Election Reform

[pegwinn]

Earlier this week Gop_jeff posted this thread "Third party anyone" asking what political party we'd join if the deadly duo went belly up. I did a bit of reading on how we elect people. Basically I got led in two directions, the first was campaign financing. The second was the electoral college. This focuses on the presidential election at the federal level since we got one coming up reasonably soon.

I am going on the assumption that we all know how the electoral college works. 2 Electors + 1 Elector per member of the house. Arguments for and against the college abound. Personally I am against it. I am a one-body-one-vote person and winner take all.

By the time I am an old feeble man I would like to see a popular vote for almost everything. If the issue is of a normal nature (neither emergency nor especially urgent, with no security classification) we should vote on it. Between computer technology and secure networks, this shouldn't be a problem. Of course we should've had a functioning moon base by now as well............... Depends on how much commercial appeal there is.

Obviously E2K was a thorn that still festers. What is the best way to elect people or decide issues?

Jeff thread http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5839
Federal Election Commission site on the electoral college (warning, long read): http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecmenu2.htm

 

[Avatar4321]

How can anyone be against the Electorial College after it just saved this nation last election? If we didnt have the Electorial college there would have been recount after Recount in every state of the union. We would probably still be trying to figure out who the heck won cause the popular vote would have been way close (especially if all those military absentee ballots not counted in California were counted)

Seriously, the Electorial College just saved this nation. Can you imagine what would have happened on 911 if we were still fighting the election results then? Or worse if Al Gore were in office. Im shivering just thinking of the horendous state we would be in. There may not be a New York City if we had.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
How can anyone be against the Electorial College after it just saved this nation last election? If we didnt have the Electorial college there would have been recount after Recount in every state of the union. We would probably still be trying to figure out who the heck won cause the popular vote would have been way close (especially if all those military absentee ballots not counted in California were counted)

Seriously, the Electorial College just saved this nation. Can you imagine what would have happened on 911 if we were still fighting the election results then? Or worse if Al Gore were in office. Im shivering just thinking of the horendous state we would be in. There may not be a New York City if we had.

I don't like the EC because it isn't truly the will of the people and it fosters a two party only system. Under the EC, if you live in a low count state, your vote counts less. How about we record the results via computer. Like an ATM. You touchscreen your answers to questions and then it prints a receipt. Put your receipt in a box to be counted. It will tally the database count.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Electoral college. In case the population ever gets convinced to vote away their freedoms we must be able to impose freedom by force.

 

[insein]

Electoral college was implemented so that everyone would be heard. It prevented politicians from focusing on the highly populated city areas and ignoring the scarcley populated midwest during the campaign trail. A candidate would have to goto every area of the country regardless of population to get their word out. I still feel its the best way to decide.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Electoral college. In case the population ever gets convinced to vote away their freedoms we must be able to impose freedom by force.

very funny, seriously, what do you think?

 

[MtnBiker]

We are a represenative democracy with 50 states. I like the electoral college just fine.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by MtnBiker
We are a represenative democracy with 50 states. I like the electoral college just fine.

Ok, but I don't understand it. I guess I don't get how we can like a system where the electors are under no legal obligation to follow your vote. I am not trying to start a flame war, but more insight would be appreciated.

 

[MtnBiker]

I think I understand where you are coming from Pegwinn. Let me ask you this, has there ever been an election when the electors did not follow the states vote and change the outcome of the election?

 

[Zhukov]

We have a federal government. That is to say, our highest level of government is basically a federation of the states. Individual states retain the right to cast their number of votes, based mostly on population, for whomever the majority of the people in that state choose to elect. You have the right to vote on how your state will vote.

Under the EC, if you live in a low count state, your vote counts less.

That is actually incorrect. One's vote actually counts for more in the less populous states because any state, no matter how populous will receive 3 electors. So, in states like South Dakota fewer people are represented by a single electoral vote.

South Dakota--> 3 electoral votes btwn 761,063 people = 253,688 ppl per electoral vote

California--> 54 electoral votes btwn 35,116,033 people = 650,297 ppl per electoral vote

I guess I don't get how we can like a system where the electors are under no legal obligation to follow your vote.

The electors are selected at the party conventions, and trusted party loyalists are chosen. There is little liklihood that they would choose to vote against their party and their candidate.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Zhukov

That is actually incorrect. One's vote actually counts for more in the less populous states because any state, no matter how populous will receive 3 electors. So, in states like South Dakota fewer people are represented by a single electoral vote.

South Dakota--> 3 electoral votes btwn 761,063 people = 253,688 ppl per electoral vote

California--> 54 electoral votes btwn 35,116,033 people = 650,297 ppl per electoral vote

Thanks for the example Zhukov, I knew that was the case. I just did not know how to put it. Myself living in a low populated state, I appreciate the electoral college.

 

[Avatar4321]

Can you imagine if we werent? the nation would be ruled by Californians...as much as i like a number of them there are too many wackos out there.

 

[MtnBiker]

You are very right Avatar, the election would be geared toward the coastal regions and perhaps Texas. You could write off the battleground states this year.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by pegwinn
I don't like the EC because it isn't truly the will of the people and it fosters a two party only system. Under the EC, if you live in a low count state, your vote counts less. How about we record the results via computer. Like an ATM. You touchscreen your answers to questions and then it prints a receipt. Put your receipt in a box to be counted. It will tally the database count.

If you live in a lesser populated state, the electoral college actually increases the likelihood that your vote counts. I agree that it's not entirely compensating for the fact that lesser populated states are somewhat dwarfed by their higher pop. neighbors, but it's better than the popular vote.

I don't think any system can represent it's citizens entirely equally so I think the electoral system is certainly the fairest way to do things.

Computer voting scares the heck outta me.

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem with computer voting is it would be way to easy to commit election fraud. all you have to do is have one dishonest voting official set the program to give 1.3 votes for everyone on one side or something and it could completely shift and election.

Why fix what isnt broke

 

[Fletch]

I think the EC is absolutley brilliant. The framers were way ahead of thier time. Different regions have different issues, and if it where done on popular vote the only the issues in NY and California would get addressed.

 

[pegwinn]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
The problem with computer voting is it would be way to easy to commit election fraud. all you have to do is have one dishonest voting official set the program to give 1.3 votes for everyone on one side or something and it could completely shift and election.

Why fix what isnt broke

Noted, but, there were cases in the 1920's (according to my history class in 1980 high school) of election fraud in the northern states under the remnants of the political machines of the time. The voting booths were jury rigged so we were told. Wish I could find a link. Point: There are hackers for everything. No machine is truly safe. I trust a computer more than hanging chads. AS to the why fix it question.......... all I can say is E2K and the myriad of local elections seems to point at a general failure of confidence. That of course could just be local media hysteria.

I understand the math of the electoral vote per person, but the reality is that the states with three to seven votes are basically relegated to the sidelines. I'd be ticked if someone said, "Sure Phil, vote for me, but if you don't it's really Ok I didn't plan on winning your state anyway."

As to "faithless electors", I don't think any stole an election, but there have been documented cases. The web link poseted on the original post.

Oops, day job, gotta run, thanx guys

 

[insein]

Even if you write a failsafe, 1024 bit encryption, the designer still knows the way to crack it. That leaves anything open to corruption. Until computer programs are made uncrackable, then this isnt a viable option. Paper is still less corruptable then computers. Simply don't use that assinine ballot form Florida with the straight up and down chads.

Here's how they do it in PA. You have EACH election thats up in its own section. Its all sectioned off and states above the names how many to vote for in each section. Then you flip the switch of the one you want and pull the handle. No fuck ups with chads and such.

 

[5stringJeff]

It's already been said, but it is the states that elect the President, not the people. And without the electoral college, NY, FL, TX, and CA would be the only campaign grounds.

As far as stray electors, it is a very unlikely scenario. Electors are chosen for their fanatical devotion to the candidates they are pledged to. The chance that any would change their vote is extremely rare (the last time it happened, I think, was 1980) and the chance that enough would be swayed as to throw an election is next to impossible.

 

[pegwinn]

Obviously the majority prefer the electoral college. I must say I am surprized. I would've assumed that people would've preferred a straight popular vote. Anyway, the other big beef I got with our EC is the bias towards two parties. How can we get a third or even fourth party on an even footing with the big two?

I personally think that it's all $$$. Any other ideas?