Electoral College

[Goldom]

Poll question: Electoral College

I know there was a poll recently, but here's one with more options.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Let's abolish it, but also switch to ranked voting and clean elections

and put some other election reforms in place as well.

[Goldom]

2. wow,

3 votes before i even have time to open my own post after posting it.

[freetobegay]

3. ...

[Hippo_Tron]

4. I'm for getting rid of it, but there's one problem

With the way things are looking, right now, Diebold would have a much easier time stealing the election without an electoral college. All they would have to do is switch the numbers a little bit in everywhere that they can, so that it wouldn't even be noticeable. I'm for getting rid of the electoral college, but only if we can ensure that the votes are counted accurately.

[Bill McBlueState]

5. abolish it

But if you rephrase it to "What is the best reform that could actually be enacted?" it's

"States should split vote (Florida would have gone Bush 13 Gore 12, enough to win, even with rigging)"

This only requires a change in each state's laws. The other options require amending the constitution, which won't happen because too many states like their disproportionately high representation. It would take years for even a majority of states to allocate their electors proportionally, but it will be a good start if Colorado does it.

[TahitiNut]

6. A 'National' election isn't feasible.

Imagine the recount rules.

No, I'm for proportional selection of electors based on the state-wide vote. I'm not hung up on whether two electors are selected by the plurality vote or not, but the remaining electors should reflect the proportional voting.

In California, with 53 (55-2) electors, a candidate that gets 2% of the popular vote wins an elector. In Wyoming, with 1 (3-2) elector, it's "winner-take-all".

Candidates have a better chance of getting an elector in California, New York, and Texas than in Wyoming. Thus, high population states would receive more of the campaign spending and 'face-time' they deserve. If we're to go to public financing of national candidates, such proportionality is appropriate.

[Dookus]

7. It doesn't matter

it's not going to change. Ever. The small states have the power and they won't give it up.

[kaos]

10. Luv your tagline..

[Perky]

8. The problem with the EC

is that it doubly favors small states.
First each state automatically gets two vote... one for each senator.fine


But the more hidden afvantage is seen when you look at The number of people each representative has as a contituent has.

Compare Montana and Califfronia baes on poplulation.


My belief is that each congressional district should be no more than 5% variance for the smallest district in the US. Had that been the case in 2000 the EV would have been totally different.

[cosmicvortex20]

9. Holy cow, didnt know there was that many people ignorant of its purpose...

The system didnt suit us this time, but I bet if the tables were reversed, how many here would shift their vote supporting the system.

[kaos]

11. Ignorant of its purpose...

Thank you founding fathers for protecting me from mob rule.....

[rullery]

12. Congressional District Method

Maine and Nebraska use this method, and I understand it is being presented to the voters in Colorado this election. Each state gets a number of electors equal to its congressional districts, plus two for its senators. The winner of the presidential election is determined for each congressional district, and the other two electoral votes are determined by the winner of the state.

Therefore presidential candidates cannot ignore states where they have big leads, but must campaign in districts where the outcome is uncertain. This method is not perfect, but it is certainly better than the winner-take-all system currently in use in most states. Its real advantage is that states are free to adopt this method if they chose to do so, and it does not require a constitutional amendment; something that would be impossible to obtain IMO.