Electoral college?


EarlJibbs
 Share

Is the Electoral College Fair?  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Is the Electoral College Fair?

    • Yes - The Electoral College is fair
      14
    • No - The Electoral College is not fair
      12


Recommended Posts

Okay, so I have been doing some reading on the Electoral College. I searched LDS.net to see if this has been talked about and couldnt find anything. So I would like to know your opinion.

Is the Electoral College we have in place fair? I will place my own opinion and vote later as to not pursuade anyone from the get go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the adoption of parties that were introduced shortly after the first Electoral College existed, the population of state should have nothing to do with voting today. Idea’s, parties and candidates flow from one sate to another seamlessly, without regard to state boundary.

The purpose that the electoral college was put in place for is no longer adequate for our society. Manipulate the states with more electoral votes... manipulate the entire vote. We see this now, plug tons of time and money into the small states.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer is yes and no. The electoral college gives states voting power proportional to their representation in Congress. This gives states with small populations influence disproportionately large to their population while still permitting larger population states (with influence disproportionately small to their population) more votes. It's a good compromise between popular will and regional influence that I think we should keep.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reformed.

There is one vote in the college for each congressional district, and one vote for each senate district, plus three for the District of Columbia (presumably, also broken into districts). These votes are, in most states, awarded to whichever contestant wins the popular vote. This is where I begin to disagree

with how the Electoral College is determined.

In a state Kansas, winner-take-all decisions aren't a big deal because all of the districts in the state tend to favor the same candidate. Since it is also a small population state, the impact of winner-take-all is reduced.

In Ohio, on the other hand, there are 20 electoral votes that go to the winner of the popular vote, but the vote in Cincinnati tends to be overwhelmingly conservative while the vote in Cleveland is overwhelmingly liberal. Giving all 20 votes to one party is not truly reflective of the political views of the state.

What I would favor would be assigning electoral votes based on the popular vote of each district. Thus, if you win the Cleveland district, you get one electoral vote. But if your opponent wins the Cincinnati district, he/she gains one electoral vote.*

The added advantage of this would be that "swing states" would become irrelevant. Currently, swing states have massively disproportionate-to-their-populations influence in elections. Changing to a vote-by-district format would better execute the balance between popular vote and large state influence. It also has the cool side effect of making your presidential vote be counted twice (once for your congressional district and once for your senate district--unless you live in DC)

*Note that this is different than assigning a percentage of the votes based on the percentages of the popular vote received.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also of interesting note: if we elected presidents based on popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election in 2000. It would have been unlikely for Bush to win the Republican nomination again, so 2004 could have been a very different election. It could be fun to speculate what the world would look like now if we had decided the 2000 election based on the popular vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer is yes and no. The electoral college gives states voting power proportional to their representation in Congress. This gives states with small populations influence disproportionately large to their population while still permitting larger population states (with influence disproportionately small to their population) more votes. It's a good compromise between popular will and regional influence that I think we should keep.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reformed.

There is one vote in the college for each congressional district, and one vote for each senate district, plus three for the District of Columbia (presumably, also broken into districts). These votes are, in most states, awarded to whichever contestant wins the popular vote. This is where I begin to disagree

with how the Electoral College is determined.

In a state Kansas, winner-take-all decisions aren't a big deal because all of the districts in the state tend to favor the same candidate. Since it is also a small population state, the impact of winner-take-all is reduced.

In Ohio, on the other hand, there are 20 electoral votes that go to the winner of the popular vote, but the vote in Cincinnati tends to be overwhelmingly conservative while the vote in Cleveland is overwhelmingly liberal. Giving all 20 votes to one party is not truly reflective of the political views of the state.

What I would favor would be assigning electoral votes based on the popular vote of each district. Thus, if you win the Cleveland district, you get one electoral vote. But if your opponent wins the Cincinnati district, he/she gains one electoral vote.*

The added advantage of this would be that "swing states" would become irrelevant. Currently, swing states have massively disproportionate-to-their-populations influence in elections. Changing to a vote-by-district format would better execute the balance between popular vote and large state influence. It also has the cool side effect of making your presidential vote be counted twice (once for your congressional district and once for your senate district--unless you live in DC)

*Note that this is different than assigning a percentage of the votes based on the percentages of the popular vote received.

The fact remains that the Presidency of the Federal Government of the United States of America is not elected by the people, but by the States. This is in the Federal Constitution by design to maintain the balance of power. The House is by the people, the Senate by State, the Supreme Court by POTUS appointment with Congress approval.

Each State, therefore, can do whatever they want to do to determine who they want as POTUS. If the state of Kansas decides to change their Constitution so that they are going to cast a vote for the POTUS by picking names from a lottery to send to the electoral college instead of spending money holding a presidential election, there is nothing to stop them.

Therefore, if you believe that the Electoral College representation is not fair, you're going to have to take it up with each State.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also of interesting note: if we elected presidents based on popular vote, Al Gore would have won the election in 2000.

This is nonsense, for at least two reasons:

1. The vote margin was close enough that miscounts, dead people voting Democrat, etc. might have swung the margin. At this point, there is no way to know who gained more votes, if there ever was such a way.

2. If we elected presidents based on popular votes, both Bush and Gore would have used different campaign strategies, and people who did not vote would have. For example, Utah Republicans may not have bothered to vote, knowing that their candidate would win the state, but in a popular vote, they would have voted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the adoption of parties that were introduced shortly after the first Electoral College existed, the population of state should have nothing to do with voting today. Idea’s, parties and candidates flow from one sate to another seamlessly, without regard to state boundary.

The purpose that the electoral college was put in place for is no longer adequate for our society. Manipulate the states with more electoral votes... manipulate the entire vote. We see this now, plug tons of time and money into the small states.

On the bolded above... that is only true because the States chose to do it that way. The people do not elect the POTUS. The States do. If the States want better representation in the electoral college, they can change how they send their slate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been told that with a popular vote Presidents would focus most of their attention on just 12 states, with the other 38 being ignored. People might argue that with swing states, we have a similar situation. However, my guess is that the problem would become far more pronounced. I rather appreciate that smaller states get some leverage with our electoral college. Count me as a firm proponent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My answer is yes and no. The electoral college gives states voting power proportional to their representation in Congress. This gives states with small populations influence disproportionately large to their population while still permitting larger population states (with influence disproportionately small to their population) more votes. It's a good compromise between popular will and regional influence that I think we should keep.

But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be reformed.

There is one vote in the college for each congressional district, and one vote for each senate district, plus three for the District of Columbia (presumably, also broken into districts). These votes are, in most states, awarded to whichever contestant wins the popular vote. This is where I begin to disagree

with how the Electoral College is determined.

In a state Kansas, winner-take-all decisions aren't a big deal because all of the districts in the state tend to favor the same candidate. Since it is also a small population state, the impact of winner-take-all is reduced.

In Ohio, on the other hand, there are 20 electoral votes that go to the winner of the popular vote, but the vote in Cincinnati tends to be overwhelmingly conservative while the vote in Cleveland is overwhelmingly liberal. Giving all 20 votes to one party is not truly reflective of the political views of the state.

What I would favor would be assigning electoral votes based on the popular vote of each district. Thus, if you win the Cleveland district, you get one electoral vote. But if your opponent wins the Cincinnati district, he/she gains one electoral vote.*

The added advantage of this would be that "swing states" would become irrelevant. Currently, swing states have massively disproportionate-to-their-populations influence in elections. Changing to a vote-by-district format would better execute the balance between popular vote and large state influence. It also has the cool side effect of making your presidential vote be counted twice (once for your congressional district and once for your senate district--unless you live in DC)

*Note that this is different than assigning a percentage of the votes based on the percentages of the popular vote received.

My first reaction is I like this solution. I'm going to have to do more reading. Thank you for your thoughts..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need something in place to stop Mob Rule. A straight majority is Mob Rule. We live in a Republic.

Without the Electoral College with minority wouldn't have a voice.

This is not quite accurate Apple. Mob Rule is where there is no Constitution. The absence of an Electoral College does not necessarily mean it's a Mob Rule. For example, the Governor of Florida is elected by majority vote. This does not mean that the State of Florida is ruled by the mob... and that is because the State of Florida is ruled by the law of the Florida Constitution. The Law is established by representatives - The Florida Congress - and not by popular vote.

Make sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no vote in the state I live in. I never will have. It is a rule by mob but in each state. Our representatives are supposed to represent us or so I thought but they dont if we let the electorial college chose. We have the electorial college simply because the early country did not have good enough media to cover the candidates. Well we do now if we listen.

I also think we ought to have a national day off with mandatory voting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why have a national holiday, why not vote on Saturday? (That is the convention in Australia).

Strictly speaking you can't have mandatory voting if your going to have a secret ballot system. Australia has mandatory enrollment, and mandatory turn up and stick something in the box, what is on the paper you put in the box is private.

The upside to manadatory "voting" is that there is no money or effort spent on getting out the vote. the downside is elections are usually determined by the 10% of population least interested or informed about politics.

Then there is preferential voting......

Edited by AnthonyB
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My simple opinion, it's a great compromise, individual states could implement how they cast their electors in a better fashion though. (I'm not sure if that's the proper wordage or not)

I don't like where all 55 of my states votes are probably going to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no vote in the state I live in. I never will have. It is a rule by mob but in each state. Our representatives are supposed to represent us or so I thought but they dont if we let the electorial college chose. We have the electorial college simply because the early country did not have good enough media to cover the candidates. Well we do now if we listen.

I also think we ought to have a national day off with mandatory voting.

This is not true Anne. The Electoral College does not represent you. The Electoral College represents the interests of your State. You have an Electoral College because you are in a Federal System of government. Therefore, the Executive Officer of the Federation is elected by the States that comprise that Federation. Not the people in the States.

This is done so that each and every State has a say in how the Federal Government rules over them to avoid the interests of one State trampling over all the rest. So that, for example, California, with a giant population and deep in debt cannot influence the Executive Office of the Federal Government to bail them out without the approval of a majority of the States.

The people has influence in the Federal Government through the House of Representatives. This is done so that the people retains a voice in Federal Law separate from their States.

A National Day for voting for the POTUS is only possible if fedral law was written in such a manner that the POTUS is elected by vote. This is not true however. The federal law is written in such a manner that the States retains the right to determine the manner in which they cast a vote for the POTUS. Therefore, you may, if you desire, petition your State to hold a State Holiday for voting for the POTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no purpose to electorial college. If we acted like adults we would vote for the good of the country as a whole. If we are not trusted to do that then why bother to vote at all?

Anatess, that is the kind of thinking that makes we wonder why we pretend to have a democracy of any kind. Lets just let our 'betters' decide it all for us.

Saturday can be a holiday same as any other day can be.

Edited by annewandering
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no purpose to electorial college. If we acted like adults we would vote for the good of the country as a whole. If we are not trusted to do that then why bother to vote at all?

Anatess, that is the kind of thinking that makes we wonder why we pretend to have a democracy of any kind. Lets just let our 'betters' decide it all for us.

Saturday can be a holiday same as any other day can be.

We aren't a democracy.

We are a Federal Republic (Constitutional Republic is also correct).

Just to clarify, I do understand that there are elements of representative democracy, even elements of direct democracy as you approach more local forms of government but this is all covered below, so, there it is. You guys are much more eloquent and explanatory than I am. :D

Edited by jerome1232
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not quite accurate Apple. Mob Rule is where there is no Constitution. The absence of an Electoral College does not necessarily mean it's a Mob Rule. For example, the Governor of Florida is elected by majority vote. This does not mean that the State of Florida is ruled by the mob... and that is because the State of Florida is ruled by the law of the Florida Constitution. The Law is established by representatives - The Florida Congress - and not by popular vote.

Make sense?

I guess that depends on how you define Mob. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see no purpose to electorial college. If we acted like adults we would vote for the good of the country as a whole. If we are not trusted to do that then why bother to vote at all?

Anatess, that is the kind of thinking that makes we wonder why we pretend to have a democracy of any kind. Lets just let our 'betters' decide it all for us.

Saturday can be a holiday same as any other day can be.

Anne, the United States of America is not a Direct Democracy. It's a Federal Constitutional Republic form of government with States governing via Representative Democracy.

There's no Direct Democracy in any part of the United States. A Direct Democracy is where laws are written and made by popular vote. Representative Democracy is where the people choose the best person they know who can represent their interests. The Representative then makes decisions as to the rule of law. This is done so that everybody do not have to be smart enough to know the intricacies of government.

Case in point: In a society of 5 wolves and a sheep, direct democracy would mean that the sheep would eventually be eaten because it is not to the interest of the wolves to learn about the one sheep. But, in a society of 5 wolves and a sheep, the society can send a Representative who knows a lot about wolfdom and sheepdom so that he can determine the advantages of the wolves going hungry to save the sheep.

The Electoral College is a separate thing. There are no electoral colleges in the selection of State Governors. But, the President of the United States is not elected by the people. He is elected by the States by virtue of your Federal System of government.

None of this has anything to do with whether the people are "adult" enough or not. It is simply a matter of how the balance of government is maintained.

Edited by anatess
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In point of fact, many states have directly "democratic" features--for example, California's initiative process. But some would argue that the system has contributed to the morass that the state is currently in, because legislators' options are often hamstrung by whatever impractical passing fancy picked up the popular vote. (The common poster child for this argument is Proposition 13; though many people - myself included - would counter that Prop 13 is one of the only things that has kept California's tax base from completely imploding.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We aren't a democracy.

We are a Federal Republic (Constitutional Republic is also correct).

Just to clarify, I do understand that there are elements of representative democracy, even elements of direct democracy as you approach more local forms of government but this is all covered below, so, there it is. You guys are much more eloquent and explanatory than I am. :D

We are a modified democracy. We vote for people to represent us to make laws. That doesnt mean we cant vote directly for president. We vote directly for every office but President and Vice President. While there were reasons when it was originally set up those reasons do not exist any more. This idea that it was to level the playing field is not why it was done. It was done because the writers did not trust the people to vote for a good candidate for three reasons. One was lack of timely media coverage. Second was because of a lack of education in the populace. The third was to speed up the process since the counting etc took so much longer then than now.

Every election cycle the idea to get rid of the electorial college comes up but when a person can be elected even if he is not voted for by the electorate it is hard to convince lawmakers to change the process even if they have to make up justifications to keep it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a modified democracy. We vote for people to represent us to make laws. That doesnt mean we cant vote directly for president. We vote directly for every office but President and Vice President. While there were reasons when it was originally set up those reasons do not exist any more. This idea that it was to level the playing field is not why it was done. It was done because the writers did not trust the people to vote for a good candidate for three reasons. One was lack of timely media coverage. Second was because of a lack of education in the populace. The third was to speed up the process since the counting etc took so much longer then than now.

Every election cycle the idea to get rid of the electorial college comes up but when a person can be elected even if he is not voted for by the electorate it is hard to convince lawmakers to change the process even if they have to make up justifications to keep it.

Federal Government, Anne. FEDERAL Government. Nothing at all to do with media coverage or the lack thereof.

In the Federal form of government of the USA, the President of the United States is NOT elected by the people. He is elected by the STATES as designed by the framers of the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share