Comments on: Electoral College: A Defense

By: Andre Kenji

Andre Kenji — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 12:37:53 +0000

The problem is not that candidates would only campaign in the bigger cities. The problem is that a candidate of most populated states would began the competition with a big advantage over its opponents because of name recognition.

Another problem is that because of voter fraud it would be possible for states where the political machine is controlled by one party(Like Idaho, Massachusetts, Vermont) to forge bigger turnout and improve candidates popular vote...

By: Brett

Brett — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:23:19 +0000

Keep in mind that "racking up the votes" in the heavily populated areas would only be one strategy, since, as mentioned earlier, they aren't a majority of the population. A candidate could either "run up the votes" in the heavily populated areas (which reduces transport costs, but the heavily populated cities and suburbs also tend to be the most expensive media markets), or do an "insurgency" type of campaign, drawing fractions of the popular vote from across the country.

By: Andre Kenji

Andre Kenji — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 01:36:20 +0000

"If I had my druthers, we would keep the electoral college, but the states would do like Maine and split the votes by congressional district with the extra vote going to the statewide winner."

A better idea would be to distribute the electors proportionally. 60% of the votes, 60% of the delegates. Distributing using gerrymandered districts is a bad idea.

The major problem about the elections in the United States is the total decentralization of the system,what allows fraud. Every four years I hear people in Brazil making jokes about the elections in the US.

By: just me

just me — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:13:23 +0000

I don't see a national popular vote as a good move.

I do think it would result in the campaigns sticking mostly to the coasts and the few high population areas in between. I doubt states like Montana, New Hampshire or Iowa would get many visits if at all.

I also wonder what happens in the case of a close election and the need for recounts-is a national recount possible without it being gamed (after all Washington state and it looks like Minnesota are currently gaming the system to the democratic advantage)-and who pays for it?

If I had my druthers, we would keep the electoral college, but the states would do like Maine and split the votes by congressional district with the extra vote going to the statewide winner. I think this would make some non competitive states-like California or New York more competitive.

By: AndrÃ�ï¿½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã�ï¿½Ã�Â© Kenji

AndrÃ�ï¿½Ã¯Â¿Â½Ã�ï¿½Ã�Â© Kenji — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:56:00 +0000

The Electoral College was created as matter of compromise, specially because Slaves couldn´t vote. Brazil has a popular vote system and since 1990 just only candidate that went to the run-off didn´t came from the State of São Paulo, that has something like 15% of the population.

The Electoral College also allows people that don´t vote to be represented, since states have the same weight regardless of the turnout. Considering that old people has a very higher turnout than young people abolishing the Electoral College could create a geritocracy.

And no, without electoral college I doubt that the candidates would campaign in big cities. They would probably go to the SUBURBS of big cities. The problem is not the Electoral College per si, it´s the small size of the House of Representatives. Having a bigger number of Representatives would make more difficult to win the EC and lose the Electoral Vote.

By: Moonage

Moonage — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:38:56 +0000

Nailed it Tomas. Exactly what I was going to say. At what other time is Iowa ever even mentioned on CNN? With a popular election, the candidates would be stupid to leave the five biggest cities regardless of what states there were in. The electoral college is not based strictly on population, as each Senate seat gets a vote. So, the weight of the small states combined is more than the voter percentage. If it were not for that caveat, then we'd have a national government reflecting only the values of urbanites. That's not fair. As far as the "inequity" of popular vote not selecting the president recently, the majority has rarely selected the president in modern times. Look how many have received less than 50%. If more people vote against a candidate, why should they proclaim to have the "popular vote"? Additionally, why should one very small region of the US ( southwest California in the most recent cases ), have the sole discretion of deciding who our president is? The intent of the Electoral College was two-fold. First, it kept representatives from one or two states from dominating the federal government ( in those days it wasn't New York and California, times change ), and it prevented the ignorant masses from mob rule. In 2010 the electoral college will once again be adjusted. This time favoring conservative leaning states of the south. Coincidence?

By: G.A.Phillips

G.A.Phillips — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:34:29 +0000

BTW, I think the primary dates for the 50 states should be drawn from a lottery-style ping ping ball machine.

lol, maybe we should try that for the presidency.

By: tomas

tomas — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:09:55 +0000

Brett mentions only campaigning in New York, California, and Texas. What it would really be is campaigning in New York City, San Francisco, LA, Dallas and Houston. No candidate would need to ever appear in Iowa or New Hampshire again -- only the big cities.

It is my understanding it would require a constitutional amendment to change from the electoral college. I don't think Wyoming, Utah, or Oklahoma, along with lots of other small or smaller states would ever agree. Why should they?

By: Brett

Brett — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:53:55 +0000

Indeed. A popular vote would ensure that candidates have to represent a broad spread of the population nation-wide, and have an incentive to campaign in the most populous states (witness Texas, California, and New York - the three most populous states, representing over a quarter of the GDP and Population, and they got very little presidential campaign attention after the primaries because the population is tilted to one side or another enough to make it not worth it in an Electoral Vote system).

The only downside is that it would probably privilege money even more in Presidential campaigns, since now a campaign might have to compete in the bigger media markets.

By: odograph

odograph — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:44:39 +0000

BTW, I think the primary dates for the 50 states should be drawn from a lottery-style ping pong ball machine.

By: odograph

odograph — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 19:38:46 +0000

What was it, like 3 times that a popular and electoral result were in conflict? Big deal.

If we want change it should be either in the primary process, or to go whole hog for a parliamentary system.