AlGore calls for end of Electoral College

[Erik88]

Just because I voted for Paul in the primary and think he's the best choice for president does not make me a "Paulbot". I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Romney because everyone on the forum has successfully convinced me the world will end if I don't. Congrats guys!

I'm my heart, I really don't think Romney will be much different than Obama. I'm only hoping he won't attack our freedoms like Obama does.

Romney is a successful businessman and I believe he is more qualified to be president than Obama, but he has yet to say exactly how he's going to fix the economy. In fact, the only candidate that really had a decent plan was Herman Cain.

I do not believe Romney knows how to fix the problems, but hopefully he can apply a band-aid to the problem until a decent candidate comes along, whenever that may be.

[kieefer]

Thought I'd check to see where this thread went, looks like the same place some of the others ended up.

[strickj]

Thought I'd check to see where this thread went, looks like the same place some of the others ended up.

These threads are completely different!

I pray for those that can not see the difference

[Erik88]

These threads are completely different!

I pray for those that can not see the difference

[Links2k]

This whole debacle only reinforced for me (and others that I know) that at the end of the day, the Republican party is no better or even different than the Democratic Party. The current and future well being of the nation are not their priority. All either party is concerned with is accumulating and maintaining power, money and influence. They are equally corrupt, diseased and rotten in their cores.

Yes sir! As I've said before, the only difference is If Romney wins it will be their guy screwing the country over and that makes it alright.

Edited September 3, 2012 by LINKS2K

[Chucktshoes]

These threads are completely different!

I pray for those that can not see the difference

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Just because I voted for Paul in the primary and think he's the best choice for president does not make me a "Paulbot". I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Romney because everyone on the forum has successfully convinced me the world will end if I don't. Congrats guys!

I'm my heart, I really don't think Romney will be much different than Obama. I'm only hoping he won't attack our freedoms like Obama does.

Romney is a successful businessman and I believe he is more qualified to be president than Obama, but he has yet to say exactly how he's going to fix the economy. In fact, the only candidate that really had a decent plan was Herman Cain.

I do not believe Romney knows how to fix the problems, but hopefully he can apply a band-aid to the problem until a decent candidate comes along, whenever that may be.

Your heart would do better to let your mind think. Hearts use emotion,

while, occasionally, minds use logic. Romney has been mostly ignored

by the rhetoric against being the most loud around here.

I think a lot of folks have already fallen for the media's trap and decided

this race is over before it's started. Either that or the Paul people are

so sore that they will never do anything positive for anyone other than

him. And he's retiring...

[RobertNashville]

Just because I voted for Paul in the primary and think he's the best choice for president does not make me a "Paulbot". I'm going to hold my nose and vote for Romney because everyone on the forum has successfully convinced me the world will end if I don't. Congrats guys!

I'm my heart, I really don't think Romney will be much different than Obama. I'm only hoping he won't attack our freedoms like Obama does.

Romney is a successful businessman and I believe he is more qualified to be president than Obama, but he has yet to say exactly how he's going to fix the economy. In fact, the only candidate that really had a decent plan was Herman Cain.

I do not believe Romney knows how to fix the problems, but hopefully he can apply a band-aid to the problem until a decent candidate comes along, whenever that may be.

I voted for someone different in the primary too...I contributed to three different candidates during the primary season, none of them were Romney. That said, I won't have any problem at all voting for Romney/Ryan.

With regards to Romney saying exactly how he will fix the economy; I suspect he has some specific ideas now and will likely have an entire team of people with him when elected...however, given the general lack of an informed electorate; what could he say about it now that wouldn't cause people's eyes to glaze over, assuming their 5 second attention span allowed them to listen at all?

[wjh2657]

The electoral college is part and parcel of the Constitution of the United states. The changes that need to be made have to be made at state level, not Federal. I am an independent and not a party lackey of either of the two criminal gangs currently ruining this country. I understand the need for the rich elite and the labor unions to continue with the current party system. I just don't really buy that either group should really run this country! To bring the the electoral college in line with democracy and true representation is to have the states all split their state electors along popular vote lines (some already do) and then nobody's vote gets "thrown out." Make the parties actually compete for the vote and not mandate the vote by state governors and parties. With the fairness of a "percentage split" there is no need to change the electoral system, it will be fair and truly reflect the "peoples' choice" for office. I wish everybody would stop trying to change the Constitution and just follow it!

[Jonnin]

splitting the EC vote in every state... is just a layer of confusion to a direct popular vote approach. There would be no point in the EC if they did this.

you may be OK with that, but I personally do not care for a pure popular vote or similar system. I do not want to be governed by CA+NY, places that have zero understanding of rual america.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Jonnin

[Caster]

Al Gore is calling for the end of the electoral college & I'm calling for the end of Al Gore.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

splitting the EC vote in every state... is just a layer of confusion to a direct popular vote approach. There would be no point in the EC if they did this.

you may be OK with that, but I personally do not care for a pure popular vote or similar system. I do not want to be governed by CA+NY, places that have zero understanding of rual america.

Splitting the electors by state would not be exactly the same as a popular vote. The allocation of electors would still result in low population states having slightly more "clout" per person than high population states. Because a state gets a certain count of electors according to population, then 2 extra for free, same as senatorial allocations.

For instance in the thrubbing of 2008, it was 69.5 million vs 60 million. Ratio of 1.15. However, the electoral vote was 365 vs 173, a ratio of 2.1. So rather than ameliorating the effect of populous states, a winner-takes-all electoral college exaggerates the effect of the thrubbing. If all states split-allocate electors, the alternate result would have to be calculated by multiplying the ratio of each state by each state's number of electors.

Even without the red-skewing of less-populous states (who have slightly more clout in the EC), if all states split electors the results at a ratio of 1.15 would be 288 vs 255. Actual calculation of electors state-by-state using each state's percentages would be an even closer election. So in near-tie elections (in popular vote), the red-skewing of the less populous states would tend toward republican victories in near-toss-ups.

For instance with split electors, in 2008 Obama would have only got 34 california electors and McCain would have got 21 california electors. OTOH McCain would have only got 6 tennessee electors rather than 11. He would still have lost, but it would have been much closer. McCain would have lost 5 TN electors, but OTOH he would have gained 21 commiefornia electors. IMO we would have been just as bad-off with a president McCain. Am only using 2008 for example.

[strickj]

splitting the EC vote in every state... is just a layer of confusion to a direct popular vote approach. There would be no point in the EC if they did this.

you may be OK with that, but I personally do not care for a pure popular vote or similar system. I do not want to be governed by CA+NY, places that have zero understanding of rual america.

It's kinda that way now in a roundabout way,

Larger populous means more representatives which means more electors. California, Illinois, Jersey, NY have 118 (if I added right).

That's a big chuck of the majority needed from just four states.

Seems the easiest and fairest way would be simply giving each state one elector? I dunno. I don't pretend to be smart enough to figure this kind of stuff out. Just seems there would be a better system to give sparse states fairer say.

Edited September 6, 2012 by strickj

[RobertNashville]

The electoral college saves us from government by majority (in other words, a true democracy)...I think we all agree that the founders were especially wise that they gave us a republic rather than a democracy. I don't know if the EC as it's currently structured is the best we can do but I for one am glad it exists.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

http://www.uselectio...0&off=0&elect=0

Using state by state data from above, I calculated the 2008 election assigning electors according to each state's percentage vote. For instance Alabama has 9 electors and Obama got 39 percent of the vote, so assgn 0.39 * 9 = 3.51 electors to Obama.

Did it manually with the calculator and perhaps made entry errors, but if not the result is puzzling.

I used rounding on the earlier numbers posted. More precisely calculating the ratio of the popular vote gives a ratio of 1.159 : 1. Which with a global popular election (ratio applied equally to all 538 electors) would result in 289 Obama and 249 McCain. As contrasted to the actual results of 365 Obama 173 McCain. So a popular vote better-favors the underdog than the actual election results with winner-takes-all on all states except Nebraska, which appears to be the only state which split electors in 2008.

OK, because the small population states tend to vote R, and each voter in the small population states have a little more "clout", I expected calculating electors state-by-state according to state percentages and number of electors, would favor McCain more than a straight calculation on the national popular vote (as above). For instance South Dakota has 3 electors, but would only have 1 elector according to population alone.

For instance in 2008, California's 55 electors, 246,859 california voters accounted for each elector. But in South Dakota, 127,325 voters accounted for each elector. So one South Dakota voter has the same clout as about two California voters.

So I expected that this weighting, calculated popularly state-by-state, would result in a lower elector count for Obama and a higher elector count for McCain, at least slightly. IOW, McCain would score greater than 249 and Obama would score less than 289, bacause of small-population states republican/conservative bias.

Surprisingly, calculating state-by-state gave nearly the same numbers as a national popular vote, 289 Obama and 249 McCain. Unless I entered some numbers incorrectly, the R bias of states with more "per-voter clout", apparently wouldn't have even moved the 2008 results by 1 elector. Puzzling.

OK, one thing is that even the most conservative states don't have that big a conservative ratio, at least in the 2008 election. McCain got the highest percentage of the vote in Oklahoma with 65.65 percent.

Only three states scored a higher percentage than Oklahoma in the opposite direction for Obama, all small states which also have "enhanced clout per voter"-- D.C. (92%), Hawaii (72%) and Vermont (67%).

The 500 pound gorilla high-elector-count states were much closer to ties, less than 60 percent one way or the other. Indiana, North Carolina and Missouri within a margin of 1 percent of a tie, and Florida within a margin of 3 percent of a tie.

[Jonnin]

I realize its not the same as exact popular vote but it really makes it close. I don't have a solution -- you either set up a system to screw the masses, or you set up a system to screw the rual areas. But something is wrong when less than 1/10 the states can win the election outright.

edit: well 5 states is only about 200/270 and includes texas... but still, the big 4 contribute way too much.

With the system I thought about earlier ... 2 + sqrt(pop) ...

Ca would get 9 EC for example....

Ga would have 6

Fl 8

and so on.

Which may be way too much but I kinda like it...

Edited September 6, 2012 by Jonnin

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The electoral college is part and parcel of the Constitution of the United states. The changes that need to be made have to be made at state level, not Federal. I am an independent and not a party lackey of either of the two criminal gangs currently ruining this country. I understand the need for the rich elite and the labor unions to continue with the current party system. I just don't really buy that either group should really run this country! To bring the the electoral college in line with democracy and true representation is to have the states all split their state electors along popular vote lines (some already do) and then nobody's vote gets "thrown out." Make the parties actually compete for the vote and not mandate the vote by state governors and parties. With the fairness of a "percentage split" there is no need to change the electoral system, it will be fair and truly reflect the "peoples' choice" for office. I wish everybody would stop trying to change the Constitution and just follow it!

I do, too.

[Jonnin]

technically, the second ammendment is a change to the constitution.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Al Gore is calling for the end of the electoral college & I'm calling for the end of Al Gore.

I've been calling for that since he was a US Senator.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I realize its not the same as exact popular vote but it really makes it close. I don't have a solution -- you either set up a system to screw the masses, or you set up a system to screw the rual areas. But something is wrong when less than 1/10 the states can win the election outright.

edit: well 5 states is only about 200/270 and includes texas... but still, the big 4 contribute way too much.

With the system I thought about earlier ... 2 + sqrt(pop) ...

Ca would get 9 EC for example....

Ga would have 6

Fl 8

and so on.

Which may be way too much but I kinda like it...

Hi Jonnin. Yes it is frustrating when only a few states really matter, and city folk don't like rural people running the gov, and rural folk don't like city folk running the gov.

I was very familiar with the argument that the electoral college helps little states avoid getting pushed around by big states. And it seemed to make sense. That's why I was surprised calculating the test case of the 2008 election and finding that global popular vote would have virtually identical results to allocating electors on a state-by-state basis. Using "real world data" the current setup seems nearly identical to the end-result of a straight popular vote.

Have participated in earlier such forum debates. People who live in low-population vicinities point to the classic red-blue maps from 2000 and 2004. The per-county red-blue map is more dramatic than the per-state red-blue map-- Only tiny isolated islands of blue, with even most liberal states rural counties mostly red. Low-population folks see evidence of dictatorship by cities, and city folk having no right to tell country folk how to live. City folk counter that people vote. Mostly-empty real estate doesn't vote.

Low population states would like your non-linear elector assignment, but it would never fly with the urbanites.

One cure to the grievance of far-away people telling us how to live our lives, would be to reduce the size of gov so that it isn't such a big freaking deal what people 2000 miles away think about it.

Am thinking the only way the current system's built-in skew of more voter clout in small states would make a difference, is if the small red states are HEAVILY red and the big blue states are "near 50-50 barely blue". We tend to assume more state-by-state polarization than actually exists. With the current system when California always goes blue with 55 electors and Tennessee always goes red with 11 electors, it is easy to blame those commies in California for our woes. However, truth be known, California is only slightly blue and Tennessee is only slightly red. If all states apportioned electors between parties, then we couldn't blame California any more, because California would typically churn out "almost half" red electors. We would have to blame ourselves just as much, because Tennessee would be churning out "almost half" blue electors.

Popularly apportioned electors would take the power and responsibility away from a few swing states and make every state a battleground state where one elector in any state could make or break an election. If the R loses by one elector, was it the fault of CA for sending one too many blue electors? Or was it the fault of TX or TN for sending one too many blue electors? Similarly if the D loses, city folk in NY or CA can't blame hicks from flyover country, because their own states might have sent the red elector that was the straw that broke the camels back.

Non-swing states have no motivation to vote-in popular-apportioned electors, or at least the folks in charge have no motivation. If at least 51 percent always vote blue, then most of the state gov will be blue and they would fight tooth and nail against apportioned electors because they like being able to deliver all-blue delegates every time out the gate.

And swing states would oppose voting-in popular-apportioned electors because it would dimish their importance in the elections. No more cat-bird seat. Right now, states so close to 50-50 that each outcome is unpredictable, are important and privileged and get lots of attention. But with apportioned electors, a reliably near-50-50 state would become very unimportant, because you can count on em to deliver about half their electors to each party. Adding the same number to each side's tally would rarely have an important effect on an election. Ferinstance Ohio or Florida, probably couldn't swing the outcome by more than one or two electors, because they are always so close to splitting the difference.

With apportioned electors, possibly big blue states could become the most fertile ground for a conservative candidate to pick up a couple of winning electors, and little red states might be equally fertile ground for liberals trying to win a close contest.

[quietguy]

Hi Jonnin. Yes it is frustrating when only a few states really matter, and city folk don't like rural people running the gov, and rural folk don't like city folk running the gov.

I was very familiar with the argument that the electoral college helps little states avoid getting pushed around by big states. And it seemed to make sense. That's why I was surprised calculating the test case of the 2008 election and finding that global popular vote would have virtually identical results to allocating electors on a state-by-state basis. Using "real world data" the current setup seems nearly identical to the end-result of a straight popular vote.

Have participated in earlier such forum debates. People who live in low-population vicinities point to the classic red-blue maps from 2000 and 2004. The per-county red-blue map is more dramatic than the per-state red-blue map-- Only tiny isolated islands of blue, with even most liberal states rural counties mostly red. Low-population folks see evidence of dictatorship by cities, and city folk having no right to tell country folk how to live. City folk counter that people vote. Mostly-empty real estate doesn't vote.

Low population states would like your non-linear elector assignment, but it would never fly with the urbanites.

One cure to the grievance of far-away people telling us how to live our lives, would be to reduce the size of gov so that it isn't such a big freaking deal what people 2000 miles away think about it.

Am thinking the only way the current system's built-in skew of more voter clout in small states would make a difference, is if the small red states are HEAVILY red and the big blue states are "near 50-50 barely blue". We tend to assume more state-by-state polarization than actually exists. With the current system when California always goes blue with 55 electors and Tennessee always goes red with 11 electors, it is easy to blame those commies in California for our woes. However, truth be known, California is only slightly blue and Tennessee is only slightly red. If all states apportioned electors between parties, then we couldn't blame California any more, because California would typically churn out "almost half" red electors. We would have to blame ourselves just as much, because Tennessee would be churning out "almost half" blue electors.

Popularly apportioned electors would take the power and responsibility away from a few swing states and make every state a battleground state where one elector in any state could make or break an election. If the R loses by one elector, was it the fault of CA for sending one too many blue electors? Or was it the fault of TX or TN for sending one too many blue electors? Similarly if the D loses, city folk in NY or CA can't blame hicks from flyover country, because their own states might have sent the red elector that was the straw that broke the camels back.

Non-swing states have no motivation to vote-in popular-apportioned electors, or at least the folks in charge have no motivation. If at least 51 percent always vote blue, then most of the state gov will be blue and they would fight tooth and nail against apportioned electors because they like being able to deliver all-blue delegates every time out the gate.

And swing states would oppose voting-in popular-apportioned electors because it would dimish their importance in the elections. No more cat-bird seat. Right now, states so close to 50-50 that each outcome is unpredictable, are important and privileged and get lots of attention. But with apportioned electors, a reliably near-50-50 state would become very unimportant, because you can count on em to deliver about half their electors to each party. Adding the same number to each side's tally would rarely have an important effect on an election. Ferinstance Ohio or Florida, probably couldn't swing the outcome by more than one or two electors, because they are always so close to splitting the difference.

With apportioned electors, possibly big blue states could become the most fertile ground for a conservative candidate to pick up a couple of winning electors, and little red states might be equally fertile ground for liberals trying to win a close contest.

While I don't always like the outcome, I still assert that if you repealed the 17th Amendment, the current system is by far the fairest. Those who call for the elimination of the Electoral College are democrats (small d), because they do not believe in the system that was setup by our founding fathers. They want a democracy, which is not our political system. Our founding fathers understood the limitations of democracy, republics, and representative democracies. They created a system that, when not significantly altered, works fantastically.

The Bill of Rights protects our individual rights, the House represents the People, the Senate represents the States, the Executive Branch handles day to day operations and takes care of emergencies (which is why the EC exists to give preference to the populous, but at the same time ensure that the States have a heavy hand), and the Judicial Branch just sits back and sorts out the conflicts. The several States were designed to be the ultimate authority, which I am much more comfortable with that what we have in place today.

[Jonnin]

Not sure if the 17th removal would do it or not. Maybe. I would have to think about it for a while.

Splitting the EC votes is an option I could consider, but I still say the difference between that and pure popular vote is very small.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

It would make a huge difference in how the senate acts according to their states desires. It would bring them back

in to the realm of representing who they were intended to represent. It would make a difference when the popular

vote from large states go one way and smaller states go the other. There are many more smaller states than large.

May not make a big difference in the electoral college, but it would in legislation, which is just as important.

The senate has been very destructive, lately. The budget process is just one example. Oh, yeh, health care.

That's enough reason for me.

[Chief07]

Al Gore was, is, and always will be a left wing loon/complete idiot.

Totally agree. Gore is a bafoon. He lives in La La land.

He must of smoked way too much pot.