As good a reason as any.

Long past time for the electoral college to go the way of the dinosaur.

If - IF - we have a rational, reliable paper trail.

I've wondered why we didn't do this decades ago. The arguments for the electoral college are archaic. It's time to simply let the people vote directly for the candidate they choose, the person with the most votes takes it.

Here's the thing: ditch the Electoral College, and it won't be that small states cease to matter. Candidates will be forced to go into states they would have written off as "unwinnable" and talk to voters there. Obama would have to go to, say, Alabama, and McCain would have to go to, say, Massachusetts. The votes they get there might be needed later.

I mean, I'd like to think that if I live in a state polling very heavily for one candidate or the other, my vote isn't just getting flushed down the crapper.

What I'd like to see is a total revamp of the system. Get rid of the Electoral College. Seriously. What is the use of a democrat (or third party) candidate going to Utah when you know the results are 80% republican? Just write off the state. The same with Vermont for the opposite reason.

Also, let's get rid of primaries. Hell, this election is just proof that primaries are a joke. Iowa and New Hampshire have more influence than Pennsylvania even though we outnumber them five to one?

Hell, just have the election as a general on the same day with a multitude of candidates with runoff voting and maybe we'd get better than a turd sandwich and a giant douche.

/RON PAUL

Runoff voting is a terrible, terrible idea.

See these visualizations for why.
http://bolson.org/voting/sim_one_seat/
http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

Borda is a much better alternative.

But we NEED the Electoral College, or else a handful of states would decide the election!

Wait, that's just like now!

I like my elections to be arcane and difficult.

Do you really want Ryan Seacrest to be President?

you want reasons against a run off system for President? How about the 1991 Louisiana governor's race..

Talk about a fiasco... a known crook against a former grand dragon of the KKK in the run off because the main stream vote was split between so many candidates. That race alone makes me wonder if the Electoral College might need to stay around in some form or other.

Great headline!

TheCid: Borda is a much better alternative.

I'm in favor of a Borda count as long as there's some way to solve the strategy of flooding a race with candidates of the same party or ideology.

eddyatwork: What I'd like to see is a total revamp of the system. Get rid of the Electoral College. Seriously. What is the use of a democrat (or third party) candidate going to Utah when you know the results are 80% republican? Just write off the state. The same with Vermont for the opposite reason.

So your cunning plan is to only have candidates pander to the higher populated areas of the country and forget all about those millions of people who will have lees impact per campaign dollar spent? How delightful and full of fail.

And again the parties and their candidates like having small states first so they don't have to spend as much on their campaigns. If there were ever proof against the first states deciding the candidates it would be this primary cycle.

Whamdangler: The arguments for the electoral college are archaic.


No, they aren't.

Without the electoral college, candidates would spend the vast majority of their time campaigning in heavily populated states like CA and TX, ignoring the rest of the country. The electoral college forces them to pay attention to the smaller states.

This isn't a new debate, either. This is what the Great Compromise was all about when our country was founded, and this is the same reason why we have both a Senate and a House of Representatives.

Howard Dean is the last person in America who should be telling us how to run an election.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: So your cunning plan is to only have candidates pander to the higher populated areas of the country and forget all about those millions of people who will have lees impact per campaign dollar spent? How delightful and full of fail.

And yours is to have the candidates pander to the half-dozen or so states of appreciable size that are by chance demographically nearly split between Republicans and Democrats.

Full of Fail.

If we got rid of the skewed effects of the electoral college, then a GOP vote in CA is worth the same as a vote of either party in OH or FL.

Right now, GOP votes in CA are essentially worthless, like Dem votes in TX or OK, etc.

FTA:

(First reaction: Hey, guys, fix your own nominating rules so that you count all 50 states before you start mucking around with the Constitution.)

Why bother with the constitution?

With NRO it is hard to tell if the writer is intentionally being misleading, or is simply ignorant.

MorningBreath: Howard Dean is the last person in America who should be telling us how to run an election.

?

My vote would go to Katherine Harris, but that's just me.

AntiNorm: The electoral college forces them to pay attention to the smaller states.

NO IT DOESN'T.

No, No, NO!

It forces them to pay attention to swing states with enough EV's to be significant.

These are rarely the 'small states'.

They are places like OH and FL.

Snowflake Tubbybottom:

So your cunning plan is to only have candidates pander to the higher populated areas of the country and forget all about those millions of people who will have lees impact per campaign dollar spent? How delightful and full of fail.


Nonsense. People in Utah or Texas who aren't voting republican are essentially throwing their votes away. People in Vermont voting republican are throwing their votes away. A popular runoff vote done all at once might get people worth voting for instead of just having a few states deciding the whole damned election. The south and midwest are republican. The west and northeast are democrats. There are just a few states, mine among them, where there is a choice. This is wrong. If a bunch of people in Alabama think the dems are good, then they should be counted, yet they aren't; neither are the reps in Vermont. ONE MAN, ONE VOTE!

Skleenar:
And yours is to have the candidates pander to the half-dozen or so states of appreciable size that are by chance demographically nearly split between Republicans and Democrats

Full of Fail.


And thats is incredibly short sighted. Should we also change the name of the country to the Federal Republic of America? The large states already wield the lion's share of the voting power. Breaking up the electoral college will only further the pandering power of those voters living in larger population centers at the expense of the rural voter. Surely you wouldn't then suggest that because the rural will receive less pork due to their diminished voting role they now play that their taxes should also be equally reduced.

The system we have in place is fair to the concept of the original intent of states. It also places a larger importance on the larger states through the number of electoral votes they hold.

It seems your real beef is with the order of the primaries, and I've already explained that above.

eddyatwork:
Nonsense. People in Utah or Texas who aren't voting republican are essentially throwing their votes away.


So only those votes that are in the majority count? How did they get to be in the majority if not for the voting?

Its still one man, one vote.

They might not have had video games in the 18th Century, but, the Electoral College system certainly makes the election play out like one.

shidekigonomo: TheCid: Borda is a much better alternative.

I'm in favor of a Borda count as long as there's some way to solve the strategy of flooding a race with candidates of the same party or ideology.

Each party can only nominate one candidate. Problem solved!

I fully support the removal of the Electoral College. There is no reason that we should not elect our presidents by popular vote. The current situation makes your vote in effect worthless if you are in a perennial red or blue state, and you vote for the other side. It would be nice that you could actually say that "Yes, my vote matters" in deciding the future of the country.

The electoral college wasn't put into place to make politicians pay attention to the small states.

And it doesn't do that.

Tell me how much time the candidates spend in Montana and South Dakota in the general now.

Popular vote would be better for this in fact. There are a hell of a lot of rural voters in this country. If you got a vast majority of them across states, and along with your share of urban / suburban voters, you could easily win. You'd have go after everyone, rural, urban, suburban.

The electoral college is in place so the electors can discount your votes because you're stupid peasants, and they know better than the illiterate populace, and will save them from making a stupid decision and elect someone competent. I'm not sure this holds much value now, and most Americans (DIA excluded) I would expect to find the idea repugnant.

Look we can't even get rid of the BCS so makes him think the electoral college will go anywhere?

Supposed to be a "what" somewhere in my previous statement.

If you get rid of the electoral college, you might as well get rid of superdelegates too.

I mean, if they're just going to decide based on the people's will because they don't want people to be angry at them what's the point in having them in the first place?

As someone who has lived in traditionally Republican states all my life, my vote doesn't count anyway (I've always voted Democrat). I'd rather have a popular vote so my vote counts just as much as someone's in New York or California, no matter which little state I'm in.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: eddyatwork: What I'd like to see is a total revamp of the system. Get rid of the Electoral College. Seriously. What is the use of a democrat (or third party) candidate going to Utah when you know the results are 80% republican? Just write off the state. The same with Vermont for the opposite reason.

So your cunning plan is to only have candidates pander to the higher populated areas of the country and forget all about those millions of people who will have lees impact per campaign dollar spent? How delightful and full of fail.

And again the parties and their candidates like having small states first so they don't have to spend as much on their campaigns. If there were ever proof against the first states deciding the candidates it would be this primary cycle.

If those large cities are lockstep Democrat or lockstep Republican, they still aren't getting pandered to. The places that get hit are the places where there are people you can win over. For example, Wisconsin is a swing state, but Milwaukee is not. Madison is not. You'd have to head further north, into Green Bay and Eau Claire, to find your swing votes.

Swing states would get replaced with swing media markets- you buy an ad in Chicago, it goes out to the entire Chicago media market. Same with all the others. So it'd pay to pick out the more moderate media markets, whatever kind if cities they may contain, and hit THEM with the saturation. More people means more money you have to spend to advertise in that market. You can find voters in New York no problem. The question is if it's financially sound to go after them.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: ...Its still one man, one vote.

Yah, but that one man is W. I'd rather have Dean be that one man

/DRTFA that site makes me stupid(er)

Skleenar: With NRO it is hard to tell if the writer is intentionally being misleading, or is simply ignorant.

I'm guessing ignorant. I don't believe they'd put themselves out for ridicule for such an obvious mistake if they knew differently.

TFA: First reaction: Hey, guys, fix your own nominating rules so that you count all 50 states before you start mucking around with the Constitution.

First reaction to TFA: Hey, author, all 50 states made an agreement that Florida and Michigan later decided didn't matter.

Is there anyone in this thread that realizes that the U.S. is NOT a democracy? It was made to be a republic for a reason.

With as many people on Fark complaining about the general stupidity of the populous, I'm pretty surprised that no one is remarking on the difference - or the dissonance.

There's a reason that referendums are rare. A reason that we don't have an real-time internet poll on fiscal or foreign policy (although after the last 8 or so years, I might be in favor of that).

The point is that straight democracies are too fragile to stay around very long. Republics are marginally more sturdy. And that's what this conversation should be about.

KramericaWallet: If you get rid of the electoral college, you might as well get rid of superdelegates too.

I mean, if they're just going to decide based on the people's will because they don't want people to be angry at them what's the point in having them in the first place?

The superdelegates were created to push the leading candidate to a majority. There have been three way races and a primary runoff would suck. This "independent discretion" thing is new

Oh, and I forgot to add that the electoral college would make a whole lot more sense to everyone (intuitively) if we didn't have this messed-up, two-party system.

nope electoral college is easier to rig.

how about break it down further into congressional districts, instead of popular vote?

The Electoral College privileges small states far more over large ones. A voter in Wyoming has 3x the influence on who becomes the next president compared to a California voter. Not surprisingly, the small states whose voters are rewarded such a luxury are nearly entirely white, while the large states are wildly diverse.

Virulency: how about break it down further into congressional districts, instead of popular vote?

Gerrymandering is bad enough as it is. No thanks.

I'm all for getting rid of the electoral college as long as I can vote from home just like another show...

dirty hot linker, I am

Virulency: how about break it down further into congressional districts, instead of popular vote?




/pic links and pops

One of the biggest arguments for me against the EC is that each vote doesn't count the same. It effectively takes 4 votes in California to cancel out one vote in Wyoming. Its also a broken system that keeps moronic policies like corn ethanol subsidies in vogue because Iowa is so crucial, or why we have to keep an embargo on Cuba to appease the exiles in Florida. The country as a whole would be much better off, but I would expect heavy resistance from states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, etc. because they make a lot of money off being a "swing state."

Xaneidolon: There's a reason that referendums are rare...

[Checks Xaneidolon's location. Salt Lake. Not California.]

We have referendums in California *EVERY ELECTION CYCLE.* Sometimes they're a good thing, but mostly they're crap. It seems our constitution changes just about every year and that's a bad thing. We're up for another potential change with "gay marriage" in fall of 2008. That'll be fun.

I like notion that our Electoral College system at least attempts to give the States their due in the political system. Our Tenth Amendment makes it very clear that States, as political entities do have significant rights in governance.

However, I'd like to see the EC tweaked slightly. I think the Electors should be apportioned by congressional district and the candidate who wins the majority of districts in a given state is awarded the 2 "bonus" electors reserved for the states themselves. If the state ends up tied then the 2 bonus electors are split 1-1. This gives somewhat of a more democratic feel, but still makes it important to win states, not just the popular vote.

/not a new idea, but just restating it here

Darwin's Prophet: One of the biggest arguments for me against the EC is that each vote doesn't count the same. It effectively takes 4 votes in California to cancel out one vote in Wyoming. Its also a broken system that keeps moronic policies like corn ethanol subsidies in vogue because Iowa is so crucial, or why we have to keep an embargo on Cuba to appease the exiles in Florida. The country as a whole would be much better off, but I would expect heavy resistance from states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, etc. because they make a lot of money off being a "swing state."

As a defender of the EC, I find your arguments pretty compelling.
I think I only defend it because it's one of the vestiges of the idea of a republic. Any way we can keep the ideas behind the EC yet update it? Maybe not make it an all-or-nothing/winner-take-all thing but split the delegates by proportion of the popular vote? (i.e. state has 10 delegates - vote splits 60/40 - states sends 6 of one and 4 of the other?) I'd be okay w/that sort of compromise and it would at least ameliorate some of the legitimate concerns brought up so far.

Kuta: [Checks Xaneidolon's location. Salt Lake. Not California.]

Yeah, we have 2-3 ballot initiatives every election. By rare I meant compared to the number of bills that get introduced into the legislature every year. And I know California has tons more than we do in Utah.

I think your "slight tweaking" idea has some merits, too. I'd hate to get rid of the EC entirely.

Darwin's Prophet: One of the biggest arguments for me against the EC is that each vote doesn't count the same. It effectively takes 4 votes in California to cancel out one vote in Wyoming. Its also a broken system that keeps moronic policies like corn ethanol subsidies in vogue because Iowa is so crucial, or why we have to keep an embargo on Cuba to appease the exiles in Florida. The country as a whole would be much better off, but I would expect heavy resistance from states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, etc. because they make a lot of money off being a "swing state."

As a Wisconsinite: go for it. Swing states now won't necessarily be swing states 20 years down the road.

Gosling: Darwin's Prophet: One of the biggest arguments for me against the EC is that each vote doesn't count the same. It effectively takes 4 votes in California to cancel out one vote in Wyoming. Its also a broken system that keeps moronic policies like corn ethanol subsidies in vogue because Iowa is so crucial, or why we have to keep an embargo on Cuba to appease the exiles in Florida. The country as a whole would be much better off, but I would expect heavy resistance from states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, etc. because they make a lot of money off being a "swing state."

As a Wisconsinite: go for it. Swing states now won't necessarily be swing states 20 years down the road.

I was in college in Wisconsin in 2004. You'd also get the added advantage of not having 2 out of every 3 commercials being a political ad towards the end. It was maddening by the end. I'm glad I'm in safely democratic California this year. All the candidates do here is raise money to put up the ads in Wisconsin.

Xaneidolon:

Oh, and I forgot to add that the electoral college would make a whole lot more sense to everyone (intuitively) if we didn't have this messed-up, two-party system.

...the reason you have a two-party system is because that's what the electoral college will support.

bubbaprog: The Electoral College privileges small states far more over large ones. A voter in Wyoming has 3x the influence on who becomes the next president compared to a California voter.

Good. I'd trust a person from Wyoming to be 3x as smart as your average person from California anyways. They should have more say.

Frankly, I think we should remove the President from the November ballots entirely. Stop trying to fool people with the popular vote tallies. While we're at it, let's knock the office of the President down a few notches, it's damn near seen as a throne these days. Parliamentary systems don't allow direct popular vote for the office of the Prime Minister, doesn't seem to get them all bent out of shape every 4 years.

You're pissed because one party gets 100% of your State's Electoral votes with only 51% of the state popular vote? Fine, start a movement in your own state to get that changed to a apportioned allocation. There is nothing stopping you from doing so.

Murkanen: ...the reason you have a two-party system is because that's what the electoral college will support.

That's what the States send the Electoral College. There is nothing in the Constitution dictating how a State allocates its EC votes.

Don't like how your State does it? Change it.

Darwin's Prophet: Gosling: Darwin's Prophet: One of the biggest arguments for me against the EC is that each vote doesn't count the same. It effectively takes 4 votes in California to cancel out one vote in Wyoming. Its also a broken system that keeps moronic policies like corn ethanol subsidies in vogue because Iowa is so crucial, or why we have to keep an embargo on Cuba to appease the exiles in Florida. The country as a whole would be much better off, but I would expect heavy resistance from states like Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, etc. because they make a lot of money off being a "swing state."

As a Wisconsinite: go for it. Swing states now won't necessarily be swing states 20 years down the road.

I was in college in Wisconsin in 2004. You'd also get the added advantage of not having 2 out of every 3 commercials being a political ad towards the end. It was maddening by the end. I'm glad I'm in safely democratic California this year. All the candidates do here is raise money to put up the ads in Wisconsin.

Ugh, yeah, that is definitely a disadvantage to living in Wisconsin. It isn't surprising the NRO is pro-EC (they have written numerous flame-bait articles on the subject). The little states get a lot more power (respectively) than the big states. And the little states tend to be rural backwaters. Wyoming and Utah get extra votes because they are small. Silly, but true. By the way, is this the 8th or 9th NRO article today? How many times does Kristol have to be wrong before they stop greenlighting his pathetic publication?