the administration dropped the ball on this one big time, just as they are in the process of doing for Iraq (it is almost as if they don't really care what the government is or whether it fails). we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}} |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states. I could care less about Bush or Kerry visiting my state. What I care about is the issues, and I think there's a possibility, at least, that the state-centric eletoral college means the presidential candidates have to prioritize local issues of a couple of states over general issues of the whole nation. But maybe I'm wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
but is it state-centric?
or is it big-vote-block-all-or-nothing-state centric? do the states that do proportional apportioning of their votes get more or less attention from the big parties? if so, do they get their issues discussed in the process? certainly proportional apportionment is (a) more equitable to all the voters and (b) better represents the reality of the false {red\blue} image. the bigger question on politics in america is why the choice was between bush and kerry in the first place eh? would McCain have gotten more votes than Bush? I think so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
JOEBIALEK  Inactive Member |
some very good points, the electoral points would make the red/blue states more up for grabs...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024