In the US system of presidential elections, the Electoral College appoints the president which I contend is undemocratic and unfair. It gives more power to small citizens and relatively little to large state citizens: California has 675,000 citizens represented by each elector while Wyoming has just 175,000 per elector. That means a Wyoming citizen has 3.5 times more power than a California citizen. View attachment 28112 It also redirects attention and money to swing states and leaves most completely ignored : There are three ways to fix this. 1. Keep the US Electoral College, but make the electors proportional to the popular vote, thus splitting each state's allocation. This fixes attention, but not power. 2. Dissolve the Electoral College and rely only on the popular vote. This fixes power, but not attention. 3. Dissolve the Electoral College and institute European parliamentary-style elections (voting for a party, not a candidate, and the party elects the president). This fixes both attention and power AND permits the inclusion of third parties via coalitions. My preference, by far, is #3.
I'd prefer a system where the candidate gets one electoral vote for each district they win and 2 electoral votes for every state they win.
I prefer the popular vote, it's democratic, and it removes the swing state payola incentive, even if you are certain to lose a state, campaigning there will get you more votes that will count. Even if you are certain to win a state, campaigning there will get you more votes that will count. There will still be primaries, so some states will still get pandered to, but it's just a better way to go. And states that wish to make it harder to vote will reduce their states influence in the election.
That is a bit of a misrepresentation. The minimum is 3 and that is why Wyoming has 175,000 per elector. States like California have one for each congressman and 1 for each Senator. That means Wyoming gets 1 for each Senator and one for Congress. It does not give 3.5 times more power to a citizen but minimum representation for a State. In a 'winner takes all' State like California the majority of electoral votes gets all of the other States electoral votes. California has 55 electoral votes so if one party got 28 of the electoral votes they get all 55. Winner takes all favors the larger States. We have already dissolved the State vote for Senator and made it popular, it would be a mistake to do the same for the the Electoral College. There have only been 4 times in election history that the popular vote countered the electoral vote.
And that is 4 times too many IMO. I favor the popular vote. People can argue well that gives more power to big states, but not really. Every vote will really count. I think you will see campaigning in every state by every party instead of mass focus on 3-5 states
In democracy rules are rules and the United States are anyway a federal country, so that [just because they are "federal"] in my opinion it's still correct to give a certain importance to the states as visible entities. This said, I would prefer a system where the popular vote always corresponds with the electoral one [otherwise it can become worse than parliamentary systems where it's the parliament, not the voters, to decide the government: when the popular vote is "betrayed" by the electoral vote, I could even imagine to invalidate the elections ... and repeat them]. Of course, as I sad, rules are rules and if in US that oddity is part of the game, it's ok. Everybody knows that there is that institutional risk [to have a president elected by the minority of the expressed votes, actually the President is anyway always elected by a minority of American citizens, so ...].
Theres no reason to do anything to the electoral college. It works. I dont see any reason to change anything, and if i did, I wouldnt look to Europe as a model of what America should do.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed. Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters. The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. They decided the election. Two-thirds (176 of 253) of the general-election campaign events, and a similar fraction of campaign expenditures, were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual. About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most. The number and population of battleground states is shrinking. Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to battleground states when it comes to governing.
With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power. States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive." The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party’s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended. The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens. The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again. During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).
4 of the nation's 57 presidential elections is 7%. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama’s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes. Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district . . . they care whether he/she wins the White House. Voters want to know, that even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it would be wrong for the candidate with the most popular votes to lose. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic. In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent or past closely divided Battleground states: CO – 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI – 73%, MO – 70%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM– 76%, NC – 74%, OH – 70%, PA – 78%, VA – 74%, and WI – 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE – 75%, ID – 77%, ME – 77%, MT – 72%, NE -74%, NH – 69%, NV – 72%, NM – 76%, OK – 81%, RI – 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT – 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR – 80%, KY- 80%, MS – 77%, MO – 70%, NC – 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, TN – 83%, VA – 74%, and WV – 81%; and in other states polled: AZ – 67%, CA – 70%, CT – 74%, MA – 73%, MN – 75%, NY – 79%, OR – 76%, and WA – 77%. NationalPopularVote
Dump it, EVERY other elected official is elected by popular vote, it is ludicrous to have one office that a group of people can override the will of the Nation.
Maine and Nebraska use the congressional district winner method. Maine and Nebraska voters support a national popular vote. A survey of Maine voters showed 77% overall support for a national popular vote for President. In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Maine’s electoral votes, * 71% favored a national popular vote; * 21% favored Maine’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and * 8% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Maine’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide). *** A survey of Nebraska voters showed 74% overall support for a national popular vote for President. In a follow-up question presenting a three-way choice among various methods of awarding Nebraska’s electoral votes, * 60% favored a national popular vote; * 28% favored Nebraska’s current system of awarding its electoral votes by congressional district; and * 13% favored the statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of Nebraska’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide). NationalPopularVote Dividing more states’ electoral votes by congressional district winners would magnify the worst features of the Electoral College system. If the district approach were used nationally, it would be less fair and less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country's congressional districts. “In 2012, for instance, when Obama garnered nearly a half million more votes in Michigan than Romney, the Republican nominee still managed to carry nine of the state’s 14 congressional districts. If the by-district scheme had been in place for that election, Romney would have collected nine of Michigan’s 16 electoral votes — not enough to change the national result, but enough to make Michigan a net win for Romney, notwithstanding his decisive drubbing in the statewide election.” – Brian Dickerson, Detroit Free Press, Jan. 12, 2014 The district approach would not provide incentive for presidential candidates to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in a particular state or focus the candidates' attention to issues of concern to the state. With the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all laws (whether applied to either districts or states), candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, and organize in districts or states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Nationwide, there are now only 35 "battleground" districts that were competitive in the 2012 presidential election. With the present deplorable 48 state-level winner-take-all system, 80% of the states (including California and Texas) are ignored in presidential elections; however, 92% of the nation's congressional districts would be ignored if a district-level winner-take-all system were used nationally. In Maine, where they award electoral votes by congressional district, the closely divided 2nd congressional district received campaign events in 2008 (whereas Maine's 1st reliably Democratic district was ignored). In 2012, the whole state was ignored. In Nebraska, which also uses the district method, the 2008 presidential campaigns did not pay the slightest attention to the people of Nebraska's reliably Republican 1st and 3rd congressional districts because it was a foregone conclusion that McCain would win the most popular votes in both of those districts. The issues relevant to voters of the 2nd district (the Omaha area) mattered, while the (very different) issues relevant to the remaining (mostly rural) 2/3rds of the state were irrelevant. In 2012, the whole state was ignored. Awarding electoral votes by congressional district could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide. Because there are generally more close votes on district levels than states as whole, district elections increase the opportunity for error. The larger the voting base, the less opportunity there is for an especially close vote. Also, a second-place candidate could still win the White House without winning the national popular vote. A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President. - - - Updated - - - Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin. If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state. If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections. The proportional method also could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide. If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, had been in use throughout the country in the nations closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote. A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal. It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon). Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate. A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Instead, The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect. NationalPopularVote Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
One thing we need for sure is to eliminate the winner-take-all system. I want representation for my views in government, but I can't get that with the two big parties winning all of the elections, and this they accomplish through a combination of media and electoral system control, and by virtue of the spoiler mentality (that a vote for any other candidate is a "wasted" vote). - - - Updated - - - I'm more concerned about the will of the nation being coerced in the first place..
I was thinking about this problem. What if in US you divide the electoral system? I mean, to elect the Senate follow the state based system, but to elect the President use a general election system. No electoral colleges, the voters vote directly for the candidates to the Presidency. The candidate who gets the majority of the votes win. Period. In case of more than two main candidates you could think to a French system: if in the first election no candidate gets the absolute majority of votes, there will be as second turn of vote with the two most voted candidates fighting it out. That is to say: Presidential election 1st turn ... Candidate A gets 15% of votes Candidate B gets 35% of votes Candidate C gets 40% of votes candidate D gets 10% of votes After 15 days there will be the second turn and the electors will be allowed to vote only for Candidate B or Candidate C, so that one of the two will get the majority for sure.
There's a reason for the electoral college, a damned good reason. Those who argue it should be eliminated are pressing to further weaken our Republic,altering it into a pure Democracy. Cute little "alternatives" such as establishing electoral college votes proportionate to the State population has the same effect as would a complete abolishing of the college. Our nation was not intended to be a pure democracy! The bastardizing of our Republic was begun to a great extent by the 17th Amendment, allowing Senators to be directly elected by the people. It sounds "good", directly elected. However, the founders had good reason for avoiding that prospect. The Constitution originally stated, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote." The framers believed that senators elected by state legislatures would be able to concentrate on the business at hand without pressure from the populace. Our House of Representatives was intended to be the "peoples' house". Our Senate was to be austere, unaffected by the masses, and dedicated to the true intentions of our Constitution. Once the populace was allowed to elect our Senators, Senators became no better than political hacks, offering "freebies" to their voters, and bowing to the special interests of big political contributors. It shouldn't be difficult to understand why it's wise to avoid the dictatorship of the populace! "A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49." "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." "Democracy is a form of government that cannot long survive, for as soon as the people learn that they have a voice in the fiscal policies of the government, they will move to vote for themselves all the money in the treasury, and bankrupt the nation."
Use the Constitution: Italian Constitution doesn't allow electors to vote about fiscal policies [it's even prohibited to have a referendum about].
I must admit that I'm totally unfamiliar with the Italian Constitution. I'll investigate further, and thanks for your input. It took me some time to read your reply. I first had to overcome my jealousy of you living in Lake Maggiore. lol
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. National Popular Vote does not eliminate or abolish the Electoral College. The National Popular Vote bill would replace state winner-take-all laws that award all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who get the most popular votes in each separate state (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), to a system guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes for, and the Presidency to, the candidate getting the most popular votes in the entire United States. The bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country. Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government. In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC. The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state. The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They arent polled or visited. Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in their state. 24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections. 4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors). With National Popular Vote: If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most national popular votes, the enacting state's dedicated Democratic party activists slate of electors will become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most national popular votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists slate of electors will become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists. At least 270 electoral votes will be cast for the winner of the national popular vote, by the states enacting National Popular Vote. - - - Updated - - - With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!
Actually I still find it impressive, so that I understand why tourists who come here are literally amazed ... Back to the topic: I'm really interested in institutional architecture and I have studied how Constitutions affect and inform the life of a country, so I guess we can compare our different perspective in a fruitful way.
I find it interesting that no one has commented on the quality of candidates that the Electoral College currently produces. For me, the primary reason to abolish the Electoral College is not so much fairness (although it is important), but quality. The Electoral College cements the 2-party system and renders third parties virtually non-existent. Even with proportional electorates, voters will still be left with a decision between the lesser of two evils and be afraid to vote their true conscience. A European-style system permits people to vote for a party, even if small or new, that more accurately represents their ideology. This is quite evident in the recent "earthquake" in the European Parliament election by right-wing and Euro-skeptic parties. Under the US system, it would be impossible to ever have anything close to an earthquake. Not even a mouse fart is permitted in the shadow of our monolithic two-headed party.
