In 2000 Al Gore won the popular vote but lost the Presidential election. Since then many have said that the Electoral College system was the problem. Most States (48) have a winner-take-all system of awarding the Electoral votes for their States in national elections. Nebraska and Maine do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those States, there can be a split of electoral votes among candidates through the State's system for proportional allocation of votes. The NARA (National Archives and Records Administration) website explains their system of proportional voting like this:
“For example, Maine has four electoral votes and two Congressional districts. It awards one electoral vote per Congressional district and two by the state-wide, "at-large" vote. It is possible for Candidate A to win the first district and receive one electoral vote, Candidate B to win the second district and receive one electoral vote, and Candidate C, who finished a close second in both the first and second districts, to win the two at-large electoral votes. Although this is a possible scenario, it has not actually occurred in recent elections.”
In California, Republicans are currently trying to qualify an initiative for the ballot to convert California to a proportional voting State in order to split the electoral votes in the richest prize in the national election. With over 10% of the nation’s Electoral votes, California can either make or break an election. While some would argue that this would make the election fairer, they fail to point out that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are pushing for ballot measures in all 48 States that follow the winner-take-all method to change their policy. California is being targeted because it has historically voted Democrat and by changing the system in California alone the Republicans could win a virtually permanent advantage in the Electoral College. The likely resulting shift of 22 Electoral votes would be the equivalent of giving the Republicans an additional Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wyoming. Splitting the Electoral votes in only California without splitting the other States would give them the equivalent to a seven State bump in Electoral votes.
So what is the solution? Do we continue to allow national elections to take place where the winner loses or should we ask all 50 States to decide if they want to abandon winner-take-all or something in between? It seems the logical answer is that, in the interest of fairness, it should be all or nothing with changing the Electoral College system. If you pick and choose which States change then you are giving an unfair advantage to one party over another based on the voting tendencies of the rest of the States who still use the winner-take-all system of allocating Electoral votes. On the flip side, if we went to a proportional system in all 50 States where votes were awarded based on Congressional Districts, Independent candidates would almost surely begin to have better showings in the national elections. This would lessen the stranglehold that the two major parties have on national politics and more than likely serve the American people more effectively.
For now there is not likely to be wholesale change in the Electoral College so voters have to be wary of any movements to manipulate the Electoral College by trying to change the system in only certain States. If either major political party is serious about changing the Electoral College system to better serve the American people they have the resources to push for ballot measures in all 48 States not currently using proportional allocation. To blame it on the lack of ability to have a single ballot petition for a national referendum on the matter is a deceptive argument meant to mislead the voters. Pushing for change in only Electoral vote rich States that have historically gone to their opponents is a transparent attempt to manipulate the outcome of national elections.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 158
Imagine my surprise last semester, during a comparative politics course, when I learned that other European democracies have actually taken our system and tweaked it a tad to make it more representative. I learned that our "first past the post" system is more unique to democracies in the world today, and that the loss of the voice of the average American comes from this mentality. I have been told many times over my very educated people that our founding fathers never fathomed that their United States would last as long as it has. It can be assumed then, that they surely could not have envisioned our country today. Eliminate the "winner takes all" mentality and give ALL Americans a voice and representation; don't you think we owe our forefathers that?
A proportional system would be superior to what we have now but why go to that? Let the people, that is you and me, actually vote for the person we want to be president. Is that a novel idea or what?
As far as the mythical concept of "mob rule" resulting from the elimination of the college, that is exactly what they said about the direct election of senators, as well! It ain't gonna happen, folks. In fact, very little would actually change but more people would probably participate in the election and cast their vote knowing that it did actually count.
Remember, just as the founding fathers established an electoral college, they, in all their great wisdom, reserved voting for male property owners as well!
We're not living in a democracy here. The United States is a republic and designed as such to eliminate some of the risks run in a "democracy" in the literal sense. What is referred to above as "mob rule" is also called the "tryanny of the majority."
Under what definition of a "vote" There were eight standards which one are you referring to.
The mass of documentation on the Florida 2000, and Ohio 2004 elections are probably things you don't want to investigate, I understand that, but these are not questionable facts, they are documented, provable, purposeful acts of election fraud and manipulation. They can separately be run down on the net, in various reputable places, but the only place you will find the collected references are probably on sites you don't care to consider, and yet they all point to reputable documentation. The fact is, the only people that care, because you obviously don't, are the only ones that care to collect the proof together for digestion as a whole.
Yes it is a republic. It is also a representative democracy! You can proclaim it otherwise but it is. The electoral college is the last bastion of what was originally set up and probably the least significant. While you may feel that you don't deserve a chance to vote for the president and want someone older and wiser to do that job for you, we don't all feel that inferior.
I wrote an article concerning whether it is a democracy or a republic. If you are interested you might read it.
The absentee ballot issue is not at all about signatures, but about whether or not the votes were valid by state and national laws. I know you've been brainwashed by the right over this, but See this link:
http://www.geocities.com/floridavotecount/militaryballots.html
I missed your comment in the crossposting here, as for your question, I don't know, perhaps you can explain Bush's lawyers doing exactly that, too?
What did your state election laws say about postmarks at the time? If you don't know, I can fill you in. I'm surprised you aren't railing against that discriminatory state that had been doing exactly that for many election previous to that one.
Good question! I don't think either of the parties would want the electons all on the same date but I would definitely favor that. On about the first of August of election year. That would shorten the campaign season and lord knows that would be good for the people!
The parties candidates would have to raise enough money all prior to the primary which could prove exceedingly difficult for many candidates to run a nationwide campaign. The, if no canididate got a majority of the votes there would need to be a runoff election. That could be held the following week as the campaigning is all done.
Bottom line, tain't a gonna happen!
And break up the California Electoral College vote. The state has just gotten too big. No one party could possibly represent every voter there. I think that's why this is even being discussed.
I don't see the benefit of the electoral college any longer. I really don't see how it helps the small states remain in the election. When I lived in NY, I didn't bother voting, its a blue state.
Spoken like a true Republican! I guess the founding fathers were also right in defining a black person as 3/5 of a person and approving slavery, right? You'd like it both ways, get rid of the descrepancy in CA but leave it alone everywhere else. Actually, the fouding fathers were consumate pragmatists. They did what they felt they had to whether it was the best way or not.
As far as relevancy, it is because small states don't have much relevancy now is why you want to split up CA, because it is big enough to have that relevancy. And no party can represent all the people in any state. We haven't seen a presidential candidate in Idaho in many moons. That's what's wrong with the electoral college. It served it's purpose and deserves a decent burial now!
Being a westerner like myself, you know full well that there is a difference in culture between those in the South or the East compared to those of us in the Pacific Northwest. These differences in culture and lifestyle can make a difference in the way we think, the way we vote and a variety of other areas.
Yes, we are all Americans first but I'm clearly an Idahoan! I have studied the history of this state and haven't studied New York history. As a kid I saw guns taken to school to show other kids or to hunt with after school. This was not secretive but the teachers were informed due to the fact that not informing them could result in a confiscation! I'll be those on the East coast haven't seen that!
Therefore, I'm not alone in not wanting someone in New York establishing the ground rules under which I have to live on a daily basis. They would not be knowledgeable of or sympathetic to my desires, necessarily. And if we don't have state governments we'd have the same manpower, or more, in federal regional government without the responsiveness to the local peoples desires.
It's the same reason we can't set up a government properly for the people in Iraq and expect them to like it. While states rights have been claimed for a lot of things that don't fly with me, such as slavery, on the other hand the supreme court has upheld that Oregon could have their assisted suicide law. That government closest to the people is actually the most efficient and responsive. To get something through the Idaho legislature is a chore. But to take it to Washington DC and get it through congress, especially when it only affects people in Idaho, can be mission impossible.
Does that clear any part of it up any?
Thanks!
Troy, you are very fair and accurate with your commentary on the electoral college. For a less civil and more ranty response the Republican assault on the California winner take all system, try my previous article "California GOP targets winner take all system- aiming for permanent rule". Thanks.
Both of those reasons make no sense in this age of televised debates, discussions, etc.
Devin, I think you are beyond help. A strong federal government is a terrible idea. The states are a better indication of what people feel in that area. I think you would agree that the people of Florida are all in all much different than the people of Idaho. There is a bit of a culture difference. In the words of a Democratic Speaker "all politics are local"
The main concern was that states would vote for local or regional leaders and they needed a system in order to ensure small states were not knocked out by one large state.
Sorry I had a meeting this afternoon and am just getting back to your question. Florida has not voting requirements to stay on the voters roll. Florida was not turning away voters who could not vote. The perged list was a political attack only a few people were not allowed to vote because of it. The election law on postwarks was what you posted on the site. The Administrative code of Florida allowed them to go by postmarks or the date of the signed ballot. Katherine Harris did not invent the rule it went through a lengthy review long before the election became close. She just sent out the memo because she was doing her job.
The idea that only a few were stopped from voting is totally beyond your scope of knowledge and total bullshit on your part. There were wholesale reports of massive disenfranchisement at the polls in Democratic precincts, and you know it, or choose not to research it that far. What's more, it is obvious to me that you could care less if every one of my allegations was true, which they are. I think there was a bit more than just doing her job involved in ALL of Katherine Harris's actions at the time, and even some people in your own party have expressed shame at the sum of her actions in relation to that election. Get real, the SCOTUS awarded that election in error, they knew that at the time, witnessed by their notation that that decision could never be used for precedent, ever, and the wrong man became president in one of the most shameful episodes in our country's election history. The wingnut propaganda factory has been more than vocal trying to shout the truth down, from day one, but you can't keep the truth hostage forever, and a little more comes out on it all the time.
Remember the kooks pointed to Ohio as the next "dirty trick". I think their tactic is to take the closest state and scream foul play. pathetic. Actually if helps republicans that the left wing-nut kooks actually believe the conspiracies because it won't make them change their message if they think it was the real winner.
I still never got an answer as to why the buses that brought the Louisiana blacks to the polls to get Sen. Landrieu elected were not used to get blacks out of Hurricane Katrina.........
La lady, you are proof that civics class in public eduction should be mandatory. America is not a democracy. It is a represented republic of states. Although a republic is a form of democracy it applies states sovereignty and states rights into federal laws. Funny how liberals don't mind forgetting portions of the constitution when it benefits them but anything that doesn't benefit democrats in elections is always a gross violation of the constitution..... Hypocrisy must be bliss....
Jeb Bushes re-election has nothing to do with it, and I have never heard that argument before. Did you get that off of one of YOUR kook sites? Let's talk about Ohio, and the fact that for some reason 56 out of 88 precincts, run by republicans, have destroyed the ballots from 2004 they were ordered by the courts to preserve for possible recount, pending court case outcomes. Their dog ate their homework, right.
You obfuscate with unprovable assertions, and the complaints had started the day of the election, not a week later. No one may have paid any attention, of course, till a week later, that wouldn't surprise me in your state. Oh, and you aren't raining on my parade, you're full of crap.
It also strikes me, just off the top of my head, but wasn't there something in there in between called 911 that at the time had Bush's approval rating through the roof, and would have rubbed off a little on brother Jeb? Although it's an argument I've never heard before, it's lame in and of itself.
What are you trying to say here, that it's illegal to provide transportation to the polls for registered voters, Jeff? If so, your party breaks that law every time we hold an election, it's called getting out the vote. As for Katrina, I have no idea, and don't care, because it has no bearing on this conversation.
But I wonder. After 911 why did the nation rally behind republicans? Why did Hillary get booed at the firemans convention?
I didn't say using school buses to transport blacks, who weren't going to vote, to the polls was illegal. I am saying that taking that much effort to use a race for elections but not giving a dam about their constituents during a natural disaster means that the electoral college is very important. If democrats treat people that voted for them like Louisiana blacks during Katrina how would they treat states and their citizens that didn't vote for them? It's a legitimate question.....
Well, if they weren't going to vote, and you have that knowledge, and it wasn't merely that they weren't going to, because they had no way to get to the polls, then I suppose that isn't quite as racist as I first thought......no, it's still pretty racist. As far as the rest, it still has not a thing to do with this conversation. Want to say Clinton did something similar now, like usual, or do you want to stick to the subject at hand?
There are polls everywhere. Within walking distance. Those buses tour the streets and pick up people leaning against posts not people who couldn't get to the polls. And YES the way people were treated when their vote was NEEDED and the way they were treated by the same people during a natural disaster is HUGE when discussing states rights. If democrats treat their biggest voting block that way how would they treat states that didn't vote for them?
Treating blacks the way democrats do in contrast to when they are needed and when they need is very racist.
I don't believe they go around picking up strays, it would be ineffective, and a waste of effort. Those buses are morel likely planned and scheduled. Even in my little berg, polls are not in walking distance, for but a few, so I seriously doubt your assertion is anything but more bull on your part. Even if it was true, I believe that the black mayor of New Orleans was not intent on treating the Black population shabbily. There's a lot more to it than your stilted, and I believe somewhat racist views.