Electing the US president; how to To simplify the matter, assume there are only 7 states State A counts as 5 votes (based on population of that state) Majority voted for X State B counts as 4 votes ( based on ...). Majority in that state voted for Y State C counts as 9 votes (based on ... ). Majority in that state voted for X State D counts as 6 votes (based on ...). Majority in that state voted for Y State E counts as 14 votes (based on ...) Majority in that state voted for X State F counts as 6 votes ( based on ...) Majority in that state voted for Y State G counts as 21 votes (based on ... ) Majority in that state voted for Y To summarize: X received 5+9+14=28 votes and Y received 4+6+6+21=37 votes. Y is the winner. * * * I do not know why this system is called "Electoral College." In fact, the word "college" confused me for a long time. What does it have to do with colleges in which we study? Suppose the president is elected by the sytem called "popular vote," used in some other countries. In that case votes of individual citizens are counted, as illustrated below (this is also a simplification). State A ==> 22 million voted for X and 3 million voted for Y. State B ==> 4 million voted for X and 5 million voted for Y. State C ==> 9 million voted for X and 13 million voted for Y. State D ==> 12 million voted for X and 3 million voted for Y. State E ==> 8 million voted for X and 23 million voted for Y. State F ==> 2 million voted for X and 3 million voted for Y. State G ==> 11 million voted for X and 8 million voted for Y. To summarize: X ==> 22+4+9+12+8+2+11=68 million Y ==> 3+5+13+3+23+3+8 =58 million In this case X is the winner . . . . . . . . . . . Is this fair or not? See: www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/opinion/electoral-college-101.html?ref=opinion http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html Ludwik Kowalski, http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html ====================================
No. Our current election system is not fair. For the reasons you described, but also, and I believe more importantly, because we use a plurality voting system, something which would not necessarily be changed even if we were to get rid of or equalize the electoral college by going to a popular or proportional vote. The plurality system basically automatically disqualifies any third party candidate from having a reasonable chance at winning a national election, even in cases where a majority of the population may prefer that candidate, among having a few other negative effects... Suppose three candidates (A,B,and C) run for office, and we find ourselves in the end with the resulting vote totals: A-50 B-49 C-30 If we were to assume that B and C are similar options which could certainly be the case, B being just a more popular version of what is basically C, then in a plurality system option A would win even though 61% of voters would most likely rather have option B than option A. The same 61% would probably even prefer option C over A, so basically a plurality system ensures that the least popular candidate wins in this scenario. There are a number of good solutions to the problems created by plurality voting that I don't see why we should have to suffer with it. https://sites.google.com/site/crypticflame/Home/gmcgvoting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method In addition to the current electoral college, and plurality voting, I also view current campaign finance laws to be a huge issue with our elections. -Meta
Well first of all we don't have a national vote for President. Second of all how do you think the electors are released? Do you think they are just randomly chosen? Nope, whoever wins the POPULAR VOTE in the State get's the electors. Now why do we use electors? Well its because if we just went by the popular vote then the smaller States would be left out of the process since their votes would never matter. California, Texas, and New York would pretty much decide our next President. With electors the winning margin is much smaller and States like Ohio have a huge factor on who wins.
The system has problems. At least when electing a President. I propose that each state is worth 2 electoral college. That way the presidential candidate has to crisscross the whole country in order to win.
Its based on population so your basically saying that people in California don't have the same voting power as people in Wyoming and that is unconstitutional per the Supreme Court ruling on redistricting. They ruled that all laws must do their best to ensure that each vote carries as close to the same power as possible.
California has enough power in the House and Senate. The President should be above the fray. He should win as many states as possible. As much territory as possible. A diverse electorate as possible. Basically what I am saying is the President should represent all the people.
That's not even possible, even in your system half the voting population will be happy and the other half will be pissed. What you are proposing is that each state despite voting population or just land mass every state will get the same so with that it would probably be easier going to smaller voting population/land size states since it will be easier to get a few votes than convince an entire city. No voting system is perfect but our system does work for what it's supposed to do and it does so while giving all states good representation which it looks like you're proposing anyway.
Your pretty much correct. Instead of politicians spending time on populated areas they will avoid those and spend time on the least populated arears since its far easier to campaign and get your message out and they are worth the same amount of votes. Its much easier to talk to 1000 people than it is to convince 100,000 to vote for you.
Excellent discussion! One of many articles on the subject: http://www.examiner.com/article/time-for... I believe it is time to revamp the system. The hypothetical in the story highlights many people in the US who just stay home on election day. Something needs to change. It won't be easy. Electoral college stay or go?
Our system is designed to curve the advantage the majority has for simply having more people. For example, South Dakota voters get more bang for their buck for their vote then Texas, or Florida voters do. Small states have it ridiculously well in our system, not to say thats a bad thing because it has worked out pretty well that the nation is equally represented. If you are trying to find a fix and you are a republican I would look towards adding more house and Senate seats and making the focus on the races more localized.
