Evidence for God from Science

OK, so there has long been disagreement over the methodologies as to how we pick our presidents. The popular vote can be won, and yet the election can still be lost, per how the delegates are awarded. Do you think the present system is a bad one? How could we do it better? More fairly? Or do you think we should just keep it?

See where things went when the people demanded a king?

The math is simple:
Every vote is worth the same, SHOULD be worth the same.
1000 votes in Arkansas is the same as 1000 vote sin California or Florida.
SHOULD be.
Anything other than that is not democracy.

Here's a good article that explains the rationale and history of the electoral college, and its pluses and minuses.

Here's a crazy outtake that is disturbing: "States have different rules for how electors can, or must, vote: 29 states, along with Washington D.C., require electors to vote for the candidate who wins the state's popular vote, while the other 21 allow electors to vote however they like." Those electors that vote against the popular vote of their state are known as "faithless electors." I've got a different name for them - but really, how dangerous does that sound?

Four times in history, the popular vote did not elect the president: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

Basically, the electors were, at least partially, supposed to be more informed and to be a fail-safe to the notion that the "average Joe" (Jills couldn't vote!) wasn't smart or educated enough to sift through the complexities related to deciding who to vote for.

I say, KILL it!

It has been awhile since I looked into this but I think we should keep the electoral college because it gives smaller states a bigger voice. If we did not have delegates for each state only those states with a larger population would matter,but now even smaller states matter and they have a bigger voice than without the electoral college.I think we need to focus on getting rid of vote fraud,election fraud and require a person show ID before they can vote,plus have term limits for people in Congress,etc instead.

The electoral college is kind of an antiquated mess, but there are serious problems with direct democracy and just picking the President based on the popular vote, as well. Eliminate the electoral college and there will be no incentive whatsoever for any candidate to ever waste a minute or a nickel on a place like Wyoming, Maine, Iowa, the Dakotas, or Alaska. They're too sparsely populated to bother with, so they would be literally irrelevant.

That said, the electoral college needs a revamp and the whole "faithless delegate" thing needs to go. If you win a state and don't get the votes then that's not democracy.

Anyway, we have the technology and the ability to come up with a more just and representative system, but I don't know that our leaders have the political will do do so any time soon. I think the conservatives are the main obstacle in the short term - in a straight popular vote the big cities would dominate and they tend to be far more liberal than the smaller towns that are more conservative. If you're concerned about the country going too far left then the last thing you want is to can the EC.

Edit - wow, I agree with ACB, apart from the nonsense about in-person voter fraud. Mark this day on the forum calendar.

Ed: The electoral college is kind of an antiquated mess, but there are serious problems with direct democracy and just picking the President based on the popular vote, as well. Eliminate the electoral college and there will be no incentive whatsoever for any candidate to ever waste a minute or a nickel on a place like Wyoming, Maine, Iowa, the Dakotas, or Alaska. They're too sparsely populated to bother with, so they would be literally irrelevant.

Ed, that's an interesting point. Perhaps some regulatory approach might mitigate that - "candidates must spend equal time or dollars in each state" - or, maybe that would be a terrible idea. I think I'd be fine with limiting ALL dollars spent, as long as the cap is equal per party, and could be policed. Certainly the transparency of the source of those dollars is crucial.

PaulSacramento wrote:The math is simple:
Every vote is worth the same, SHOULD be worth the same.
1000 votes in Arkansas is the same as 1000 vote sin California or Florida.
SHOULD be.
Anything other than that is not democracy.

And the US is not a democracy. It's a Republic.

And the founders wanted it that way.

And the US is not a democracy. It's a Republic.

Yeah, and if certain interests get their way, you can put the word "banana" in front of "republic!"

Philip wrote:Ed, that's an interesting point. Perhaps some regulatory approach might mitigate that - "candidates must spend equal time or dollars in each state" - or, maybe that would be a terrible idea. I think I'd be fine with limiting ALL dollars spent, as long as the cap is equal per party, and could be policed. Certainly the transparency of the source of those dollars is crucial.

Yeah, I don't know how the system could be fixed without unintended consequences.

I definitely think that delegates should be obliged to vote the way their constituents vote, although if that were the case then we'd have no need for delegates in the first place. I'd also like to see something done with campaign finance and campaigning in general. Maybe elections should be 100% publicly financed, or maybe allow private donations, but mandate 100% transparency. Either way, the dark money has to go.

The electoral college could be simplified by assigning one electoral vote to each congressional district and giving it to the person who had the most votes in that district. In theory direct election would be better unless the vote were close enough to require a recount. We all remember what happened when we had to recount the votes in Florida. Just imagine the problems with have to recount the votes for the whole country.

Ed: I definitely think that delegates should be obliged to vote the way their constituents vote,

Yes, faithless delegates who don't vote per their states popular vote literally are negating the people's collective opinion.

Ed: ... although if that were the case then we'd have no need for delegates in the first place.

Really, we don't need them - they are dangerous!

Ed: Maybe elections should be 100% publicly financed, or maybe allow private donations, but mandate 100% transparency.

I've thought of the public financing ONLY. But that only stops special monied interests - particularly anonymous ones related to advertising, hiring people, etc. - although that is no small thing. Really, the money isn't the problem as much as WHAT ideas is it financing, are the messages true, etc? But the press is the other factor. If you have a press skewed toward a certain candidate, then they become gatekeepers and spinners. So, just because money is cut off for limitless campaign and advertising spending, free press is free advertising and spin. That's a difficult issue, because we DO want the press to accurately report, so how do you police that? Equal time? Time won't police content.

Ed: Either way, the dark money has to go.

Unquestionably! Huge piles of money produce desperate people selling all manner of lies and concocted stuff. People, at some point, don't know what is true, partly true, or just outright lies. But the ads all that cash produces clearly have an impact. And do we really want the truth evaluated by who has enough money to assert what that truth is. Do we want people to mostly outspend good opponents to victory?

theophilus wrote:The electoral college could be simplified by assigning one electoral vote to each congressional district and giving it to the person who had the most votes in that district.

That would work great for Republicans, since they're more spread out and control more gerrymandered districts, but I can't see the Democrats going for it. They'd have a point - why should a sparsely populated district get the same electoral weight as a densely populated one? It's supposed to be one person, one vote, right?

That's the crux of the issue - a solution that gives an electoral advantage to either urban liberals or rural conservatives is a nonstarter.

I believe the individual's vote should be The vote that gets the President elected. No electoral college needed. OR have the electoral college, but working as ''theophilus'' wrote just now.

I think we should go by popular vote, but with an amendment similar to the 3/5 compromise.

Where those voting republican get a full vote, and those voting democrat, get 3/5 of a vote.

I'm surprised "united states" hasn't become the "divided states" due to how all the electoral votes are divided. Consider if the states with more votes were always predominantly for one party rather than the other, that'd clearly cause civil unrest amongst opposing states. It's just lucky Texas kind of rivals California and vice-versa, but it seems to me most US states are really run by a few key states.