One Person, One vote, Not in the USA

[LennG]

  This is about politics, but not about anyone in particular. It is about the system of elections as we know it today, popular vote versus the electoral college.
 There has been a debate going on for years now to do away with the electoral college form of electing our president and just leave it to the popular vote.

There was  every interesting article in my local paper today about this, and I fully agree

http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/opinion-if-mitt-romney-wins-and-loses-blame-the-electoral-college-1.4141398

A candidate can be the most popular one yet lose the election because of the electoral college. It has already happened as recently as 2000 where George Bush had less popular votes than Al Gore, but had the required electoral votes to become president. Is that how it really should be??

In today's world, candidates really do not even have to campaign in maybe 35 states as they are basically set in their ways. Does that deprive those citizens of even knowing their candidates?.

Personally, I think a better system is to divide the electoral votes among the winners and losers of districts or however they need to be divided, according to their vote count. In our present system, take a state like Ohio. If either candidate wins the popular vote by say ONE vote, they get the entire states electoral vote count. Is that fair? That is basically saying all the other votes do not count.  Shouldn't there be a percentage of the electoral votes going to each candidate to show how their voters really feel?.

Much has been made over the electoral system as being archaic. When it was set up it was done for good reason, yet now a days, it does seem very, very antiquated and in dire need of reform.

As I see it, if a person, a candidate, an incumbent, is wanted by more people in this entire country than those that do not want him, he should win, no questions asked.

Without bringing anything political into this, what do you think.

• Tweet

[jimv]

Here in Maine, the winner of the popular vote doesn't always get all four Electoral votes.  If the loser of the popular vote still "wins" one of the two Congressional Districts, he gets that one electoral vote.  As matter of fact, Maine being a Statesafely in the Obama column, there could an electoral vote for Romney.  The polls show him in the lead in the 2nd Congressional District.

[LennG]

 that is the entire point Jim. glad to hear Maine is one up on the rest of the country.

[vette]

I see your point Len, but there are reasons why we started the system we have and why it is likely to never change. Here is a good short article. After reading that article, consider this election and how one group of people of religious persuasion or of a certain race mindset could elect one candidate over another based purely on numbers. I can discuss this in more detail privately if you like but I think you're savvy enough that I don't need to clarify any further.

In a perfect world, I'm with you all the way.

http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

[LennG]

Ed

 I understand your point perfectly, but the article did seem to also want to slant towards a correction in the system, which, to me, would make a better system.

But, as the article says, getting anyone to agree to anything in congress today, well we know the answer to that.

I just think that the way our Forefathers set up the system it was perfect, for the 1700's, 1800 and maybe even the 1900's, but in today's world I just believe it is antiquated and needs realigning. Can another Hitler come up today and gain the popular vote and possibly become President sure, but that could also happen with our present system. But to split the vote, according to percentages, or districts in individual states, I believe, would prevent something like that from ever happening here, and make for a much fairer way to elect our next president. 

[slg11]

Exactly for the reasons stated in the writing I think its time for the system to be changed. Time has really made the electoral college obsoltete. Do the small states really need a buffer from the big states? You have less of a chance of corruption and voter fraud that would be meaningful when one vote means one vote out of the country and not a state. See Illinois in 1960 and Florida in 2000.

[babywhales]

 that is the entire point Jim. glad to hear Maine is one up on the rest of the country.

It is up to each state to decide how they delegate their delegates...so it becomes a politically fued

Extremist here in wisconsin are proposing changes to Wisconsin's approach. 
 
 
 

[Jim143]

I think we should take it one step further and the winning ticket maintain the presidency and the losing ticket produce the Vice President.

[Mr. Matt]

 that is the entire point Jim. glad to hear Maine is one up on the rest of the country.

Maine's system, where majorities in a congressional district determine electoral votes, would likely lead to "Gerrymandering" effecting Presidential elections if it were practiced in larger states. Unfortunately we can't trust either political party to play fair when they are in power.

I think we should take it one step further and the winning ticket maintain the presidency and the losing ticket produce the Vice President.

This was actually the practice until 1804, Jim. It caused all kinds of problems in its own right.

Personally, I agree that the electoral college is antiquated and favor a single popular vote. However, I feel a much bigger problem that must be tackled regarding modern elections is the sway PACs and big donors have over public perception with their advertising dollars in the mass media. Sadly, most of the electorate is woefully uninformed and their votes are cast based on misinformation most of the time. Any ideas about a solution to that problem?

[LennG]

 Yes, fire the entire Supreme Court and put people there with some common sense.

The law is the law, but the law can also be interpreted many ways. To have passed what they did, was maybe the worst single thing I have seen in my lifetime. Corporations have rights. Bah Humbug

[jimv]

Thanks, Lenny!  As a matter of fact, I made my comments on the Moderators Board while I was PMing with you about the storm.  I really think this a GREAT topic and I'd like to see more comments about it.  Why it's great at this time is that some pundits are saying that one candidate in this year's election may win the popular vote but lose the Electoral College.

[babywhales]

As Mr Matt said the problem with appointing delegates based on districts has to do with abuses of power.  If the moons align so that the house, Senate and gov of a state are all the same party and want to use that for political gain than the system is ripe for picking.
 
If the political stage is already contentious and the moons align when this happens, the abuses could be more rempant/illegal than anyone would ever have imagined. An example of this could be seen in Wisconsin.
 
 
I would argue the reason the electoral college was created, protecting against the manipulation of the people, holds true today.  Considering who people get their information from (blogs, commercials, and fox "news"), the general ignorance of the people as a whole, Super PAC's/corporate/special interest money in the system the electoral college is just as important than ever.
 
It hurt Gore and it looks like it will hurt Romney.  I suspect if it does, states will change the format forgetting it goes both ways depending on the year. 
 
 
 
 

[vette]

As Mr Matt said the problem with appointing delegates based on districts has to do with abuses of power.  If the moons align so that the house, Senate and gov of a state are all the same party and want to use that for political gain than the system is ripe for picking.
 
If the political stage is already contentious and the moons align when this happens, the abuses could be more rempant/illegal than anyone would ever have imagined. An example of this could be seen in Wisconsin.
 
 
I would argue the reason the electoral college was created, protecting against the manipulation of the people, holds true today.  Considering who people get their information from (blogs, commercials, and fox "news"), the general ignorance of the people as a whole, Super PAC's/corporate/special interest money in the system the electoral college is just as important than ever.
 
It hurt Gore and it looks like it will hurt Romney.  I suspect if it does, states will change the format forgetting it goes both ways depending on the year. 
 
 
 
 

1500 newspapers, 9000 radio stations, 1500 tv stations and 2400 publishers are owned by 3 corporations. Ya think the people that absorb that are influenced in some way?

[babywhales]

1500 newspapers, 9000 radio stations, 1500 tv stations and 2400 publishers are owned by 3 corporations. Ya think the people that absorb that are influenced in some way?

"those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. . . . In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons . . . who pull the wires which control the public mind."
E. Barneys

 
Media was designed to inform,  some more than others of course and to what extent are deisgned to manipulate.  Ex. Study after study shows Fox "News" viewers are less informed than those that watch no news at all.  2. Media used for intrance into World War 1 and years later  Iraq
 
I would argue the study was flawed as it compared a sample population of those that watch Fox "News" to those that watch no news, which is actually the same thing, which actually might be as inferred as people who watch Fox "news" are dumbier than people who do not.  Oh wait their are studies that show that too.
 
 
 
 

[LennG]

 But that is what the Supreme Court felt was the American way??

We touched on this matter in a prior post, but could another 'A. Hitler' take this 'new' approach to the electoral system, that some may like changed, and run with it all the way to the White House? He did it in Germany, but if we cede to a popular vote election, that could very well happen. Especially with said corporations who feed people what THEY would like them to hear.

 I still think the way Maine has it's electoral system set up, would work best. To me, that way most votes do count for something and candidates HAVE to make contact with all states during every election,because every electoral vote will mean something, even to those that do not win the popular vote.

 I can't speak for other states, but here in NY, if we see one political ad from either side a week, then that is a lot. We are immune to the political side of this election, as all our electoral votes are already in the blue column. The only time these, or any candidatates come to NY is to raise money. For us, that is a good thing, I mean, the no commercials, but we do not get to see the candidates either, except on TV. There are no rallies, no hand shakes, no nothing. If I was a red voter, my vote means absolutely nothing, so why bother.

The system is broken and it needs updating. However they do it, it just needs to be done, to make every vote mean something.