If you think it matters...

[Darth InSidious]

On the other hand, I think if there is a better system we would be foolish not to consider it.

Pharaonism ftw!

[Achilles]

I guess I don't follow how that works. Did some body other than the citizens of Texas give McCain a plurality of the votes in Texas?

 

If the majority of Texans voted for McCain, then it would seem that the will of majority of Texans was represented.

 

@DI:

Don't know how well that will be received here. Some of us have kinda gotten used to the idea of not putting all of our eggs in one basket.

[Samuel Dravis]

Yes, it does represent the majority of Texans, though it ignores the rest.

 

Perhaps I just disagree with you in that I think that the will of Texas should not be just the majority of Texans' will. It should be represented on the national stage as the various parties that make up Texans in the percentage that they were voted for.

 

I say this because the electoral college is what elects the president, not us. The electoral college's voters are, in effect, our proxy voters. If the presidential vote was a true (albeit by proxy) majority vote, then all of the parties of Texas would be reflected in the 34 Electoral college votes. But they're not.

 

The electoral college's purpose is to make the various state's voting power more equal. It's to keep the big ones like Texas from beating up the small ones like Montana. But that purpose can be fulfilled without putting the state's votes all in one basket. Large voting blocs are easier to deal with, certainly, but not at the cost of ignoring so many people. So what possible justification could there be for forcing all of the electoral votes to go to one party?

[Achilles]

Yes, it does represent the majority of Texans, though it ignores the rest.

But that's the inherent flip-side of any majority rule situation. Even if we went to a straight popular vote election, up to 40.9% of the country will have "their will" ignored at the end of the day. There is no way around this and pushing this from state level to federal level or whatever is just squeezing different ends of the tube of toothpaste, not solving a problem.

 

Perhaps I just disagree with you in that I think that the will of Texas should not be just the majority of Texans' will. It should be represented on the national stage as the various parties that make up Texans in the percentage that they were voted for.

And it's not as though I necessarily disagree with you. As I (and others) have pointed out in other posts, there are multiple reasons why the current system, while imperfect, is still the best one available.

 

I've been a senior manager in companies with thousands of employees and been directly responsible for hundreds of employees within multiple departments. I have first hand experience with both "trying to make this baby equitable" and "you can't make all the people happy all the time". That's just reality. I can only imagine trying to build a system that actually runs the world's largest democracy.

 

I say this because the electoral college is what elects the president, not us.

While technically accurate, I don't agree that this is actually the case. If it were, the 2000 recount wouldn't have happened. If it were, we wouldn't know who the President-elect is on Tuesday nights. Reality (as I see it) just doesn't seem to fit this argument.

 

The electoral college's voters are, in effect, our proxy voters. If the presidential vote was a true (albeit by proxy) majority vote, then all of the parties of Texas would be reflected in the 34 Electoral college votes. But they're not.

You may have lost me here. I think we're getting hung up on the difference between distributive voting and winner-take-all voting. How those votes are distributed would seem to have very little to do with the electoral college itself.

 

The electoral college's purpose is to make the various state's voting power more equal. It's to keep the big ones like Texas from beating up the small ones like Montana.

Hmm, I think I'm going to have to disagree here. It seems to me that the EC's purpose is to make sure that state's populations are accurately represented. Via that rationale it would be to make sure that small states like Montana aren't given equal weight to big states like Texas. Interesting that you and I have such radically different takes on this point.

 

But that purpose can be fulfilled without putting the state's votes all in one basket. Large voting blocs are easier to deal with, certainly, but not at the cost of ignoring so many people.

Again, this in inherent in any majority rule system. I think it's critical that this point isn't ignored here.

 

So what possible justification could there be for forcing all of the electoral votes to go to one party?

The same argument could be made for giving all of the office to the one guy that won the election. You would have the exact same problem with a straight popular vote as well. I think it helps to remember that we are first and foremost a Republic of States.

[Jae Onasi]

Pharaonism ftw!

 

Well, that certainly would give new meaning to the phrase "I am my brother's keeper."

[machievelli]

There are 538 of them and you feel better losing by 1 point than 4.

 

I really think you should stop while you're ahead.

 

EDIT: btw, ET Warrior and I made (what I feel are) some sound arguments against changing the current system way back in post 45 and 46. Would you mind taking a stab and addressing those in one of your next posts? I think we've allowed ourselves to get distracted by some minutiae whereas getting back to the "meat and potatoes" might allow us to cover more ground. Thanks.

 

As requested:

 

1) This sure would seem to make things even more prohibitive for third party/independent candidates.

 

2) Completely ignoring that, I could see this system making every election exactly like the 2000 recount.

 

3) Isn't this a decision made at the state level? I could've sworn that Kansas and one other state practiced distributive votes.

 

1: In 1996 we had three parties, Dems, Reps, and Reform. The votes were;

Democrats: 47,402,357

Republicans: 39,198,755

Reform: 8,085,402

 

Using the Electoral votes divided as they are now, it came out as;

 

Dem:379

Rep:159

Reform: 0

 

But as I am suggesting:

Dems: 264 (Needed for clear majority 270)

Rep: 219

Reform: 45

 

While this doesn’t sound like much, figure this: Clinton won with less that 50 percent of the popular vote. He had 49.23%. You can’t pass a law with 49%, but obviously the largest minority can win a campaign.

 

Under the rules before this election, it would have had to go to the congress because a president had to have 51% of the vote. The 1824 election you keep bewailing because I mentioned it Achilles was 47%. As I said the parties don’t want it to go to the Congress especially in a tie as close as 2000 was.

 

If the Party hadn’t self destructed when Buchanan cause his mini coup what do you think could have happened?

 

2: Then it should go to Congress as it should, rather than through that circus they called the recounts.

 

3: It can be done two ways; by the people in a referendum vote, or by the states, but neither party will want to make this change, it’s too easy.

 

One of the problems with dividing electoral votes like that is it makes campaigning in low population states useless. Why would a candidate pay any attention to a state like Wyoming when at most they will probably gain or lose 1 electoral vote? All campaign efforts and money would get pumped into states with 10 or more votes to give, and everyone else would just get ignored.

 

In post 44 I used the following list along with their electoral votes as to how few states are needed to win an election;

55 California

34 Texas

31 New York

27 FLorida

21Pennsylvania

21 Illinois

20 Ohio

17 Michigan

15 New Jersey

15 Georgia

and one worth 4 or more to win the election.

 

Of course two of them, California and Texas have voted opposite sides of every election since 1948.

 

In my example in post #44 the states mentioned are 266 electoral votes missing only four to win. Yet if they got the 51% I mentioned using the divided electoral votes, it would only be 136, requiring support in more states. Both McCain and Dole had more than that and lost. That means even Montana can throw the election either way.

 

As for losing, I do not worry about that as much as being told that 57% automatically takes all. A fair fight is all right, but being robbed irritates me. At the end of that day I know at least some of us were heard.

 

Oh, and if anyone is interested, one comment I made above was incorrect. If the electoral votes had been devided as I suggest, Gore would have won by 2. Not Bush by one.

 

But you can't stop there, the power of the parties themselves has to be divided.