Electoral College


The rationale for the existence of the Electoral College has been that such a state-by-state election system is necessary in order to ensure political power/focus does not fall on highly populated urban areas at the expense of more rural areas of the country. As political strategists and their tools have become more sophisticated what has evolved are national elections that largely ignore most states to focus on so-called “swing states”. In this election cycle we are witness to the consolidation of power/focus being placed in Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

I’m not ready to suggest a constitutional amendment doing away with the Electoral College in favor of the nationwide popular vote. However, I do think it is time to have a serious national discussion on the topic.


I would like to do away with the winner-take-all system of automatically giving all the electoral votes of a state to a candidate.


I believe that a good compromize between the popular vote and the electoral college would be the following.

  1. Assign the electoral vote for each Congressional district based upon the popular vote in that district.
  2. Assign the electoral vote for the two senate seats in each state based upon the popular vote in that state.

This way, the votes in each district count and the winner of the whole state still gets an advantage of two extra electoral votes.


Wouldnt that essentially tie the presidency to the house?

I do agree the system has to be changed

Heres an interesting paragraph from an article I read today

A stark example, spotlighted recently by The Washington Post, is in the southern Iowa town of Lineville, which straddles the Missouri border. Those on the Missouri side have received no attention from the presidential candidates. Residents on the other side, in too-close-to-call Iowa, have been virtually stalked by the campaigns. That phenomenon brings up another anomalous aspect of American-style democracy in the 21st century: Only swing voters in swing states matter, and there are fewer of both than in any time in recent U.S. history – at a time of incomparably large campaign war chests.

All Over But the Vote Counting | RealClearPolitics


More importantly, we need preferential voting to do away with the two-party monopoly, and an end to private campaign financing to get money out of the process. In 90% of American elections, the candidate who spends the most money wins. That is a disgrace.


What we need is restrictions on who votes ala Starship Troopers, problem fixed.


So you want taxpayers to fund private organizations?


That’s a strange way of putting it, but yes. Private campaign contributions are legalized bribery. They have to be eliminated in order to get money out of politics.


It’s not a strange way to put it, that’s exactly what you’re proposing. You want the government to steal from its citizens by taxation to give it to private organizations.

Campaigns should be entirely privately funded. We voluntarily give money to political candidates and groups.

What you’re also saying is you want to restrict my right to free speech, you’d ban me from using my own money for placing an ad in a paper or an ad on TV to voice my opinions.


It is a strange way to put it, because (1) you transformed a specific into a general, and (2) elections and government aren’t “private” affairs.

Buying and selling things isn’t speech. Speech is speech. At any rate, that’s not what I said. The irony is that with what I propose, you would be able to vote for parties and people you currently can’t, and would have more choices in each election and a greater opportunity to participate. Whereas currently you only have two options, vote R or vote D, and it scarcely matters because whoever has the most money will win 90% of the time.


No, it ties each electoral vote to the popular vote of the area that it represents. It ties the two electoral votes for each state to the popular vote of that state.


I get the concept. What I mean is we are in an unprecedented area of politics where every republican in a national office is more conservative than even the most “conservative” democrat and vice versa. I dont see a lot of ticket splitting happening. It seems like every presidential election would give 1 party control of the senate, house and presidency.


I entirely disagree with any attempt to eliminate or modify the electoral college. The founders knew what they were doing. States change over time…in both directions. Especially when they go bankrupt!
Our states need all the power they can retain as the fed assault on state power is never ending…and direct democracy results in the welfare state, Europrogressivism and/or anarchy.


I’m not following how this would be a bi-product.

It doesn’t take much to convince me to just leave it alone. What I offered is the only compromise that I would consider. The last thing we want is straight popular vote. It would end up being a civil war between ubbanites and ruralites.


What Im saying is that CDs that elect a republican congressman in that same election would give their EV to the republican presidential candidate. So a 1 vote majority in the house and senate would be 269 EVs. You might get some mismatches in the senate (not by much though) but the presidency and the house would essentially always be under the same parties control.


That’s a distinct possibility but not a guarantee.


[QUOTE=cam]direct democracy results in the welfare state, Europrogressivism and/or anarchy. [/QUOTE]

Yeah, as opposed to Republicanism which results in…oh wait.


A notably level-headed correspondent goes off on a bender. (G)

There’s no consolodation of political power in Ohio, et al. If there were, Chuck Shumer would be petitioing for fast track Buckeye citizenship. What does Ohio get from the winning candidate?

The political power is in Texas, NY, California, etc… If you’re a Dem, and California doesn’t like you, you’re toast. Same as if Texas doesn’t like a Rep.

California, for instance, doesn’t get ignored. It is just such a huge Dem power base that it is hard to justify a Rep candidacy spending a lot of time or money there, in a winner take all election, when more productive votes may be mined elsewhere. A couple of generations ago the “solid south” was solid with the Democrats. Less than a generation ago, Colorado was a true red state. The swing states are only that for having enough electoral college votes to make them worth the time, and demographics that mirror something approaching an average of America as a whole.


To be fair that took more than 100 years of unrelenting assaults from progressives.


I don’t think America is very republican anymore. It’s much more a syndicracy these days, ruled by big money, big business, and big labor at the expense of average folks. Sure, we can vote…on candidates pre-approved by at least 2 of those 3…