Electoral College

[crosscountry]

I wonder why more states don't divide their EC like Maine and Nebraska do. I understand the representative democracy and all, but it always seemed odd to me that a candidate could win a state by 1 vote but get a lot of points.

[timb]

I wonder why more states don't divide their EC like Maine and Nebraska do. I understand the representative democracy and all, but it always seemed odd to me that a candidate could win a state by 1 vote but get a lot of points.

Because doing so is perceived as reducing the importance of the state. They don't spend their pork^H^H^H advertising dollars in a state where the potential gain is only one or two college votes either way.

[Sticks]

pork

aaaahhhhh

[/homer simpson]

[HenrikOlsen]

Because doing so is perceived as reducing the importance of the state. They don't spend their pork^H^H^H advertising dollars in a state where the potential gain is only one or two college votes either way.
On the other hand it means the votes for the losing party are basically wasted, which may make polls self fulfilling by making people stay at home since there's no point in voting anyway.

[timb]

On the other hand it means the votes for the losing party are basically wasted, which may make polls self fulfilling by making people stay at home since there's no point in voting anyway.

The dominant party in the state will care about this why exactly? :)

[Sticks]

I love roast pork

Sorry still stuck on Homer Simpson mode :shifty:

[SeanF]

On the other hand it means the votes for the losing party are basically wasted, which may make polls self fulfilling by making people stay at home since there's no point in voting anyway.
Votes for the losing party are always "wasted," no matter how they count them. Whether you say McCain got 47% of the popular vote or 37% of the electoral college, he gets 0% of the presidency.

Besides, neither Maine nor Nebraska divide their electoral college votes by proportionality. This is a somewhat-less-than-detailed explanation, but each state is divided into districts, and whomever gets the most votes in that district gets that district's one EC vote.

[Fazor]

Besides, neither Maine nor Nebraska divide their electoral college votes by proportionality. This is a somewhat-less-than-detailed explanation, but each state is divided into districts, and whomever gets the most votes in that district gets that district's one EC vote.

Personally, I feel that's the better system. Help equalize the importance of areas of differing situations. As it stands in the other states, it's the opinions of the highly populated and centralized areas that carry more weight, diminishing the "voice" of the less populated but just as important rural areas. Earning electoral votes via winning districts or counties just makes more sense in my humble opinion.

But it's not like this is a new system that we didn't know about before going into the election.

[SeanF]

Besides, neither Maine nor Nebraska divide their electoral college votes by proportionality. This is a somewhat-less-than-detailed explanation, but each state is divided into districts, and whomever gets the most votes in that district gets that district's one EC vote.

Personally, I feel that's the better system. Help equalize the importance of areas of differing situations. As it stands in the other states, it's the opinions of the highly populated and centralized areas that carry more weight, diminishing the "voice" of the less populated but just as important rural areas. Earning electoral votes via winning districts or counties just makes more sense in my humble opinion.

But it's not like this is a new system that we didn't know about before going into the election.
True, on all counts. I would have no objection to other states doing it like Maine and Nebraska do, either (but neither do I think they should be required to).

Wouldn't affect my vote anyway, since my little state is only one big congressional district. :)

[crosscountry]

well, that's nice and all, but I would prefer it to be more closely tied to the popular vote. See, here in Texas the majority re-districts every few years by drawing new boundaries that more accurately reflect their opinions. That's what really bothers me. You can pick a district apart by separating it and putting the pieces in with other districts that vote another way.

Districts are smaller (albeit better) versions of the entire state EC.

[Fazor]

well, that's nice and all, but I would prefer it to be more closely tied to the popular vote. See, here in Texas the majority re-districts every few years by drawing new boundaries that more accurately reflect their opinions. That's what really bothers me. You can pick a district apart by separating it and putting the pieces in with other districts that vote another way.

Districts are smaller (albeit better) versions of the entire state EC.

The problem with popular vote is that it still is more representative of high-population area issues (i.e. cities) than what's best for the area/state/nation as a whole.

Yet your objections to the regional/district system are also valid.

Point is, there is no easy answer; and probably no answer that doesn't have a drawback to it, or a group that gets "excluded" in a way.

Who'da thought there'd be an aspect to government/politics that I find interesting?

Oh, and don't take anything I post as a reaction to who was elected or what issues passed or didn't pass--I'm just talking about the system not yesterday's results in particular.

[PraedSt]

I love roast pork

Sorry still stuck on Homer Simpson mode :shifty:

I quite like this tangent. I like roast pork, prefer roast lamb though.
Hmmm.....lamb

On topic: as an outsider, I have to say I quite like your EC system. A good balance of population and state identity I feel.

[Sticks]

I quite like this tangent. I like roast pork, prefer roast lamb though.
Hmmm.....lamb


I had a shoulder of lamb on Saturday, and on Monday I cooked a pork chop. Last night was chicken.

All served with carrot, leek and potato

hmmmm potato [/homer simpson]

In theory could some of the electoral college voters switch votes?

[PraedSt]

I had a shoulder of lamb on Saturday, and on Monday I cooked a pork chop. Last night was chicken.

All served with carrot, leek and potato

hmmmm potato [/homer simpson]

In theory could some of the electoral college voters switch votes?

What no beef? Hmmm.....beef

Yes, in theory electors can vote for whoever they want to. But it's rare (if ever). Also, I think if they go against the vote, they can be punished by the State (a state, not the nation).

[Fazor]

In theory? I think so. But McCain conceded so they certainly wouldn't now.

As for lamb, I've only had it once from a Greek take-out restaurant. It wasn't very good, but I feel it was more a reflection of that particular establishments quality than the type of meat. Every time we pass the meat section I look for the lamb (rack?) on the bone... the kind you use to make "lollipops" ... you know, the fancy things. But they've only had that once, and at that particular time I didn't have the money to spend on lamb.

Besides, my g/f refuses to eat it because "lambs are cute!". So are cows, though. She doesn't understand that something can be both cute and tastey--neither adjective nullifies the other. Guess that just means more for me.

[Moose]

Yes, in theory electors can vote for whoever they want to. But it's rare (if ever). Also, I think if they go against the vote, they can be punished by the State (a state, not the nation).

It has, apparently, happened a couple of times with single electors. But you're right, it's rare, and it has never actually affected the outcome of an election.

[SeanF]

Yes, in theory electors can vote for whoever they want to. But it's rare (if ever). Also, I think if they go against the vote, they can be punished by the State (a state, not the nation).
Not as rare as you might think - there have been 168 in the history of US according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector), including nine since WWII.

Many of them were cases where the candidate to whom the electors in question were committed died before the electoral college voted. :surprised

In the 1836 election, there were 32 electors from Virginia who refused to cast their VP votes (I won't get into the details of why, but you can read about it on the wikipedia link above). This prevented that candidate from getting a majority of the vote, and the Senate had to select the VP - they selected the same guy. :) I believe that's the only time "faithless electors" actually affected the outcome.

[Disinfo Agent]

The dominant party in the state will care about this why exactly? :)It might, on the off chance that the dominant party values democracy.

There was a previous discussion in the forum about the electoral college (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/14073-electoral-college-obsolete.html).

[Doodler]

Votes for the losing party are always "wasted," no matter how they count them. Whether you say McCain got 47% of the popular vote or 37% of the electoral college, he gets 0% of the presidency.

Besides, neither Maine nor Nebraska divide their electoral college votes by proportionality. This is a somewhat-less-than-detailed explanation, but each state is divided into districts, and whomever gets the most votes in that district gets that district's one EC vote.

Slightly more detailed:

Win the district, win the HoR Electoral vote.

Win the majority of the state's HoR Electoral votes, get the two Senate Electoral votes.

[PraedSt]

There was a previous discussion in the forum about the electoral college (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/14073-electoral-college-obsolete.html).

We're all good recyclers here Disinfo. ;)

[Sticks]

What no beef? Hmmm.....beef


Beef tends to be over rated, or at least over-priced

I quite like corned beef

What we find odd in the UK, is that he has to wait until January to take office, in the UK the transition is overnight.

[NEOWatcher]

What we find odd in the UK, is that he has to wait until January to take office, in the UK the transition is overnight.
It used to be March until early to mid 1900s. For Washington it was April.

[PraedSt]

What we find odd in the UK, is that he has to wait until January to take office, in the UK the transition is overnight.

Yeah, I've wondered about that before. I think it's to do with the fact that the handover timetable in the US was fixed a long time ago, when transportation was relatively slow. Plus it's a huge country; you've got to give every one time to move in/out.

[Doodler]

It used to be March until early to mid 1900s. For Washington it was April.


Without the benefit of Google, my rusty memory is telling me that it has something to do with the mess in '29 to '32 that changed it to January.


As for why the wait, it allows for a smoother transition from one administration to the next. New cabinet members have to be vetted, sent before the Senate for fondling, groping, and other heinous abuses of their intelligence, new staff positions filled, and their security clearances secured. Its only about three or four tiers down from the Head Goomba himself that you start to see familiar faces from one administration to the next.

[SeanF]

Slightly more detailed:

Win the district, win the HoR Electoral vote.

Win the majority of the state's HoR Electoral votes, get the two Senate Electoral votes.
No, I don't think so. Maine has two HoR Electoral votes - what would happen if they split? I'm pretty sure the two Senate Electoral votes go to the candidate who wins the statewide vote.

Actually - I believe each district holds two elections, one for the district EC vote and one for the statewide Senate EC votes. Which means it's theoretically possible for one candidate to win all the HoR EC votes while a different candidate wins both Senate EC votes.

EDIT: I think I'm wrong about that "Actually" bit. :)

[PraedSt]

New cabinet members have to be vetted, sent before the Senate for fondling, groping, and other heinous abuses of their intelligence...

Hehe. :)

[Fazor]

New cabinet members have to be vetted, sent before the Senate for fondling, groping, and other heinous abuses of their intelligence, new staff positions filled, and their security clearances secured...

Not to mention they need time to install the absorbant mats so that, if one of them leaks or drips, it won't ruin the wood.

[nauthiz]

Personally, I feel that's the better system. Help equalize the importance of areas of differing situations. As it stands in the other states, it's the opinions of the highly populated and centralized areas that carry more weight, diminishing the "voice" of the less populated but just as important rural areas. Earning electoral votes via winning districts or counties just makes more sense in my humble opinion.
On the other hand, for the purpose of a presidential election the voice of an individual person tends to be greater in less densely populated states. A Wyoming resident's vote, for example, is worth about three times as much as a California resident's vote. I tend to interpret that as meaning that the voice of rural citizens carries more weight, since I'm inclined to think of it in terms of electoral power per person rather than electoral power per acre.

[Jim]

On the other hand it means the votes for the losing party are basically wasted, which may make polls self fulfilling by making people stay at home since there's no point in voting anyway.

Not necessarily.

Texas is a Ruby Red State. There was almost no presidential politicking here because the result was known before the race started (in Nov 2006).

Yet, there were 600,000 more votes cast than in 2004, all for the "losing" candidate.

That said, I wouldn't mind a system that split the electoral votes in some way, just not be district since - as has been pointed out - they are too easily gerrymandered into safe and meaningless constructs.

OTOH...

Votes for the losing party are always "wasted," no matter how they count them. Whether you say McCain got 47% of the popular vote or 37% of the electoral college, he gets 0% of the presidency.

Maybe we should divide the presidency based on electoral votes.

[jfribrg]

Of course there were two reasons for the electoral college. The first reason is that it is supposed to give smaller states a proportionally bigger say in who gets elected. This is how GWB lost the popular vote in 2000 but won the electoral college. If it wasn't for this provision, we probably wouldn't have a United States. Small states such as Delaware, Rhode Island, and Maryland probably wouldn't have ratified the constitution without these types of provisions (and even then Rhode Island was very reluctant). The other reason for the electoral college was to provide a way to overturn the will of the people in the event that the people dont elect the "right" person. As far as I know that has never been an issue, but if ever a third party candidate wins the electoral vote, it may become interesting. Electors are typically chosen by the party that wins. If the winner is an independent and the rules are written by the two dominant parties, who knows what might happen. This issue of providing an electoral veto is dealt with in the primaries by using superdelegates. In the presidential election it is the electoral college that performs the same function.

[Fazor]

On the other hand, for the purpose of a presidential election the voice of an individual person tends to be greater in less densely populated states. A Wyoming resident's vote, for example, is worth about three times as much as a California resident's vote. I tend to interpret that as meaning that the voice of rural citizens carries more weight, since I'm inclined to think of it in terms of electoral power per person rather than electoral power per acre.

That's true to an extent; but even the most "rural" areas on a statewide scale have large cities. Simply put, the state is still decided based on the needs/opinions of the densly populated areas of the state. In other words, I'm not saying that rural areas are underrepresented on the national level; rather that rural v. urban areas aren't equally repersented within their own state.

edit: sorry, added quote to make it more clear who I was responding to. Guess I'm too slow of a typer

[nauthiz]

Possibly that's because four times as many people live in urban areas. If we're going to stick with a one person, one vote type system, that difference in the geographic distribution of electoral power will remain.

We could probably even out the geographic distribution by giving each individual a number of votes proportional to the amount of land they own or something like that, but that strikes me as somehow being less just.

[Fazor]

Like I said, it's not an easy problem. Balancing fair representation and personal equality is difficult. You can't give more sway to one vote without taking it away from another. I don't like the current system, but that certianly doesn't make me right.

[Doodler]

Hey, if y'all want a pretty good defense for the Electoral College's existance at the national level, mosey over to cnn.com and have a look at Maryland's results by county.

Really.

This state is about a Blue as skies of Neptune in political leaning, according to presidential election politics, but nothing prepared me for the shock I got when I saw the breakdown.

Out of the 20 some odd counties in this state, all but five of them returned Republican victories. The big three, Prince George's, Montgomery and Baltimore counties framed a little swath of blue down the middle of the state, and carried 60 plus percent of the population.

This state is governed by less than one third of its seated local governments.

Virginia was much the same way, over 75% of the map was blazing red, but the areas surrounding DC handed the entire state to the Democrats by popular vote.

[PraedSt]

I've always wondered: what is it about cities that makes people liberal?

Has this been covered before in another thread? Hmm...maybe I don't really want to look, I'm sure it's a complete flame-war :)

[Doodler]

I've always wondered: what is it about cities that makes people liberal?

Has this been covered before in another thread? Hmm...maybe I don't really want to look, I'm sure it's a complete flame-war :)

Best guess: Relative affluence. Democrats have been the big welfare party since the New Deal, and since the 50's saw the migration of affluent families into the suburbs and beyond and 70s migrations of low income families to inner city slums, the hand out givers have found their greatest support in those whom receive the bulk of the gifts.

I don't think its a matter of liberal thought in a more bohemian environment, so much as simple cause and effect from policies of monetary redistribution.

[Jim]

Doodler, you're looking at geography, not population.

[PraedSt]

Best guess: Relative affluence. Democrats have been the big welfare party since the New Deal, and since the 50's saw the migration of affluent families into the suburbs and beyond and 70s migrations of low income families to inner city slums, the hand out givers have found their greatest support in those whom receive the bulk of the gifts.

I don't think its a matter of liberal thought in a more bohemian environment, so much as simple cause and effect from policies of monetary redistribution.

But it's a worldwide phenomenon Doodler! Hmm..although you maybe right, some cities have greater affluence towards the suburbs.

You see, I'd put it down to greater population density. (?) More jostling around with others tends to make people liberal. I have no idea why this could be of course...

[Doodler]

Doodler, you're looking at geography, not population.


Exactly the point. Without the Electoral College, you would generally have three areas of the US being fought over.

1) California
2) Texas
3) The Northeastern US.

Win two out of three, and you walk away with the White House.

[Fazor]

Exactly the point. Without the Electoral College, you would generally have three areas of the US being fought over.

1) California
2) Texas
3) The Northeastern US.

Win two out of three, and you walk away with the White House.

Exactly--that's why I'm not a propoment of a literal popular vote. But my argument is that, without dividing the individual state's EC votes (which, there's no set rule against, but the trend overwhelmingly tends to be award all votes to one candidate), you're not breaking it down far enough.

I wanted to check out Ohio (for obvious reasons), and found that outside of the areas imediately surrounding Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinatti, all the counties voted McCain.

But because there's more people in those three areas than in the rest of the state, all the EC votes go to Obama.

Now, on a state-wide level that means the votes indeed went to the candidate with the majority of Ohio votes. On a local level, I can tell you that the rural farming and small-town industries are very important to Ohio. But, since it's majority gets all, their overwelming support for the other candidate goes unheeded.

Personally I think it'd be wiser to award on the micro-level. But at the same time, looking at Ohio, the candidate that got the most votes won--and that's always what I've considered to be a legitimate vote. In other words, while I can say it's not how I'd like the system, I cannot call it a broken system either.

[SeanF]

On the other hand, for the purpose of a presidential election the voice of an individual person tends to be greater in less densely populated states. A Wyoming resident's vote, for example, is worth about three times as much as a California resident's vote. I tend to interpret that as meaning that the voice of rural citizens carries more weight, since I'm inclined to think of it in terms of electoral power per person rather than electoral power per acre.
Nauthiz, we're going to annex Australia into an American protectorate. But, since we're all about the democracy here, we're going to all vote on it. Of course, even if every single one of Australia's 20 million citizens voted against becoming the US's 51st state, you'd only need about 54% of America's 300 million citizens to vote in favor in order to have majority support - 161 million for to 159 million against.

Now, do you think that's fair, or do you think Australia ought to have a vote on the issue that's a little disproportionate to population size?

That's the reason why we have an Electoral College (and, actually, the reason why our House and Senate are set up the way they are). While it's easy today to think of the US as a single homogenous political entity, it's not really. It's still fifty smaller ones trying to work together.

[Doodler]

Exactly--that's why I'm not a propoment of a literal popular vote. But my argument is that, without dividing the individual state's EC votes (which, there's no set rule against, but the trend overwhelmingly tends to be award all votes to one candidate), you're not breaking it down far enough.

I wanted to check out Ohio (for obvious reasons), and found that outside of the areas imediately surrounding Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinatti, all the counties voted McCain.

But because there's more people in those three areas than in the rest of the state, all the EC votes go to Obama.

Now, on a state-wide level that means the votes indeed went to the candidate with the majority of Ohio votes. On a local level, I can tell you that the rural farming and small-town industries are very important to Ohio. But, since it's majority gets all, their overwelming support for the other candidate goes unheeded.

Personally I think it'd be wiser to award on the micro-level. But at the same time, looking at Ohio, the candidate that got the most votes won--and that's always what I've considered to be a legitimate vote. In other words, while I can say it's not how I'd like the system, I cannot call it a broken system either.


I guess I should've been clearer, because I intended what I said to echo this.

See, in Maryland, the priorities of people on the Eastern Shore (as defined by the Chesapeake Bay) tend to have very different interests than those in Central Maryland on the corridor between Baltimore and Washington. Western Maryland and Southern Maryland are yet other very different regions from either of those, yet its the central corridor that gets all the face time, because its where the people are.

In a split EC vote state, you're not battling for the state, but for the individual districts. Face time is required, whether you're looking at one person per square mile or one person per square foot.

On the other hand, that makes for a pretty convoluted election process, and to some degree, simply makes the whole ordeal even more cumbersome and obtrusive than it already is.

[nauthiz]

Best guess: Relative affluence. Democrats have been the big welfare party since the New Deal, and since the 50's saw the migration of affluent families into the suburbs and beyond and 70s migrations of low income families to inner city slums, the hand out givers have found their greatest support in those whom receive the bulk of the gifts.
Interestingly, here's a pair of maps that seems to suggest that that more affluent states tend to vote Democrat:
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2005/05/median_income_d.html

Though I've also heard that if you look at things on a smaller scale, the median income tends to be higher in voting districts that normally vote Republican.

All in all, it makes me think that there are likely to be a number of factors at play. For example, as a city dweller I come into contact with government-funded programs and whatnot a lot more than I did when I lived in a small town: city water vs. well water, using government-funded public transportation and Amtrak to get around on a daily basis rather than owning a car, public parks being my only real option for outdoor recreation, people around me using food handout and school lunch programs, signs saying where and when you can and cannot park your car posted every 15 feet, etc.

Some of that certainly falls under the category of wealth redistribution, but a lot of it is just that I think a person living in that kind of environment will tend to be more inured to a high degree of government involvement in their life, and therefore be more comfortable with a political party that promotes a higher level of government involvement in its citizens' lives.

[Fazor]

On the other hand, that makes for a pretty convoluted election process, and to some degree, simply makes the whole ordeal even more cumbersome and obtrusive than it already is.
Right, one of the problems of a split-vote system. That's why I can't say with confidence that it'd be better than the current system in most states. *shrug*

[Sticks]

If anyone is interested I am doing a roast pork joint tomorrow

[Jim]

I guess I should've been clearer, because I intended what I said to echo this.

See, in Maryland, the priorities of people on the Eastern Shore (as defined by the Chesapeake Bay) tend to have very different interests than those in Central Maryland on the corridor between Baltimore and Washington. Western Maryland and Southern Maryland are yet other very different regions from either of those, yet its the central corridor that gets all the face time, because its where the people are.

In a split EC vote state, you're not battling for the state, but for the individual districts. ...


You are still talking geography. You are looking at a map of Maryland and seeing larger red areas compared to smaller blue areas. That is a reflection of geography.

But, the votes are based on population. And so are the Congressional Districts. A small blue area may have several Districts while a large red area has only one.

So heavily populated Districts will still "get all the face time, because (that's) where the people are."

[nauthiz]

But, the votes are based on population. And so are the Congressional Districts. A small blue area may have several Districts while a large red area has only one.
I could walk around the border of my district in less than an hour.

[crosscountry]

Yeah, I've wondered about that before. I think it's to do with the fact that the handover timetable in the US was fixed a long time ago, when transportation was relatively slow. Plus it's a huge country; you've got to give every one time to move in/out.

I think it owes more to the fact that a long time ago votes were more difficult to count and sometimes people didn't know who won a western state for several weeks.




Oh, and don't take anything I post as a reaction to who was elected or what issues passed or didn't pass--I'm just talking about the system not yesterday's results in particular.

me neither.
On the other hand, for the purpose of a presidential election the voice of an individual person tends to be greater in less densely populated states. A Wyoming resident's vote, for example, is worth about three times as much as a California resident's vote. I tend to interpret that as meaning that the voice of rural citizens carries more weight, since I'm inclined to think of it in terms of electoral power per person rather than electoral power per acre.

Wow, I had no idea of that. There are 55 electoral votes in California and the population is about 35.5 million meaning 1.51e-6 EC per person. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and only 515000 people that gives them 5.8e-6 per person.

THAT'S CRAZY! Maybe California should have more EC votes or Wyoming fewer.

[crosscountry]

I could walk around the border of my district in less than an hour.



Districts represent an amount of people (except in Wyoming and California) Some places in West Texas are far larger than some states, yet they don't even get their own district because not enough people live there.

[Rift]

I've always wondered: what is it about cities that makes people liberal?


That's not always the case. In both instances where the Kansas Board of Education was 'bushwhacked' by out of state concerns, like the discovery institute, It was the cities that voted in creationist board members and the rural western counties that voted in pro-science board members.

I'm not sure why the reasons for that, but the Discovery Institute focused on the cities. But there was a surprising development, I read a lot of 'letters to the editiors' of various Kansas newspapers in the western counties (some of which have a few hundred people, if that many) where farmers would write in and say something to the effect of "Hell, I see evolution on a daily basis, why do i have to change to new antibiotics for my livestock, and pesticides and herbicides every few years."

'Red-necks' aren't always as dumb or conservative as they have the reputation for.

Kansas is very liberal in some ways, very conservative in others. Pro-stem cell, pro-evolution and a leader in racial and feminist issues (Obama's mother is a Kansan) , yet Pro-war in Iraq and anti-gun control. That's why the two party system sucks so badly.

The electoral college has it's uses. Statistically the 2000 election was a tie. Our technology was not up to the task of accurately counting that many votes. Although the founding fathers and the framers of the constitution didn't mean it to be, It's an excellent peaceful tie-breaker.

[Jens]

What we find odd in the UK, is that he has to wait until January to take office, in the UK the transition is overnight.

I'm willing to believe it, but is that really true? I would assume that in most democracies, there would be a lag between the election day and the next convening of parliament. Otherwise, you get this problem of who is the PM during the time when the votes are being counted and it's still not certain who will win.

The transition would be instantaneous in a situation like Blair resigning, but that's because it's an intraparty transfer. After an election, isn't there a time when a new PM has not yet been officially elected? In Japan, which I think is modeled after the UK, there is an election, and then within some time (2 weeks or something) the parliament is convened, and the new PM is officially elected. If the vote is split between the upper and lower house (as happened recently) the lower house wins. So the transition doesn't take place overnight.

[Sticks]

The day after polling day, as soon as it is clear which party has a majority of the new MP's, the Queen invites the leader of the largest party with the most number of new elected mps to Buckingham palace and asks them to form a government, that day.

A few days later mps will start taking the oath, but that day ofter polling day, the change in administration, if there is one is done overnight.

We do however keep the same civil servants who work at Number 10 Downing street

[Van Rijn]

Yeah, I've wondered about that before. I think it's to do with the fact that the handover timetable in the US was fixed a long time ago, when transportation was relatively slow. Plus it's a huge country; you've got to give every one time to move in/out.

Back in 2000, there was quite a bit of grumbling that the post election vote legal wrangling was eating into the transition time. It isn't just the President and Vice President that leave, but a huge transition in the executive branch.

[Jens]

The day after polling day, as soon as it is clear which party has a majority of the new MP's, the Queen invites the leader of the largest party with the most number of new elected mps to Buckingham palace and asks them to form a government, that day.

A few days later mps will start taking the oath, but that day ofter polling day, the change in administration, if there is one is done overnight.

We do however keep the same civil servants who work at Number 10 Downing street

That's cool to know. You people really are efficient about some things. :)

Is that why there is a shadow cabinet in place? So that the transition can start right away?

[geonuc]

Wow, I had no idea of that. There are 55 electoral votes in California and the population is about 35.5 million meaning 1.51e-6 EC per person. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes and only 515000 people that gives them 5.8e-6 per person.

THAT'S CRAZY! Maybe California should have more EC votes or Wyoming fewer.
That was a bit of a hot button topic in law school, as it seems to violate the 14th Amendment as applied to voting rights by the US Supreme Court (Reynolds v Sims - "one man, one vote"). Of course, then the US Constitution's requirement of two senators per state would also seem to be invalidated by the 14th.

Made for a lively discussion in school. :)

[Rift]

Back in 2000, there was quite a bit of grumbling that the post election vote legal wrangling was eating into the transition time. It isn't just the President and Vice President that leave, but a huge transition in the executive branch.


I remember some talk that late January wasn't enough time even in normal election years. It is a huge country and the transition change over is more complete than in the UK and Japan I believe. I don't have a problem waiting 3 months. I'm a patient man, I've waited 8 years.

Even if the Brits got the term "President Elect of the United States" wrong in the season 3 finale of the New Doctor Who :P

[PraedSt]

Is that why there is a shadow cabinet in place? So that the transition can start right away?

This might be a bonus. The main reason is to have a permanent 'point-man' around to argue with the corresponding Cabinet member.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Doodler, you're looking at geography, not population.
But it is nonetheless the case that many electoral areas in the US have been gerrymandered with the obvious aim of giving the party in power a better chance in the next election. The fact that the definition of electoral areas should lie within the gift of the politically elected power of the moment, who can gerrymander it in order to boost their winning chances, is one of the on-going scandals of US democracy.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander for some examples. An article in The Economist a few years ago showed some even more extremely gerrymandered US electoral district maps that were almost fractal in their octopus-like shapes.

I agree that the party in power tends not to have any interest in electoral reform. After all, the present system is the one that got it elected. When I was young, the demographic geography in Britain meant that the one certain party could reasonably expect to win an election on a smaller vote than the other. The loser tended to be in favour of electoral reform at this time. But now the demographic geography has changed so that the balance of the advantage lies much more in the other direction. Unsurprisingly, that party came into power and had by then lost its interest in electoral reform.

But there is no ideal voting system. This presentation of Arrow's paradox doesn't really bring that out, but that is what it means. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem I'm too lazy to look for a better explanation now.

[Fazor]

You are still talking geography. You are looking at a map of Maryland and seeing larger red areas compared to smaller blue areas. That is a reflection of geography.

Jim, that's still the point. If you want flat-out representation by population, then the current system is fine. What myself and doodler are arguing is that the wants/needs of the people in the less populated areas are ignored with the current system. Someone who lives in Columbus doesn't really care (and is most likely not even familiar with) issues that affect Farmer John (Deere, of course) out in Perry County. Yet, if all the farmers vote one way, but all the city folk vote another, the farmers will never win.

Nor should they "win" ... but wouldn't it make sense to at least award some of the EC votes based on what that particular demographic voted?

[PraedSt]

That's not always the case...

Thanks for that answer Rift. But a slight misunderstanding here, my fault. Two of the issues you used, creationism and gun-control, are more or less American phenomena. Conservatives who live elsewhere, think they're nuts.

Two-party can suck. But I think you (and other two-party countries) are lucky. Multi-party can be a big fat mess.

I also like your EC system. It's provides for a good balance at the end of the day.

But there is no ideal voting system.
Yes. You Americans should stick to yours, it's not half bad. Also, for heaven's sake, don't let Mugs into this thread. :)

[Moose]

Two-party can suck. But I think you (and other two-party countries) are lucky. Multi-party can be a big fat mess.

Multi-party works well (usually) as long as there's some degree of balance to the political niches. You're more likely to run into trouble when the party spread is such that some parties overlap enough to experience vote splitting while others do not.

That's been an issue in Canada over the past few decades, first on the right (when the Reformers split from the Tories), and now on the left (when the Liberals, NDP and Green parties tend to split votes while facing the unified Progressive Conservative Party).

The more significant parties there are, the more negociation and horse trading there tends to be when it comes time to design and pass legislation. Overall, it's been good for us, I think.

[PraedSt]

Ah, you've found it ok have you? That's lucky! You've actually pointed out a couple of things that I've found go wrong.

Once the notion of two major parties is weakened, splintering tends to happen.
The horse trading!
And leading on from that, the slow pace of reform.

Frankly, some days I like the idea of an elected dictator :)

[Jim]

Jim, that's still the point. If you want flat-out representation by population, then the current system is fine. What myself and doodler are arguing is that the wants/needs of the people in the less populated areas are ignored with the current system. Someone who lives in Columbus doesn't really care (and is most likely not even familiar with) issues that affect Farmer John (Deere, of course) out in Perry County. Yet, if all the farmers vote one way, but all the city folk vote another, the farmers will never win.

Nor should they "win" ... but wouldn't it make sense to at least award some of the EC votes based on what that particular demographic voted?

I really cannot be responsible for the way Maryland (or even Texas) chooses to draw its districts. I feel that a district should represent people with a common interest, but most Legislatures seem to prefer creating them based on voting preferences.

As long as Leges use voting preference to draw districts (to make "safe" districts... an abomination in my opinion) I would not feel comfortable awarding electoral votes by district.

The EC has worked quite well for a couple of hundred years now. IIRC, only once has a candidate with the lead in popular vote not also won the majority of the EC votes.

What I don't want to see is a nationwide repeat of Florida. That is, "If we can challenge just a few votes in this District, we'll get its electoral vote. Then we challenge a few in that District and another one and..."

[hhEb09'1]

Districts represent an amount of people (except in Wyoming and California) Why Wyoming and California? Wyoming only has one district--the entire state. I think every state that has more than one is required by law to redistrict by population to within a rough tolerance, at the census.
The day after polling day, as soon as it is clear which party has a majority of the new MP's, the Queen invites the leader of the largest party with the most number of new elected mps to Buckingham palace and asks them to form a government, that day.

A few days later mps will start taking the oath, but that day ofter polling day, the change in administration, if there is one is done overnight.

We do however keep the same civil servants who work at Number 10 Downing streetAnd you keep the Queen! :)

[Fazor]

As long as Leges use voting preference to draw districts (to make "safe" districts... an abomination in my opinion) I would not feel comfortable awarding electoral votes by district.
There's ways of dealing with gerrymandering. I agree that without dealing with that, EC-by-district would be a nightmare. But you can do regional sectioning. By county or by groups of counties.

The EC system came about to give smaller states a more-fair (but still representative) portion of the vote, so that every state gets an influential say in the national matters. What I'm arguing is that the same principle should apply on the micro-level. Whether that could be done and done efficiently is another matter (and I could foresee a huge mess if they did try to go that route).

[Fazor]

To refute my own argument though; division of electoral votes would most likely just end up a matter of symantics. If Candidate A wins, say Ohio, by 12 EC votes to 10 EC votes, he still won the sate. Multiply that by all the states and you still get the same result.

I guess what makes looking at the presidential results by county is when you think about statewide issues (which obviously don't involve the EC). Any state-wide issue can easily be determined by the three or four (in ohio) "highly populated" areas, but be in complete contradiction to the rest of the sate.

[Rift]

Thanks for that answer Rift. But a slight misunderstanding here, my fault. Two of the issues you used, creationism and gun-control, are more or less American phenomena. Conservatives who live elsewhere, think they're nuts.


I disagree, they are not American phenomena. For gun control, Finland is a recent, and tragic, example.

And as much as Europeans like to sweep creationism under the rug, it rears it's ugly head there from time to time as well. Like it or not.

I myself stand in the middle ground for gun control. More control, but still have 'em. I lean far to the left on evolution, for example. I don't even fit into the two party system. So I'm unaffiliated. With only two parties to choose from? It sucks.

Just for the record, there were 5 parties on the Kansas Ballot- Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Reform, and Nader ran as an independent. First time I can remember since I started voting in the early '80s there wasn't a communist party candidate.

[SeanF]

To refute my own argument though; division of electoral votes would most likely just end up a matter of symantics. If Candidate A wins, say Ohio, by 12 EC votes to 10 EC votes, he still won the sate. Multiply that by all the states and you still get the same result.
On the one hand, yes. You can say that about changing to a popular vote contest, too - elections in which one candidate wins the popular vote but does not win the EC are few and far between.

But what we need to keep in mind is that these campaigns were run with the knowledge that the EC vote is what's important. If we were to change to a popular vote (or if most or all states were to switch to a Maine-style split EC), the candidates would necessarily change their campaign strategies. So it's not really valid to look at past elections to decide whether a different electoral process would reach different results.

But what you're saying would probably hold true. In a split-EC system, the Republican candidate would probably pick up a few votes in California, but probably lose a few in Texas. Overall, it'd likely be pretty close to a wash.

[PraedSt]

I disagree, they are not American phenomena. For gun control, Finland is a recent, and tragic, example.

And as much as Europeans like to sweep creationism under the rug, it rears it's ugly head there from time to time as well. Like it or not.

'More or less' I said Rift, more or less. ;)
These are social sciences; unlike the proper sciences, exceptions prove the rule here. :D

[Fazor]

But what you're saying would probably hold true. In a split-EC system, the Republican candidate would probably pick up a few votes in California, but probably lose a few in Texas. Overall, it'd likely be pretty close to a wash.
Right. It could very well be a lot of work and headache, and an added layer of complexity in an already cumbersome process, that would just lead to the same result. I really don't know if split-EC voting would help or just be a longer road to the same conclusion.

[SeanF]

I really don't know if split-EC voting would help or just be a longer road to the same conclusion.
Well, now, that's a false dichotomy. It could make a difference, but for the worse rather than for the better. ;)

[Fazor]

Well, now, that's a false dichotomy. It could make a difference, but for the worse rather than for the better. ;)

Except you're forgetting Fazor's Law; any opinion of Fazor's can never be bad, some are just less brilliant than others.

:whistle:

[Gillianren]

The EC has worked quite well for a couple of hundred years now. IIRC, only once has a candidate with the lead in popular vote not also won the majority of the EC votes.

Though there are two occasions of the thing getting tangled in the House.

[timb]

The EC has worked quite well for a couple of hundred years now. IIRC, only once has a candidate with the lead in popular vote not also won the majority of the EC votes.

Samuel J. Tilden 1876
Grover Cleveland 1888
Albert Gore 2000

[Fazor]

Fazor 2012. Oh, shhh that's suppose to be secret.

[PraedSt]

Samuel J. Tilden 1876
Grover Cleveland 1888
Albert Gore 2000

I'd say 3 times in over 200yrs is pretty good! You should look and see what other countries have been up-to during that time...

Also, the system designers were stars :)

[Van Rijn]

Two-party can suck. But I think you (and other two-party countries) are lucky. Multi-party can be a big fat mess.


I suppose it is "Grass is greener" but I'd like to see more major parties in the U.S. Without going into the details, I think there are at least four major subgroups of political thought in the U.S. that get forcefitted into the two parties. I think that often leads to major compromises in votors' choices, and major compromises in the choices politicians make in order to stay closer to their party.

[Fazor]

I don't like "political parties" to begin with. I'm opposed to voting based on anything other than the individual candidates ideals/actions. But I would like it to be a more level playing field so that others outside of the established parties at least stood a chance.

There were like 5 other Pres/VP candidates on the ballot that I'd never heard of. How do I know that they weren't better suited for the job? (The fact that you've never heard of them can be an indication of their qualifications, but not necessarily). ((and yes, I've heard of Nader ;)))

[timb]

I suppose it is "Grass is greener"

The Greens are grassier.

[mike alexander]

This site has some excellent cartograms, showing different ways of scaling the country by population:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/

The third from the bottom is among the best, since it gives a semiquantitative assessment of the percentage split in each county (red through purple to blue). The US is really quite purple.

[PraedSt]

This site has some excellent cartograms, showing different ways of scaling the country by population:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/ (http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Emejn/election/2008/)

The third from the bottom is among the best, since it gives a semiquantitative assessment of the percentage split in each county (red through purple to blue). The US is really quite purple.

That's a good link Mike :clap:

[Doodler]

As long as Leges use voting preference to draw districts (to make "safe" districts... an abomination in my opinion) I would not feel comfortable awarding electoral votes by district.


Technically, gerrymandering is illegal...unfortunately, the people drawing the lines write the laws...:sick:

[crosscountry]

Technically, gerrymandering is illegal...unfortunately, the people drawing the lines write the laws...:sick:

exactly. who's going to punish themselves?

Nice link Mike.

[Sparverius]

Jim, that\'s still the point. If you want flat-out representation by population, then the current system is fine. What myself and doodler are arguing is that the wants/needs of the people in the less populated areas are ignored with the current system. Someone who lives in Columbus doesn\'t really care (and is most likely not even familiar with) issues that affect Farmer John (Deere, of course) out in Perry County. Yet, if all the farmers vote one way, but all the city folk vote another, the farmers will never win.

Nor should they \"win\" ... but wouldn\'t it make sense to at least award some of the EC votes based on what that particular demographic voted?

The wants and needs of the minority are always ignored in a popular vote system, whether they are geographically segregated or interspersed among the majority. If people living in one type of geographic area have representation proportionately greater than their population, should be do the same thing along other dimensions as well? Should minority racial groups get extra representation? How about minority linguistic groups? Members of socio-economic groups that are in the minority? Minority religions? Workers in small industries, rather than large industries? People who like to play cricket instead of football?

Why is geography the special criterion?

[hhEb09'1]

Why is geography the special criterion?Historically, we tried to encourage expansion and development of certain geographic areas. Rural areas, and their requirements, needed less dense population but were important to urban areas. Although there is an indirect representation (as the city-dweller is aware of their needs and "takes care" of the rural area), a direct representation often works better to meet those ends. Times have changed, but there is still a stratification.

[Jens]

But it is nonetheless the case that many electoral areas in the US have been gerrymandered with the obvious aim of giving the party in power a better chance in the next election. The fact that the definition of electoral areas should lie within the gift of the politically elected power of the moment, who can gerrymander it in order to boost their winning chances, is one of the on-going scandals of US democracy.


I don't think that it's only a US phenomenon, and though unfortunate, it's hard to do anything about it. Districts have to be divided somewhere (because of population shifts), so somebody has to make the decision, and that decision will tend to help or hurt the party in power. So it's hard to get the ruling party to make decisions that will go against its interests. I suppose one way to do it would be to use a computer algorithm to randomly create districts. It's the same thing with snap elections in countries that have them. You really can't expect the ruling party to decide to call snap elections at a time that will hurt it.

[timb]

I disagree, they are not American phenomena. For gun control, Finland is a recent, and tragic, example.

What happened? have they implemented gun control?

[HenrikOlsen]

I don't think that it's only a US phenomenon, and though unfortunate, it's hard to do anything about it. Districts have to be divided somewhere (because of population shifts), so somebody has to make the decision, and that decision will tend to help or hurt the party in power. So it's hard to get the ruling party to make decisions that will go against its interests. I suppose one way to do it would be to use a computer algorithm to randomly create districts. It's the same thing with snap elections in countries that have them. You really can't expect the ruling party to decide to call snap elections at a time that will hurt it.
One system that for the most part negates the gerrymandering scam is to have districts elect local reps, but keep score of the overall popular vote as well, then adjust the total number of reps to be as close to proportional to the vote as possible, basically offsetting the gerrymandering by compensating for its effects.

The result would be that district borders would have little to no effect on the overall result.

Again, as its a case where the party in power would have to relinquish a means of staying in power it's unlikely to be implemented anytime soon.

[SeanF]

One system that for the most part negates the gerrymandering scam is to have districts elect local reps, but keep score of the overall popular vote as well, then adjust the total number of reps to be as close to proportional to the vote as possible, basically offsetting the gerrymandering by compensating for its effects.
Uh, the whole point of districts is that each district gets the same number of reps (usually, but not always, one) as every other district...

[crosscountry]

and furthermore, those districts may eventually change in population/politics. Of course that wouldn't be a problem, cause there representative would still represent them effectively.

[hhEb09'1]

and furthermore, those districts may eventually change in population/politics. In the US, the number of representatives is fixed, but the number for each state is adjusted as the population of each state is adjusted. Then, the states adjust their district boundaries, sometimes adding districts even, or subtracting.

Gerrymandering thus is not affected much by population differences. But a party in power can take a district that is strongly controlled by them, and divide it so that half goes to each of two other districts--that way, they win both of those districts. If there are districts strongly controlled by the minority, the majority can partition them all so that none of the districts are controlled by the minority. Nowadays, gerrymandering is sometimes done to stitch together neighborhoods of racial minorities so that a minority representative can be elected--but that can be overdone, if all the minority neighborhoods are lumped into a single district, so that they can only win one, rather than maybe two.

[Disinfo Agent]

I disagree, they are not American phenomena. For gun control, Finland is a recent, and tragic, example.What happened? have they implemented gun control?Au contraire, they seem to be having some problems controlling their guns.

[jrkeller]

Samuel J. Tilden 1876
Grover Cleveland 1888
Albert Gore 2000

I just like to point out for these three cases, no candidate had at least 50% of the popular vote.

[crosscountry]

In the US, the number of representatives is fixed, but the number for each state is adjusted as the population of each state is adjusted. Then, the states adjust their district boundaries, sometimes adding districts even, or subtracting.

Gerrymandering thus is not affected much by population differences. But a party in power can take a district that is strongly controlled by them, and divide it so that half goes to each of two other districts--that way, they win both of those districts. If there are districts strongly controlled by the minority, the majority can partition them all so that none of the districts are controlled by the minority. Nowadays, gerrymandering is sometimes done to stitch together neighborhoods of racial minorities so that a minority representative can be elected--but that can be overdone, if all the minority neighborhoods are lumped into a single district, so that they can only win one, rather than maybe two.

I understand all of that and have witnessed the negative side of it first hand while living in Texas.

[hhEb09'1]

I understand all of that and have witnessed the negative side of it first hand while living in Texas.They put'em up in Oklahoma, don't they? :)

Still, after that, what did you mean by this (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/80911-electoral-college-3.html#post1359219http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/80911-electoral-college-3.html#post1359219):Districts represent an amount of people (except in Wyoming and California)

[crosscountry]

They put'em up in Oklahoma, don't they? :)

Still, after that, what did you mean by this (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/80911-electoral-college-3.html#post1359219http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/80911-electoral-college-3.html#post1359219):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College
D.C. has the second highest per-capita Electoral College representation, after Wyoming

"and specifically using the Banzhaf Power Index (BPI). In this model, individual voters in California (highest electoral vote count) had approximately 3.3 times more individual power to choose a President as voters of Montana (highest population with the minimum 3 electors) in 1990."

and those in California have three times LESS than those in Wyoming.

Divide the electoral votes of each state by the population. Each person in Wyoming has approximately 4x the voting potential that of a Californian, and Montana has 2.2x more than California. Montanans are at a 2:1 disadvantage to their southern neighbors.

Montana 944,632 people - 3 votes
Wyoming 515,004 people -3 votes
California 36,457,549 - 53 votes

each person in Montana gets 3.17*10^-6 electoral votes
Wyoming 5.8*10^-6
California 1.4*10^-6

[crosscountry]

in that statement I was exaggerating the issue. No state gets exactly equal that another state gets.

[Jim]

Technically, gerrymandering is illegal...unfortunately, the people drawing the lines write the laws...:sick:

It depends on the reasons for the gerrymandering. The DOJ and US Courts have determined that redrawing districts to fit political profiles is acceptable as long as non-political minorities are not disadvantaged.

When the Texas Lege redrew the US House Districts a few years back, they redrew them along partisan political lines, making those "safe" districts I find deplorable*. The DOJ and Courts ruled this was okay, but ordered the redrawing of two districts that had disadvantaged Hispanic voters.

The Constitution protects you based on your religion, race, ethnicity, gender, health, intelligence... every human condition except political affiliation.

* I feel that a Representative should represent all of his/her constituents. Making a district safe for one party removes that need; you don't have to represent everyone, just be a good party member.

I want Representatives of whatever flavor to be in fear for their jobs if they don't perform well and truly represent all their constituents.

[Jim]

... Divide the electoral votes of each state by the population. Each person in Wyoming has approximately 4x the voting potential that of a Californian, and Montana has 2.2x more than California. Montanans are at a 2:1 disadvantage to their southern neighbors.

Montana 944,632 people - 3 votes
Wyoming 515,004 people -3 votes
California 36,457,549 - 53 votes

each person in Montana gets 3.17*10^-6 electoral votes
Wyoming 5.8*10^-6
California 1.4*10^-6

You did it backwards.

The US Constitution requires that House seats be assigned based on population with every state having at least one. The number of seats was fixed in 1911 at 435. Combine those two, and there is no way you can get equal representation (without moving people from state to state).

So, Title 2 U.S. Code calls for the method of equal proportions; it has been used in every census since 1940. First, each state is assigned one House seat, as required by the Constitution. Then the apportionment formula allocates the remaining 385 House seats one at a time among the 50 states until all 435 seats are assigned.

[ToSeek]

In the US, the number of representatives is fixed,

It should be noted that this is under Congressional control and could easily changed; however, Congress has not seen fit to change the number of representatives since 1911.

[Jim]

It should be noted that this is under Congressional control and could easily changed; however, Congress has not seen fit to change the number of representatives since 1911.

Yeah, seems like someone mentioned that already.

BTW, it was changed to 437 when Alaska and Hawaii were given statehood, but reverted to 435.

[hhEb09'1]

[
"and specifically using the Banzhaf Power Index (BPI). In this model, individual voters in California (highest electoral vote count) had approximately 3.3 times more individual power to choose a President as voters of Montana (highest population with the minimum 3 electors) in 1990."You realize that this quote is just the opposite of the point you seem to be making in the rest of your post?in that statement I was exaggerating the issue. No state gets exactly equal that another state gets.Ah! I couldn't figure out why California was thrown in there as a unique point. Its situation is not that different from Texas or Florida or New York..You did it backwards.
I think he did it right, in that he was making that point. He wasn't trying to explain why the apportionment is done that way--just point out what the results are.


The electoral college, of course, just reflects the disproportion in the Senators and Representatives, who can have a great influence on a personal basis. I'm looking forward to the day everyone is crowded out of New Jersey by corporate entities except the two senators and one representative and the governor, and their husbands. :)

[crosscountry]

:lol:


I think I did it right. First, I was talking about electoral votes - not representatives. Second the point was clear that a person in Wyoming has more influence on the overall result than a person in California. Currently it doesn't matter much since both states have voted consistently in the last few elections.

[hhEb09'1]

Second the point was clear that a person in Wyoming has more influence on the overall result than a person in California. It was clear, except for your quote from the wiki article, which as at odds with that. :) Currently it doesn't matter much since both states have voted consistently in the last few elections.That's the reason for the system, really. People from an area tend to vote similarly. O sure, time ebbs and flows, but enough has been made of the red state/blue state thing that I don't think that point has to be refined much more.

And regions will have representation. If the will of say California held sway over say Wyoming you'd probably not convince anybody to live there. OK, maybe San Sauradorians, but look what problems that'd cause.

[timb]

It depends on the reasons for the gerrymandering. The DOJ and US Courts have determined that redrawing districts to fit political profiles is acceptable as long as non-political minorities are not disadvantaged.

When the Texas Lege redrew the US House Districts a few years back, they redrew them along partisan political lines, making those "safe" districts I find deplorable*. The DOJ and Courts ruled this was okay, but ordered the redrawing of two districts that had disadvantaged Hispanic voters.

The Constitution protects you based on your religion, race, ethnicity, gender, health, intelligence... every human condition except political affiliation.

* I feel that a Representative should represent all of his/her constituents. Making a district safe for one party removes that need; you don't have to represent everyone, just be a good party member.


Ideally, from the point of view of a Representative, they don't have to represent anyone when the system works as intended. If you are, for example, a Democrat rep in a constituency that is 65% Democrat, you can pretty much ignore your constituents. If they don't like it what are they going to do? vote for a Republican?

I want Representatives of whatever flavor to be in fear for their jobs if they don't perform well and truly represent all their constituents.

I find it bizarre that US law has no problem with politicians manipulating boundaries to their political advantage, but objects if they fail to engage in racial and ethnic gerrymandering. Oddly this may have the effect of making the Senate elections more open than House elections, because they can't gerrymander the State borders.

Why don't they have an independent electoral commission that sets boundaries?

[timb]

Nowadays, gerrymandering is sometimes done to stitch together neighborhoods of racial minorities so that a minority representative can be elected--but that can be overdone, if all the minority neighborhoods are lumped into a single district, so that they can only win one, rather than maybe two.

There seems to be a rather strange set of presumptions at work there: that people vote on racial lines, and that it is desirable for the system to accomodate this. AFAIK there are no electorally significant White, Black, or Hispanic parties in the US. All respectable political parties are open to persons of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. No racial gerrymandering was required to get Obama elected, so why is it necessary to create "Black" and "Hispanic" representative districts?

I just like to point out for these three cases, no candidate had at least 50% of the popular vote.

The US almost always conducts elections on a first-past-the-post basis. I think that system is bad, but that is their standard.

[Sticks]

So has this college actually selected the president elect yet?

[Musashi]

No.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Meetings_of_electors

[mugaliens]

I think it's interesting that the term "state" originally referred to a country, as a nation-state (Italy), but could also be sub-national states (Texas), or multinational states (the EU). Our State Department is so named because of the definition of a state: "a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population."

Two hundred years ago, that definition held true for each state in the union, and the electoral college, Representatives, and Senators, were chosen accordingly. Today, it has little practical meaning, other than as a convenient way of ensuring one state's tax resources aren't all divvied out to other states or the nation as a whole.

[Jim]

The US almost always conducts elections on a first-past-the-post basis. I think that system is bad, but that is their standard.

I'm not sure what you mean by this... that you don't need 50% +1 of a state's popular vote to get it's electoral votes?

Think of the alternative, though. If no candidate gets that 50% +1 in a particular state, you'd have to hold a runoff. That could mean we'd be holding runoffs for the 2008 election in December, which would play hob with the start of the 2012 primary campaigns.

[geonuc]

Two hundred years ago, that definition held true for each state in the union, and the electoral college, Representatives, and Senators, were chosen accordingly. Today, it has little practical meaning, other than as a convenient way of ensuring one state's tax resources aren't all divvied out to other states or the nation as a whole.
I don't know about that. The fifty states of the US retain a lot of their original sovereignty.

[crosscountry]

I agree with that.

[TheHalcyonYear]

I'm not sure what you mean by this... that you don't need 50% +1 of a state's popular vote to get it's electoral votes?

Think of the alternative, though. If no candidate gets that 50% +1 in a particular state, you'd have to hold a runoff. That could mean we'd be holding runoffs for the 2008 election in December, which would play hob with the start of the 2012 primary campaigns.
Not to mention that before such a system could be adopted, a constitutional amendment, or perhaps even a set of constitutional amendments, would have to be proposed and then ratified by three fourths of the states.

[hhEb09'1]

Not to mention that before such a system could be adopted, a constitutional amendment, or perhaps even a set of constitutional amendments, would have to be proposed and then ratified by three fourths of the states.Why? Why would it be any different from Nebraska's giving one electoral vote to Obama and four to McCain? I mean, as long as it was done before the first Monday after the sford Wuesday in December, like Jim says?

[TheHalcyonYear]

Why? Why would it be any different from Nebraska's giving one electoral vote to Obama and four to McCain? I mean, as long as it was done before the first Monday after the sford Wuesday in December, like Jim says?
I suggest a bit of research on your part is in order. The states can, I believe, apportion electoral votes according to popular vote within the state. This is not, however, the same as a direct, popular vote system since under the electoral college each state is given electoral votes not only in accordance with its proportion of the national population, but also with each state getting an additional two electoral votes simply for being states. Therefore, the vote of an an individual in a state with a small population counts a bit more than that of an individual from a populous state. (So if you want the biggest bang for your vote move somewhere like Montana :) )

There have been a number of reforms put forward that would allow the electoral college to become very close to direct vote, but, technically speaking, it can never be a direct vote system. In addition, the constitution specifies that the president be elected through the electoral college. So, to replace this system by direct vote would require a constitutional amendment.

[Jim]

... as long as it was done before the first Monday after the sford Wuesday in December, like Jim says?

I said what?

[hhEb09'1]

I suggest a bit of research on your part is in order.Yikes. I didn't think Jim was talking about changing away from the electoral college.

I said what?But who am I to say?

[geonuc]

Yikes. I didn't think Jim was talking about changing away from the electoral college.

I didn't read it that way, either. His comment concerned the issue (brought up by timb) of how states decide who won the election (majority vs plurality), not how the results are applied to the electoral college, or to a hypothetical popular vote mechanism.

Jim's comment is valid and relevant. My state of Georgia will hold a runoff election to decide the contested US Senate seat, as nobody won the required 50%+1 majority in the general election. If every state had that, things could get messy.

[Jim]

Yikes. I didn't think Jim was talking about changing away from the electoral college.

But who am I to say?

I was actually responding to your line "first Monday after the sford Wuesday."

As for the EC, I am not advocating we do away with it; it may be arcane, but it has worked well and (IMO) kept us out of trouble several times when a strictly popular vote could have brought down the government.

As for instituting a 50+1 rule and holding runoffs, the SCOTUS has set a time table for having results finalized. Any runoff system would have to stay within that timeframe.

And that could cause problems. GA has decided on a runoff, but MN and AL are still counting ballots. What happens if the runoff is that close?

Even if we amend the Constitution to allow for runoffs, what happens to the transition time?

[SeanF]

First of all, what Jim suggested:
If no candidate gets that 50% +1 in a particular state, you'd have to hold a runoff. That could mean we'd be holding runoffs for the 2008 election in December, which would play hob with the start of the 2012 primary campaigns.
Would not require any Constitutional amendment. Any state could decide to do this on their own.

And if they couldn't get their EC resolved by the federally mandated date, they'd lose their EC votes for that election. In this particular election, you'd have to have quite a few Obama states lost in order to get him down below the required 270 votes. But in a close election like in 2000, it could cause the presidential election to get tossed to Congress.

In a real close election like in 2000, though, we don't even need run-offs to have issues! :D

[mugaliens]

I don't know about that. The fifty states of the US retain a lot of their original sovereignty.

Quite right - they do.

However, the world has changed around them, and while states do retain their sovereignty over issues preeminent during yesteryear, they have little sovereignty over most issues facing us today, issues which the Fed has (more or less) picked up the ball on.

Thus, the effect is that the states hold far less sovereignty over the issues which concern us most, today, than they held over the issues which concerned our forefathers, and their forefathers before them.

[Gruesome]

That was a bit of a hot button topic in law school, as it seems to violate the 14th Amendment as applied to voting rights by the US Supreme Court (Reynolds v Sims - "one man, one vote"). Of course, then the US Constitution's requirement of two senators per state would also seem to be invalidated by the 14th.

Made for a lively discussion in school. :)


First off...there is no such thing as a "right" to vote for president. Article I gives the state legislatures pretty much plenary power to determine the manner in which its electors are chosen. Since the states have given the power to the electorate the Court treats the vote like it's a right, but it's really not. Any state could decide by coin toss, if it so desired.

It's also important to remember that the election of the president is not really one election, but a weighted conglomeration of fifty-one separate elections, so as long as each state (or D.C.) treats its voters the same within each region it's not a 14th violation.

After the 2000 election mess - or E2K - when the Electoral College was scrutinized, I took a look at the numbers. Repealing the EC would require ratification by 75% of the states. That means 13 states (a curious number) could shoot the whole thing down. As it turned out there were 13 states with 6 or less electoral votes and I found it hard to believe those states would agree to eliminate their influence in the election of the president. So I doubt it'll happen.

I tend to agree with Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist #68 that the electoral college "be not perfect, it is at least excellent."

http://federali.st/68

[Jim]

First, I am not in favor of popular vote replacing the EC, or of 50+1 to decide the EC. The former has the possibility of opening too many wormy cans for my taste; the latteropens some cans, too, but probably wouldn't be adopted by any state anyway.

Think about it. The second Tuesday following the first Monday comes. All 50 states plus DC head to the polls. The results start coming in... VT to A, KS to B, CA to B... and one state is going to a runoff.

That means that state could be left out of deciding who wins. B gets 270+ EC votes Tuesday night, while one state can't make up its mind. It will have to hold a runoff in December, with the whole country - and world - watching and knowing it just doesn't matter anymore.

Now, if you can guarantee that such a runoff will decide the election, every state will jump onboard; if you can't, none of them will.

Think Missouri. Have they ever reached a conclusion? And, who really cares?

[geonuc]

First off...there is no such thing as a "right" to vote for president. Article I gives the state legislatures pretty much plenary power to determine the manner in which its electors are chosen. Since the states have given the power to the electorate the Court treats the vote like it's a right, but it's really not. Any state could decide by coin toss, if it so desired.
I didn't say anything about a right to vote for president.

[Gruesome]

I didn't say anything about a right to vote for president.

True enough. But you mentioned voting rights and since this is a thread about the electoral college, which elects the president, I guess I just assumed.

I apologize for any harm my comments caused you or your family.

[timb]

First, I am not in favor of popular vote replacing the EC, or of 50+1 to decide the EC. The former has the possibility of opening too many wormy cans for my taste; the latteropens some cans, too, but probably wouldn't be adopted by any state anyway.

Think about it. The second Tuesday following the first Monday comes. All 50 states plus DC head to the polls. The results start coming in... VT to A, KS to B, CA to B... and one state is going to a runoff.


If your voters can count past one, then you can use a single transferable vote election and no runoffs are required.

[timb]

I'm not sure what you mean by this... that you don't need 50% +1 of a state's popular vote to get it's electoral votes?


First past the post is a system where voters can express a preference for only one candidate, and the candidate who receives the most such expressions of preference wins.

[geonuc]

I apologize for any harm my comments caused you or your family.
Too late. My cat, Chuck, heard about your grievous slight to our family and has left the house seeking revenge. He doesn't carry a cell phone.

[Jim]

If your voters can count past one...

So, you're saying this system is useless in much of the US?