Reply With Quote
See edit.
You said the majority of the states. I assume you mean majority WITHIN the states.
A President can win the election with less than a majority OF the states.
See edit.
You said the majority of the states. I assume you mean majority WITHIN the states.
A President can win the election with less than a majority OF the states.
The Electoral College was not designed to represent a national majority. Only on rare occasion though has the Electoral College differed from the national majority, including the last election.
Wrong. Try again. A President need not win a majority of the states to win election; such a candidate need only win a majority of the available electoral votes, which can be accomplished without winning the electoral votes of a majority of states.
True enough. But the point is that the majority of votes in a Presidential election doesn't necessarily decide the outcome. That, in turn, means to me that we don't elect our Presidents by majority vote, which in turn means to me that we decide very little in our nation based on the will of the majority. I agree with James Madison's notion that a government that does not act on the will of the majority is a good thing.
I'm not sure exactly what the point of all of this civics class discussion of the electoral college is, though. The fact that xray already acknowledged that the electoral college exists to elect a President without regard to the majority of the popular vote proves the only point that I was trying to make in pointing to Presidential elections, which is that the majority view of Americans doesn't necessarily determine who wins the Presidency.
Ah yes, the non-sequitur approach. Haven't seen that in a while.
"The Electoral College was not designed to represent a national majority"
One of the sinister effects on non-proportionalality is that the clear minority party (eg, Dems in TX) is discouragd from voting at all because they know their votes are meaningless because the states electorlal votes will all go to the majority party. With the press and TV, every voter knows how is state has voted recently, by what %age, etc. "Why waste my time voting? It's pointeless, my state has voted/is polling +x% for the other party"
If all the individual votes counted at the national level, without the filtering/disenfranchisment through the electoral system, then perhaps more people would vote, know their votes really did count, instead of being disenfrahchised at the state level.
The Senate is also a non-porpotional system, where states with tiny populations have 2 Senators just like CA,TX, FL,NY,IL. With the current and probably future polarization, such disproportionality will continue to weight heavily on Senate votes. Tiny red westeren/mtn states have as much weight as as the huge blue coastal states. It was an honorable ojbective 200+ years ago to woo non-states to join the union with the promise their votes would be meaningul, but that demographic situation has long ceased.
Agreed. I was simply pointing out that the process was purposefully designed to avoid a "will of the majority", for which I am very thankful (see: France).
I do not wish to put words in your mouth, nor ask a loaded, agenda-based question, so let me make this comment for discussion:
A true national majority vote would essentially give control of the country to whichever candidate could carry majorities in CA, NY, TX and FL, with possibly OH thrown in. IMO, that would place the rest of the nation in the same voter apathy as you described above for Texas Dems in the Electoral College.
I am not saying that the Electoral College is perfect, but neither is a simple national majority vote.
"carry majorities in CA, NY, TX and FL"
NO! I said "national" counting for national office (president), not state counting.
Straight proporitional, tallied nationally.
What's the problem?
OK, its really very simple. Of the total population of our country, a good percentage (not a majority, but a good percentage) of it resides in relatively few states - California, Texas, New York, Ohio and Florida. As a candidate, I could hypothetically win the majority if votes by a landslide and lose the remaining states, probably some by a large margin, and when all votes were tabulated at the national level, I would still have the majority of the national votes. I could blow off the New England states in my campaigning if I knew I could landslide my opponent in California, because the population of California severly trumps the population of New England.
The states that currently have a small number of Electoral votes will be virtually ignored by the candidates, because they know whatever popular votes they would lose in Nebraska they could more than make up for and then some with the popular votes they could gain in Florida.
While I do not have the time nor the inclination to do the math, I could make a reasonably accurate guestimation that were a candidate able to carry a realistic majority (say 60%) of the popular vote of the 5 highest populated states, they could lose that same 60% of all the other states and still receive the overall majority of popular votes. That would be a majority only in technicality, but not in representation.
Again, not saying the Electoral College is perfect, but a national majority vote is simply an alternative, but not a better alternative.
Hmmmmm. Still nothing of substance from xray.
I agree, but in special cases, like the 00' Presidential vote, where the popular vote and the electoral college were at odds, even discounting the shenanigans in Florida and Ohio, Al Gore still received 500,000 more votes, the will of a majority of the people must superceed the process. Too bad the Supreme Court didn't see it that way.Again, not saying the Electoral College is perfect, but a national majority vote is simply an alternative, but not a better alternative.
Don't be messing up this thread with a bunch of "so-called" facts
Did you expect some?
"I could blow off the New England states in my campaigning if I knew I could landslide my opponent in California"
That already happens. Ever hear about "swing states"? Because "safely" red or blue states, no matter what the size, were not in doubt, neither campaign wasted any $$$ or candidates' time campaigning in them. It's not "nice", but nobody's fighing it. Campaign resources go where, esp with modern technologocal support, they will have the most chance of swinging the election.
"(say 60%) of the popular vote of the 5 highest populated states"
Why do you keep talking about "states" in a "national" election? I say take the state consideration out of the national election, with a straight proportional vote, as exists in municipal, county, district, state elections.
The states exist only to to par ion and localize administration. They were also given (non-proportional) inducements by 19th century federal lawmakers to get them to join the Union (500K people in Montana get 2 Senators, just like 36M people in CA). Historical anomalies that disenfranchisement voters in national elections.
The states should have nothing to say as a state in NATIONAL elections.
Each voter votes for his presidential candidate and each vote is counted at the national level. Straight proportionality works for every other level of government organization (nobody is trying to change that), so why not straight proportionality for national elections?
Ummm, Dan, the CONS UTION doesn't see it that way. Have you even read the thread, much less THE DO ENT OUR COUNTRY IS RUN UNDER?
This country is already centralized enough; your proposal would further erode what little independence the states have. "States" is in the name of our nation for a reason, B.
Personally I say we allow for candidates to win a proportion of electoral votes for every state. This does not benefit one party over the other and to me its fair. This way the GOP gets 40% of the electoral votes of California and the Dems get 40% of the electoral votes form Texas.. This is fair because in states like Texas and California votes of the minority party are useless and essentially not heard..
So, the Electoral College should take precedent over the Popular Vote, unless the two are different, in which case we should go with the National Vote?
Why note just say the National Vote is the best option?
500K is 1/5 of 1% of the national population and represented 1/2 of 1% of the 111 million voters in the 2000 election.
According to the US Census Bureau, 86% of registered voters actually voted in the 2000 election.
If there were 100% voter turnout in 2000, that 500K margin would have only increased by 75K using the same ratios as above.
Essentially, the argument for a national majority vote based on the 2000 elections would be hinged on a voter base about the size of Austin. That is a very small variance to use the phrases "majority" and "will of the people" with any validity, IMO.
Had other things to take care. I don't spend my whole life on this board.
But it might good to point out the people that go to the electoral college
can vote for whoever they please, if I am not mistaken. They are not
obliged to vote for the majority of the voters in their state.
And I do stand corrected. I mis-spoken when I said the majority of the
states. Should I cut my throat now and bleed all over the computer.
So, I guess what we've established then is that what the majority may want isn't decisive in matters of politics or public policy. As such, I still wonder why it is that the supposed minority who don't want government getting involved in religious matters should kowtow to the putative majority who apparently feel some need to have government validate their religious choices by amplifying those choices. Just a question.
What is established is that in 99.9999 percent of elections, including National, State and Local elections and issues, the will of the majority is decisive.
Last edited by jochhejaam; 12-09-2006 at 01:06 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions