emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Two friends asked me to summarize my points on the Electoral Voting system.
They seemed overwhelmed by all the background and just wanted the direct points.
Is this list Accurate enough for practical purposes?
If there is something INCONSISTENT or anything CRITICAL you would add,
please reply.
Here goes:
A. Problems caused WITHOUT the Electoral Voting system currently in place:
If popular vote alone would decide Presidential elections for the entire nation
1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.
2. This bias would not only affect Presidential elections, but LEGISLATION and LOBBYING
for all other benefits of laws to seek FAVOR and VOTERS in THESE AREAS. That means
Federal laws, and even state and local laws TIED TO PARTY and CANDIDATES that would
TARGET those GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS of highest population in order to BUY VOTES and keep loyalty and name recognition.
3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.
4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote
instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.
[NOTE: I believe point #3 is the most alarming to any voters who have worked for years to build up third parties in seeking equal participation in the democratic process. Are there any stronger points you would add?]
B. Proposed SOLUTIONS and advantages and disadvantages they would introduce:
1. States agreeing to split their Electoral Votes Proportionally to reflect the STATE'S popular vote.
This would arguably increase voter participation if all votes counted proportionally (instead of "not mattering as long as the majority of the state are already going to the winner only")
2. Further agreeing to have Electoral Reps for each party represented in each state district to work "year round" (not just during election) to act as consultants advising the local, state and federal officials assigned to that district so that representation is not limited to just the winning party but includes people of all parties.
This proposed EXPANSION of the Electoral College system function would serve as INCENTIVE for states to AGREE to split their votes in exchange for adding this feature, which would then help with
3. Creating greater INCENTIVE for voter participation so that both elections and policies REFLECT public interest and taxpayer consent.
Drawbacks and complications:
4. Large states such as TX and CA would likely have to agree at the same time to split their Electoral Votes. Currently only states with 2 votes could afford to split them without affecting the rest of the nation as drastically as TX and CA would, being predominantly and traditionally "red" and "blue" respectively.
5. All votes would have to be counted, instead of stopping the vote count after there are enough to confirm the Electoral Votes "will all go to the winner anyway."
6. Splits would not be perfectly proportioned in cases such as 3 parties sharing 2 votes for a district, or 7 parties sharing 5 for a state.
7. In case "runoffs" are needed, to prevent the cost of an additional election, Preferential Voting could be used to decide runoffs using the same ballots. But this would require extensive training and support at polls, and extra work to verify or correct errors. This is possible, and may be necessary anyway, by democratizing local representation by party, so the responsibility falls on the parties to educate their member base.
From my personal viewpoint, I believe it is worth the investment to develop more democratized representation, to train and support citizens on local levels to govern their own districts using existing party structures, and to expand on these systems to separate taxes on policies where people disagree by creed.
I find this legally necessary to avoid "discrimination by creed" which is occurring by party which represent political beliefs that should not be denied equal protection of the laws, but treated equally as religious freedom.
Of all the points listed above, I would say
A.3. is enough to argue for keeping the Electoral College.
And the worst problems with changing it to divide votes proportionally within states are
B.4. and B.7.
However the payoffs for setting up Proportional Representation by party, per district opting in to these reforms, would potentially OUTWEIGH the complications and costs of implementation. Because taxpayers would be able to contest political party beliefs that infringe on their own beliefs, and would have means of negotiating terms of paying for separate solutions per district or state.
Thus, the democratization of the Electoral District Representation could be used to solve ALL OTHER political problems caused by "winner take all" politics that is otherwise denying equal protection to taxpayers and citizens of beliefs in the minority and unlawfully discriminating against them by creed.
They seemed overwhelmed by all the background and just wanted the direct points.
Is this list Accurate enough for practical purposes?
If there is something INCONSISTENT or anything CRITICAL you would add,
please reply.
Here goes:
A. Problems caused WITHOUT the Electoral Voting system currently in place:
If popular vote alone would decide Presidential elections for the entire nation
1. All political attention would focus on HIGH POPULATION DENSITY areas,
such as the largest metropolitan concentrations in the largest states.
This would ensure cost-effectiveness in campaigning to the key areas GEOGRAPHICALLY
that would swing the majority of votes needed to WIN.
2. This bias would not only affect Presidential elections, but LEGISLATION and LOBBYING
for all other benefits of laws to seek FAVOR and VOTERS in THESE AREAS. That means
Federal laws, and even state and local laws TIED TO PARTY and CANDIDATES that would
TARGET those GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS of highest population in order to BUY VOTES and keep loyalty and name recognition.
3. The problems of disparity and discrimination we already have with third/minor parties would be even WORSE. NEITHER major party we have now would risk losing ANY votes to third parties. So this would essentially WIPE OUT any influence or participation in THIRD PARTIES and make it IMPOSSIBLE to start a movement to support any other parties besides the two major ones.
4. Additional condition if a state gives its votes to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote
instead of the winner in THAT STATE of the popular vote, I argue this makes the problem worse instead of solving it. Because in that case, if the national popular votes of "other states" would be the basis of deciding that states' votes INSTEAD OF THEIR OWN STATE VOTES, this would still leave states without representation for its popular votes that went to a nonwinning candidate.
[NOTE: I believe point #3 is the most alarming to any voters who have worked for years to build up third parties in seeking equal participation in the democratic process. Are there any stronger points you would add?]
B. Proposed SOLUTIONS and advantages and disadvantages they would introduce:
1. States agreeing to split their Electoral Votes Proportionally to reflect the STATE'S popular vote.
This would arguably increase voter participation if all votes counted proportionally (instead of "not mattering as long as the majority of the state are already going to the winner only")
2. Further agreeing to have Electoral Reps for each party represented in each state district to work "year round" (not just during election) to act as consultants advising the local, state and federal officials assigned to that district so that representation is not limited to just the winning party but includes people of all parties.
This proposed EXPANSION of the Electoral College system function would serve as INCENTIVE for states to AGREE to split their votes in exchange for adding this feature, which would then help with
3. Creating greater INCENTIVE for voter participation so that both elections and policies REFLECT public interest and taxpayer consent.
Drawbacks and complications:
4. Large states such as TX and CA would likely have to agree at the same time to split their Electoral Votes. Currently only states with 2 votes could afford to split them without affecting the rest of the nation as drastically as TX and CA would, being predominantly and traditionally "red" and "blue" respectively.
5. All votes would have to be counted, instead of stopping the vote count after there are enough to confirm the Electoral Votes "will all go to the winner anyway."
6. Splits would not be perfectly proportioned in cases such as 3 parties sharing 2 votes for a district, or 7 parties sharing 5 for a state.
7. In case "runoffs" are needed, to prevent the cost of an additional election, Preferential Voting could be used to decide runoffs using the same ballots. But this would require extensive training and support at polls, and extra work to verify or correct errors. This is possible, and may be necessary anyway, by democratizing local representation by party, so the responsibility falls on the parties to educate their member base.
From my personal viewpoint, I believe it is worth the investment to develop more democratized representation, to train and support citizens on local levels to govern their own districts using existing party structures, and to expand on these systems to separate taxes on policies where people disagree by creed.
I find this legally necessary to avoid "discrimination by creed" which is occurring by party which represent political beliefs that should not be denied equal protection of the laws, but treated equally as religious freedom.
Of all the points listed above, I would say
A.3. is enough to argue for keeping the Electoral College.
And the worst problems with changing it to divide votes proportionally within states are
B.4. and B.7.
However the payoffs for setting up Proportional Representation by party, per district opting in to these reforms, would potentially OUTWEIGH the complications and costs of implementation. Because taxpayers would be able to contest political party beliefs that infringe on their own beliefs, and would have means of negotiating terms of paying for separate solutions per district or state.
Thus, the democratization of the Electoral District Representation could be used to solve ALL OTHER political problems caused by "winner take all" politics that is otherwise denying equal protection to taxpayers and citizens of beliefs in the minority and unlawfully discriminating against them by creed.
Last edited: