The American Electoral College System - Changes/Abolition

[Coito ergo sum]

Why keep the Electoral College?

Why abolish it?

Is it fine the way it is?

Should it be changed?

I like the Electoral College, in that it represents a slight shift in power from large population centers to rural areas. The way it does that is by allocating Electors in proportion to the population (the same number of electors as members of the House of Representatives), and then adds 2 electors for each state. The result is that a state like, say, Wyoming, which has only a few hundred thousand people, is given a slight disproportionate boost because instead of "1" vote based on population, it gets 3 votes. Not much, in the grand scheme of things, but it just moves the line a bit.

But, I do think there are a couple of things wrong with it:

1. The way electors are selected -- I think that most states have a law that allows the main parties to choose the electors. And, I think that is wrong. I think the electors should be appointed by the legislature by means of lottery of registered voters who apply to be electors, one from each district and there should be many more districts as noted in point 2 below. The electors should be chosen 2 years before the election, and the electors should be free to choose whichever candidate they like, without regard to the popular vote or party affiliation.

2. There need to be more electors. There should be thousands of them, corresponding to the number of representatives in the House of Representatives that we would have under the original system, before the total number was capped at 435. If we followed the original system, there would be so many districts that each district would have a small number of citizens in them.

3. The electors should be tasked with being knowledgeable on the issues, and they will be local to their districts so that they can meet their fellow citizens and hear the sense of the people in that district.

4. Then the popular vote is taken in each district to inform the elector as to the will of the people on election day. And, the elector should go to washington on the date set for the electors to vote, and they vote their conscience as an informed representative of a small number of citizens.

I anticipate a complaint or criticism about this idea that it does not reflect a truly democratic election because the citizens are not voting directly for the President, but that is o.k. Parliamentary systems often have the Chief Executive elected by the members of Parliament and not the people, so even in your Yerpeein parliamentary system, they don't go for a strict popular election of their Prime Minister (who holds most of the powers that our President holds).

What say you?

[klr]

As I see it, the Electoral College system effectively disenfranchises large number of (potential) voters in non-swing states, where they are in the perennial minority.

I agree that a purely popular vote doesn't make sense, but surely there must be some middle road where electoral college votes in each state are distributed in rough proportion to the votes. I know one or two states have made tentative moves towards that.

[Red Celt]

What's wrong with one man, one vote? (one human at the age of suffrage, one vote)

Adding anything to that just makes things less democratic, not more democratic.

[Svartalf]

It ought to be abolished... If it ever fulfilled the function for which it was designed, its purpose was bypassed by the 2 party system and it stopped fulfilling it long ago. Popular vote is where it's at anyway.

[Coito ergo sum]

What's wrong with one man, one vote? (one human at the age of suffrage, one vote)

Adding anything to that just makes things less democratic, not more democratic.

Democratic ain't all it's cracked up to be, not on everything. That's why in "most western industrialized nations" they don't popularly elect their Prime Ministers, but rather they let the majority Party in the Parliament (their Congress) select their leader, Prime Minister, who becomes the Chief Executive and effective head of state (yes, yes, I know the Queen is really the titular head of state the UK and whatever, but she's not really there for much real action).

So, if the question is "what's wrong with one person one vote" -- then the same should be said for why there isn't a popular election of Prime Ministers.

I think the Electoral College system is intended to have the President selected by Electors who know a thing or two. One of the downside of a pure one person one vote system is that most people don't know shit from Shinola.

[amused]

Some delegates, including James Wilson and James Madison, preferred popular election of the executive. Madison acknowledged that while a popular vote would be ideal, it would be difficult to get consensus on the proposal given the prevalence of slavery in the South:

There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to the fewest objections.[7]

The Convention approved the Committee's Electoral College proposal, with minor modifications, on September 6, 1787.[8] Delegates from the small states generally favored the Electoral College out of concern that the large states would otherwise control presidential elections.[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_ ... _States%29

So, the electoral college was invented as a kludge to work around the representation of slaves.

Today I think it serves to provide the psychological effect of making a victory appear more decisive than it really is.

[Red Celt]

So, if the question is "what's wrong with one person one vote" -- then the same should be said for why there isn't a popular election of Prime Ministers.

In UK general elections, we're not voting for the national Prime Minister. We're not even voting for the national party. We're voting for our own local representative. All of the elected local representatives become ministers. The party with the most ministers has their leader become the prime minister.

The informed electorate aren't voting for which party leader looks best in front of a camera. Or, at least, they shouldn't be. Shamefully, during the last general election, that's exactly what we did - held 3-way discussion-programmes with the leaders of the 3 biggest parties... totally misrepresenting how our system works. A fatally flawed Americanisation of a system that isn't based on personality politics.

[MrJonno]

I anticipate a complaint or criticism about this idea that it does not reflect a truly democratic election because the citizens are not voting directly for the President, but that is o.k. Parliamentary systems often have the Chief Executive elected by the members of Parliament and not the people, so even in your Yerpeein parliamentary system, they don't go for a strict popular election of their Prime Minister (who holds most of the powers that our President holds).

That is legitimate because people elect the electors, why bother with having an elected president at all, get Congress to choose

[mistermack]

All you want is a system that produces a government that can actually govern.

There is no accountability now, with both sides blaming each other when things don't get done.
So if you want to change the system, it would really be senseless to do it without curing that.

There are loads of systems around the world, to study and choose from.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

All those years of college and they learned fuck all!

[Tero]

Might as well dump the senate too. It does not represent the US by population.

[Woodbutcher]

The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Things get done.

[mistermack]

The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Things get done.

Or a benevolent committee, like China.

[Red Celt]

The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Things get done.

I entirely agree.

The difficult part is finding someone.

[Mysturji]

The best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship.

Like a benign tumour.

Things get done.

That;s exactly what we DON'T want from government. Left to their own devices, the vast majority of people govern themselves far better than anyone else ever could. What we need government for is that tiny minority who can't - or won't - govern themselves responsibly, and to provide the infrastructure necessary for a functioning civilisation.

All leaders should be chosen by lottery. Every citizen stands anequal chance of being selected to serve a limited time in office (roles of individuals to be decided by vote among members of the government) with the following exceptions:
Minors.
Non-residents.
Convicted felons.
The mentally deficient.
Lunatics.
Politicians.