Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

[rubyraks]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

same argument applies, the smaller states keep playing the minority card while they actually hold all the cards...

[88Mariner]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

^ that's a problem with funding, i agree that it's a problem, but not with the electoral college. the problem is that we're paying the federal government to redistribute taxes. we should be paying our own states, imo.

[thesightless]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

^ that's a problem with funding, i agree that it's a problem, but not with the electoral college. the problem is that we're paying the federal government to redistribute taxes. we should be paying our own states, imo.

but there you instantly face the problem of NY having all the rich ppl here, and montana having none.

[88Mariner]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

tyranny of the majority? Anyone? Bueller?

[88Mariner]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

but there you instantly face the problem of NY having all the rich ppl here, and montana having none.

take an equal share from everyon's taxes? i don't see the problem? the threat of terrorist attack versus population equals out. montana not only has way fewer people, but it's probably the last five likely states to be targetted. The inverse applies....

[thesightless]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

im dizzy. and lost. too many ppl here talking different things.

[rubyraks]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

my head hurts...

[subterFUSE]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

Here's an explanation for the EC:

After the 2000 election, most Democrats, and many others, jumped all over the "anachronistic" Electoral College, decrying it as a vestige of the past that needs reform or elimination. Why not just have a national vote for President? After all states don't mean all that much any more. Others asked "why winner-takes-all in each state?" Let's divvy it up by Congressional seat, they suggested (Maine and Nebraska do just this (although it didn't matter in 2000)). Or perhaps apportion the electoral vote to the percentage each candidate won in the state?

I like none of these -- of all the arrangements, the electoral college still seems best. While it has the obvious (and recently demonstrated) "defect" of deciding close elections differently than the popular vote, this defect is intentional, and serves a purpose.

The Framer's reasons for an Electoral College were several. In order to accomodate the small-state/big-state compromise that led to the 2-vote-per-state Senate, they needed a method to allow small states slightly greater weight in selecting a President. There was great fear that, in a strict popular vote election, the urban states would decide all contests, and no candidate would even consider the issues of the smaller and rural states. Yet they wanted the election conducted in the States, not in Congress. The EC solved this, providing a tie-breaker in close elections where the candidate taking the most states (of any size) has an advantage (the two "senate seat" votes). This is precisely what happened in 2000.

Another reason is what we would today call a "firewall." Even in 1787, state politics were dicey enough that no one in, say, Virginia, wanted to absolutely rely on vote-counting in, say, New Jersey. After all, Eldridge Gerry (inventor of the "gerrymander") was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. In more recent years, vote-counting in Chicago and St. Louis has been quite suspect. In a close election for President, there would be great temptation for local officials to pad the vote if the election was strictly by popular vote. Even with the EC it happens (e.g. 1960 Chicago), but the damage cannot extend past the given state's electors. Note that much of the controversy in Florida in 2000 involved local vote counting practices, state election official's behavior, and the Florida Supreme Court's wholesale rewriting of election law. Which brings up the next point...

A third (and probably more modern) reason is that recounts in a close election are also limited to the state or states in question. Consider the mess in Florida. Then consider the mess of a nationwide recount, with 50 state Supreme Courts, 50 sets of state election officials, and tens of thousands of local election boards. Some of whom are going to cheat to get their man over. There is no natural closure in a close election in this kind of system. We'd still be at it.

Lastly, there is the matter of needing a majority. In the electoral vote system, it is quite possible to have a majority of electoral votes without a majority of popular votes -- the last President to be elected with a popular vote majority was George Bush the Elder. Clinton, Carter, Nixon (196 and Kennedy all were elected with less than 50% of the popular vote. But the EC all gave them a majority as the splinter party votes were eliminated at the state level. Of third-party candidates in recent history, only George Wallace in 1968 won any states. In a direct vote system, the requirement for a majority would be necessarily abolished. This is perhaps acceptable, but could lead to Presidents elected with over 60% opposition.

Now, what about the "fairer" Congressional-district apportionment, or straight state-wide vote apportionment, rather than winner-take all? The first will be a non-starter until there is no such thing as a Gerrymander. It is easy to "fix" the partisan outcome in a congressional district by careful attention to district line drawing. Wonderously odd results can be manufactured. In 1988, the two major parties polled even for Congress, but the Democrats gained a large majority of seats due to gerrymandering. The second option allows significant third-party vote totals, or nearly any such vote totals in a close election, to throw the whole thing into the House of Representatives. Nader would have received enough electoral votes in 2000 in this system to throw the election into the House (and therefore to Bush). Historically, this has been a bad thing, so I see no reason to make it more likely.

One last note, of the suggested alternate choices, only a popular vote method elects Gore in 2000. No matter how you apportion electoral votes (winner-takes-all, congressional district or statewise proportional) Bush wins (if only in the House), and in the congressional district system, Bush wins handily.Posted by Kevin Murphy at December 11, 2003 12:08 AM

[toasty]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

^^Interesting article. I am unpersuaded.

[rubyraks]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

Well I still disagree with his very biased argument. Seriously, do you ever quote anyone else or anyone other than a hard right pundit? Not trying to be an ass, I'd just rather read more diverse opinions than just one.

I particularly found this line alone pathetic:

In 1988, the two major parties polled even for Congress, but the Democrats gained a large majority of seats due to gerrymandering.

Really, did he have to look back towards 1988 to make this point, rather than looking at more recent elections where exactly the opposite was true?

I hear his point and I'm not saying it's baseless, but I still do believe in more democratic elections where one man one vote actually applies. The electoral system further strengthens the two-party system as is and that bothers me as well. Interesting how he makes no mention whatsoever of that fact.

[toasty]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

The electoral system further strengthens the two-party system as is and that bothers me as well. Interesting how he makes no mention whatsoever of that fact.

That was the point I was trying to make, at least obliquely, that started this whole discussion, and I have yet to hear anyone refute it. Will dropping the electoral college do away with the 2 party system? Of course not -- but the use of the electoral college pushes us towards a two party system. Even if a third party were to become a serious player, one of the other parties would eventually go away and we'd be back to two -- that's the way it has happened throughout history, anyway...

[subterFUSE]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

That was the point I was trying to make, at least obliquely, that started this whole discussion, and I have yet to hear anyone refute it. Will dropping the electoral college do away with the 2 party system? Of course not -- but the use of the electoral college pushes us towards a two party system. Even if a third party were to become a serious player, one of the other parties would eventually go away and we'd be back to two -- that's the way it has happened throughout history, anyway...

Dropping the electoral college would turn the 2 party system into a 1 party system. Candidates would no longer focus campaign efforts anywhere but in major cities.... Los Angeles, San Fran, New York, and a few others. The rest of the country would be largely neglected.

We see this happen in a smaller scale with Primaries. For example, I grew up in Washington DC. The population inside the city limits of Wshington DC is primarily poor and black. Therefore, any elections which take place in Washington DC will always end with a democrat winner. So... if a republican never has a chance of winning in Washington, then the only way I can ever have a say in the political process is if I register as a democrat. At least that way I can vote in the democrat primary, and have a say in which candidate doesn't represent me the worst. The result is that you basically have 1 party.

The electoral college still gives high population areas greater weight. California and New York still have more votes than South Carolina. But with the college, a candidate cannot choose to simply neglect people living in the 45 smaller states.

[toasty]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

^OK, but don't you think that the electoral college has the effect of entrenching the 2 party system? Can you envision a scenario where you have more than 2 parties that have a serious shot of winning under the current system? IMO the EC makes everyone gravitate towards the two major parties.

[Lorn]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

^I don't think so. Most people don't have the faintest clue what the electoral college is and they certainly don't have it in the back of there minds when pulling the lever on the voting machine.

[toasty]

Re: Illinois State Lawmakers Look to Help Obama

^I don't think so. Most people don't have the faintest clue what the electoral college is and they certainly don't have it in the back of there minds when pulling the lever on the voting machine.

I don't disagree, but I don't think it matters if voters know why they are doing what they are doing. The point is that the electoral college favors a two party system and, as a result, those two parties get all the press and attention. For your voters that don't do any independent thinking, their political body of information is limited by what they see in the press, and then they vote for a democrat or a republican, and the cycle perpetuates itself.

Vicious circle, it is. The press covers the two major parties because they're the only ones that have a chance to win. And because they are the only ones getting any press, the two major parties will almost invariably win every election.