Changing the Electoral College

[2ndAmendment]

Sorry the link did not work. I have cut and pasted the article for everyone to read. And maybe it will be a little clearer, i am surprised by so many negative responses.

Perhaps you are surprised because you never studied the Federalist Papers and have no concept of the fairness the founders were striving for in the election of the head of state. Have you ever read the Constitution? The Federalist Papers? The Anti-Federalist Papers? I dare say the majority of U.S. citizen have not. Misinformed people make misinformed decisions.

U.S. history eludes most U.S. citizens. Those that do not study history are doomed to repeat it. Those that get their history from a liberal are probably getting revisionist history.

 

[ylexot]

This idea is neither new nor outlandish, but for most of the past couple of centuries it has been dismissed as unachievable. The Electoral College is enshrined in the Constitution itself, so getting rid of it would require the concurrence of two-thirds of both houses of Congress plus three-quarters of the state legislatures. That’s not going to happen.

This part is a little misleading. Sure, it's not a new idea. The Founders thought of that too and rejected it, but not because it was not feasible. It was rejected because it would allow the population centers to decide the President and the rural areas would not get their say. Put another way...

There’s a traditional view that without the Electoral College Presidential campaigns would simply ignore the small states. It hasn’t worked that way. The real division that the Electoral College creates, in tandem with the winner-take-all rule, is not between large states and small states but between battleground states and what might be called spectator states. Of the thirteen least populous states, six are red, six are blue, and one—New Hampshire—is up for grabs. Guess which twelve Bush and Kerry stiffed and which one got plenty of love, long after the primary season? Size doesn’t matter. At the other end of the spectrum, the three biggest states—blue California, red Texas, and blue New York—were utterly ignored, except for purposes of fund-raising.

It's really hard to make that initial statement that "it hasn't worked that way" since it has never been tried. Of course the current system causes politicians to concentrate on the "battleground states" , but the catch is that which states are battleground states fluctuates. I don't see the population centers and rural areas fluctuating and moving around. New York...always high population. Boston...always high population. Chicago, Baltimore, Philly, etc, etc, etc.

 

[Terps]

Ylexot, dont you think we should at least give the idea of a popular vote a try? I mean electing a president based on the majority in this country is such a novel idea, and even though you think the population of cities would be an issue, maybe it wouldnt. Maybe voters, if they new their vote actually counted, they would go out and vote more and the politicians would have to work for everyone's vote.

 

[FromTexas]

Ylexot, dont you think we should at least give the idea of a popular vote a try? I mean electing a president based on the majority in this country is such a novel idea, and even though you think the population of cities would be an issue, maybe it wouldnt. Maybe voters, if they new their vote actually counted, they would go out and vote more and the politicians would have to work for everyone's vote.

Oh, thats the ticket! Just try it and see if you like it! The ladies always go for that one...

 

[Bruzilla]

I mean electing a president based on the majority in this country is such a novel idea, and even though you think the population of cities would be an issue, maybe it wouldnt.

When was the last time that a city with a huge population center, that relies heavilly on Federal dollars, ever went for a Republican? Philly, NY, Chicago, LA, DC, Miami, etc.? I guess that someday I could become a Chinese jet pilot, but just about as unlikely. If you think campaigns are all about spending now, you ain't seen nothing like what you'll see if the EC goes away. The concept of "what can I do for my country" will be over for good.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Terps, Have you ever studied history?

 

[SamSpade]

Almost to the last man, the people I know who don't vote, don't do so because they think their vote "doesn't count".

They don't vote, because they don't think it makes any difference, either way. A lot of times, they're right.

If someone got up and said "vote for me, and we'll have a second span over the Patuxent at Solomon's" or "I'll build an actual mall" a "decent movie theater" - then people would get out and vote. When they say they'll do a better job at representing the people and see what they can do to improve schools and maybe lower property taxes, they put people to sleep. No one has the cojones to be bold anymore.

 

[Terps]

When was the last time that a city with a huge population center, that relies heavilly on Federal dollars, ever went for a Republican? Philly, NY, Chicago, LA, DC, Miami, etc.? I guess that someday I could become a Chinese jet pilot, but just about as unlikely. If you think campaigns are all about spending now, you ain't seen nothing like what you'll see if the EC goes away. The concept of "what can I do for my country" will be over for good.

The big cities are not republican but whats your point, there are obviously PLENTY of republicans in this country since Bush won in 2004 by popular vote and by the electoral college. So again candidates would not just focus on Big cities, especially Republicans, they will have to show interest in smaller states, cities, and towns. I shouldnt have said lets "try it" so flippantly. I think that the article was very well written and addresses several key issues as to why it would work. I think it is a good idea and to answer 2ndAmendments question, yes, i have studied history.

 

[ylexot]

So again candidates would not just focus on Big cities, especially Republicans, they will have to show interest in smaller states, cities, and towns.

Bang for buck. Why spend time and money running all over 90% of the country to reach 60% of the people when they can cover 10% of the country very quickly and efficiently and reach 40% of the people?

BTW, I thought the article was poorly written and made asinine arguments. :shrug:

 

[awpitt]

I came across this article in the New Yorker about getting rid of the electoral college and depending on the American public to elect our president and vice-president and not be so dependent on specific states and their electoral votes because as of now most candidates spend their money in 13 states. The article addresses several questions that came up when i was reading the article such as will the smaller states get ignored. The article stated,

"There’s a traditional view that without the Electoral College Presidential campaigns would simply ignore the small states. It hasn’t worked that way. The real division that the Electoral College creates, in tandem with the winner-take-all rule, is not between large states and small states but between battleground states and what might be called spectator states. Of the thirteen least populous states, six are red, six are blue, and one—New Hampshire—is up for grabs. Guess which twelve Bush and Kerry stiffed and which one got plenty of love, long after the primary season? Size doesn’t matter. At the other end of the spectrum, the three biggest states—blue California, red Texas, and blue New York—were utterly ignored, except for purposes of fund-raising."

So what do you think? Do you agree with this article? Think it is possible that getting rid of the electoral college is the best answer?


http://www.newyorker.com/talk/conten...talk_hertzberg

I don’t think the Electoral College should be eliminated; however, I do think changes could be made in how the votes are distributed in a way that more accurately reflects the popular vote. As everyone already knows, the number of electors each get is equal to the number of senators and representatives that state sends to Congress. Maryland gets ten. I think it would be a good idea to distribute the electoral votes as follows: two votes (based on two senators) go to the candidate who gets the highest popular vote statewide. The remaining votes (based on number of representatives) are each awarded based on the highest vote getter in each congressional district. I think this represents a good compromise between eliminating the Electoral College and sticking to the status quo. Right now, I believe Nebraska uses this system.

 

[vraiblonde]

I think it would be a good idea to distribute the electoral votes as follows: two votes (based on two senators) go to the candidate who gets the highest popular vote statewide. The remaining votes (based on number of representatives) are each awarded based on the highest vote getter in each congressional district.

Hey! That was my idea!








PS, welcome back!