Proportional Allocation of Eelectoral Votes

[pegwinn]

And, realistically, how many times have renegate members of the electoral college skewed the result?

None to my knowlege. However, what state are you in? Is your electors required by state law to actually vote with the will of the people? Even with state laws, they may not be enough.

This is a ten page doc, I will call your attention to this para on page 2 near the top.

If these laws purport to change faithless votes, however, they may be unavailing. In the 1952 decision Ray v. Blair, the Supreme Court held that
states may allow political parties to extract pledges of faithfulness to the
nominee of the national party from candidates for elector who seek to run in
the party’s primary.8 But the court explicitly reserved the possibility that
the pledge was “legally unenforceable because of an assumed constitutional
freedom.”9 A whole host of electoral college commentators insists that
electors have just such a “constitutional freedom” to vote faithlessly.10

I'm still wondering why you think it's a good thing that some guy in Idaho has a vote that's worth 3 or 4 of mine.

Two points. It's a good thing because without the electoral college Idaho would effectivily have no votes which places you far above him.

Also, under the current system Idaho may mathematically hold three or four times your votes value, but the reality is that Idaho likely will not sway an election. Ever. BTW, I already conceded the math earlier.

Moving on. The point of the electoral college was to get the entire nation into the election. Not to simply concentrate it in a few population centers.

Remember,
Democracy as form of .gov = Bad.
Republican form = Good.

 

[82Marine89]

Two points. It's a good thing because without the electoral college Idaho would effectivily have no votes which places you far above him.

Also, under the current system Idaho may mathematically hold three or four times your votes value, but the reality is that Idaho likely will not sway an election. Ever. BTW, I already conceded the math earlier.

Moving on. The point of the electoral college was to get the entire nation into the election. Not to simply concentrate it in a few population centers.

Remember,
Democracy as form of .gov = Bad.
Republican form = Good.

Let me take it one step further. Ending the electoral college would reduce the representation of smaller states. At that time, what would be their incentive to stay in the Union? Wouldn't they have more power and a stronger voice as an individual country or as a group of smaller states forming their own country?

 

[Mr.Conley]

I already stated that the framers wanted to ensure protections of the minorities from tyranny of majorities AND small states from the will of Big states. 3 votes is the minimum a state may have in EC=2 senators + 1 rep.

I know, and I'm saying that's blatantly unfair.

 

[Annie]

I know, and I'm saying that's blatantly unfair.

Ok, your contention then would be that the small states or underpopulated states should not have a say, that would be meaningful?

 

[82Marine89]

I know, and I'm saying that's blatantly unfair.

Maybe it is unfair in a democracy, but not in a Republic.

 

[jillian]

Maybe it is unfair in a democracy, but not in a Republic.

So that means we shouldn't consider, perhaps, that times have changed? That we're no longer an agrarian, aristocratic society, and that things should be revamped?

Do you think saying "well, this is what it is" should end the discussion about what is right and what is wrong?

Land shouldn't vote. My vote should be equal to someone living in idaho. It's absurd and its vestigial process of a bygone era that needs to be rethought.

 

[Annie]

So that means we shouldn't consider, perhaps, that times have changed? That we're no longer an agrarian, aristocratic society, and that things should be revamped?

Do you think saying "well, this is what it is" should end the discussion about what is right and what is wrong?

Land shouldn't vote. My vote should be equal to someone living in idaho. It's absurd and its vestigial process of a bygone era that needs to be rethought.

I wonder if you would think so if you were in Iowa rather than NY?

 

[jillian]

None to my knowlege. However, what state are you in? Is your electors required by state law to actually vote with the will of the people? Even with state laws, they may not be enough.

This is a ten page doc, I will call your attention to this para on page 2 near the top.

I live in NY. I don't think our electors are bound to cast their vote for the winner.

I skimmed the beginning of your article. It seems interesting and I will try to find time to read it more thoroughly. But it seems a perfect argument to dispose of the system even though faithless electors have never swayed the electoral process.

Two points. It's a good thing because without the electoral college Idaho would effectivily have no votes which places you far above him.

Which it should. We have a larger population. Those votes shouldn't be worth three of ours. I'm sorry, I think each person's vote should be worth the same. As someone else pointed out, Idaho is already represented disproportionately in the Senate.

LAND SHOULDN'T VOTE.

Also, under the current system Idaho may mathematically hold three or four times your votes value, but the reality is that Idaho likely will not sway an election. Ever. BTW, I already conceded the math earlier.

Oh... I know you did. But I don't see any justification for accepting that circumstance any longer.

Moving on. The point of the electoral college was to get the entire nation into the election. Not to simply concentrate it in a few population centers.

But it wouldn't. The result would be based on the popular vote and the states the votes are coming from would be, ultimately, irrelevant. It would be a great equalizer.

Remember,
Democracy as form of .gov = Bad.
Republican form = Good.

Er...... why?

 

[jillian]

I wonder if you would think so if you were in Iowa rather than NY?

Why? Because Iowa would prefer a system that skews to give it more power than it should have?

And?

We all like things to be rigged in our favor. But that doesn't mean they should be.

 

[William Joyce]

Maybe it is unfair in a democracy, but not in a Republic.

Right. The United States of America is a collection of sovereigns, not a nation of its own. Liberals have never understood this. The Constitution is a pact between the states, in part.

 

[pegwinn]

Jillian, you seem fixated on the numbers. So I am going to try to answer your post again.

I'm sorry you live in a state where your vote doesn't count at all. I personally believe the "electors" should actually by your congressional rep and the law should require him or her to vote with the population of his/her district.

Even though faithless electors have never conspired to fix an election, it doesn't mean it cannot happen. Thus the need to ensure that it cannot.

Using math the smaller states votes are apparently worth more than yours. Let's remember that your vote for president doesn't count at all unless you are an elector. Which means that depending on the smaller state we look at, they could also be worth nothing. Numerical superiority trumps relative value every time. Your state still has more influence in the process than Wyoming.

To illustrate: In WWII the German Tanks were far superior to the American/Brits models. Often they were evaluated to be worth anywhere from two to five allied tanks depending on crew competency. So, the allies fielded seven to one. Meaning that in a battle, even with technical superiority, the Germans lost. The USSR used the same application in the cold war with armor. And New York and CA use it in Electoral Votes.

You also mentioned disproportionate representation in the Senate. That's actually a different discussion. There is a thread here that would be worth your time to participate in. I would suggest carefully reading the first two posts and then moving right in.

Finally, you are sounding more like a democrat (an advocate of democracy as a form of .gov) in this. To put it mildly, a true democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Here are some things that may never have happened had we not maintained a republican form of .gov. BTW I am using those words as descriptors and not as a political party title, Fair nuff?

Women would now be simply wives and moms. There is a good chance that they would not have gained the right to vote.

Blacks, and other ethnic minorities would have fewer rights than they do now.

Gays would be not only in the closet but locked into it.

Why all the above..... Because in a democracy the White Male would have ruled exclusively from 1790 until ???????? Perhaps the gains would be made. At best today we'd be in the societal standing of say the 1930's give or take.

Additionally, a democracy now would certainly ensure that the population voted themselves gifts of the treasury.

 

[jillian]

Jillian, you seem fixated on the numbers. So I am going to try to answer your post again.

I'm sorry you live in a state where your vote doesn't count at all. I personally believe the "electors" should actually by your congressional rep and the law should require him or her to vote with the population of his/her district.

Even though faithless electors have never conspired to fix an election, it doesn't mean it cannot happen. Thus the need to ensure that it cannot.

Using math the smaller states votes are apparently worth more than yours. Let's remember that your vote for president doesn't count at all unless you are an elector. Which means that depending on the smaller state we look at, they could also be worth nothing. Numerical superiority trumps relative value every time. Your state still has more influence in the process than Wyoming.

To illustrate: In WWII the German Tanks were far superior to the American/Brits models. Often they were evaluated to be worth anywhere from two to five allied tanks depending on crew competency. So, the allies fielded seven to one. Meaning that in a battle, even with technical superiority, the Germans lost. The USSR used the same application in the cold war with armor. And New York and CA use it in Electoral Votes.

You also mentioned disproportionate representation in the Senate. That's actually a different discussion. There is a thread here that would be worth your time to participate in. I would suggest carefully reading the first two posts and then moving right in.

Finally, you are sounding more like a democrat (an advocate of democracy as a form of .gov) in this. To put it mildly, a true democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Here are some things that may never have happened had we not maintained a republican form of .gov. BTW I am using those words as descriptors and not as a political party title, Fair nuff?

Women would now be simply wives and moms. There is a good chance that they would not have gained the right to vote.

Blacks, and other ethnic minorities would have fewer rights than they do now.

Gays would be not only in the closet but locked into it.

Why all the above..... Because in a democracy the White Male would have ruled exclusively from 1790 until ???????? Perhaps the gains would be made. At best today we'd be in the societal standing of say the 1930's give or take.

Additionally, a democracy now would certainly ensure that the population voted themselves gifts of the treasury.

I read your post earlier, but wanted to take some time to consider it before responding. I asked myself if you were correct about the electoral college protecting the rights of the minorities that you raise. Or somehow protects from tyrannical or fascistic government, if that's what I can take from your post. My conclusion? The rights you discuss aren't those which are protected by the electoral college, which needs to go the way of the dinosaur, IMO, of course.

The rights of minorities are protected by the Supreme Court. It is THAT entity which did away with segregation. It is that entity which protects the rights we have from tyrannical government. Unfortunately, however, the people who fancy themselves Constitutionalists (which is everyone who's ever read a right wing blog or listened to Rush Limbaugh, as far as I can tell) have forgotten that THAT is the purpose of the Court. They want the Court to limit itself to the "letter" of the Constitution, instead of what it actually intends, which is broad individual liberty. And it is THERE that the current administration has made its most pervasive and damaging injuries to our governmental system.

I don't want to digress from the thread topic. But allowing Idaho to vote its land and have more say in a presidential election doesn't in any way protect the rights of the minority. Those rights aren't SUPPOSED to be protected when we choose our president, again IMO.

It is not so much that I am fixated on the numbers. I am fixated, to the extent that I think about it, on the fact that the system is obsolete in the same way women not being allowed to vote is obsolete.

I am a staunch advocate of protecting the rights of the minority from tyranny... it's why I am a social liberal.

 

[pegwinn]

I forsee that we will agree to disagree eventually. However, discussion is a good way to see if new ideas can take root. The rights I spoke of came about as a result of a republican form of government. In a majority rules democracy a white male majority could easily have modified the laws of the land and the Constitution they are based on. The Justices you cite were appointed by the process of a republican form of .gov.

I agree that the EC needs to be updated. As I said, I believe that the House of Representatives should be the peoples electors. So if your district votes blue, your rep must (by law) vote blue. In effect he/she isn't so much voting per se as he/she is reporting the vote from the congressional district.

I also believe the States (via the Senate after repeal of the 17th amendment) should have a say.

So anyway, tis fun, C'ya

 

[82Marine89]

So that means we shouldn't consider, perhaps, that times have changed? That we're no longer an agrarian, aristocratic society, and that things should be revamped?

Do you think saying "well, this is what it is" should end the discussion about what is right and what is wrong?

Land shouldn't vote. My vote should be equal to someone living in idaho. It's absurd and its vestigial process of a bygone era that needs to be rethought.

Maybe in the democrat party land, along with corpses, non-citizens, and Disney characters, might vote, but not in the real world. Only people vote. Our Founding Fathers, in Article2, Section 1 of the Constitution, laid out how the presidential election would work. If you want to change it, then push for a Constitutional amendment.

How do you come to the determination that this is between right and wrong? Your vote carries the same weight as a person in Idaho. You vote in all your local elections, you vote for congressmen, senators, local legislators, the same as all other Americans do in every other State. You also vote for electors that represent your state, not you, in the election of the president of these United States.

By proposing to end the electoral college, you are proposing to take power from the states and give it to the federal government. There would no longer be a need for individual states. We can just have a centralized, omnipotent government that can rule over all of us.

As I said in an earlier post, if the electoral college were abolished, the smaller states would no longer have an equal voice on the federal level. At that point, they have lost all incentive to stay in the Union and I would not blame them if they wished to secede. After all, they would be more powerful and have a stronger voice as an individual country or a group of smaller states forming their own country or countries. That happened once before in 1860. A group of states tried to secede and some 620,000 deaths occurred from it. Do you really think the federal government that you seem to adore and trust would allow this to happen again? Do you think they would be willing to give up the power you want to entrust them with? Think about it.

 

[jillian]

I forsee that we will agree to disagree eventually. However, discussion is a good way to see if new ideas can take root. The rights I spoke of came about as a result of a republican form of government. In a majority rules democracy a white male majority could easily have modified the laws of the land and the Constitution they are based on. The Justices you cite were appointed by the process of a republican form of .gov.

I agree that the EC needs to be updated. As I said, I believe that the House of Representatives should be the peoples electors. So if your district votes blue, your rep must (by law) vote blue. In effect he/she isn't so much voting per se as he/she is reporting the vote from the congressional district.

I also believe the States (via the Senate after repeal of the 17th amendment) should have a say.

So anyway, tis fun, C'ya

We can agree to disagree, certainly. Again, I wasn't suggesting changing any other part of our system. I don't believe in overkill. But I do think it's important to discuss these things and see what, if anything, needs fine-tuning.

I also don't agree that the 17th Amendment should be repealed.

But the discussion has been a pleasure. Thank you.

Cheers.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You're talking about proportional division of the electoal college. I say the electoral college is antiquated,....

Yes. But the question here is:
Do you believe that CA should adopt proportional allocation, so as to better represent the will of its people?

 

[M14 Shooter]

LAND SHOULDN'T VOTE.

Good news:
It doesn't.

 

[M14 Shooter]

-No one- thinks CA should allocate its electors in a manner that better represents the will of the people?

Wow.

 

[Larkinn]

I'm sorry you live in a state where your vote doesn't count at all. I personally believe the "electors" should actually by your congressional rep and the law should require him or her to vote with the population of his/her district.

Actually her vote does count. Since the electors are chosen by the party that wins the nomination and are generally chosen based on their loyalty, they almost always vote the same way that the state votes. There have only been a handful of times when the electors haven't voted the same way as the population, and nowadays that just wouldn't fly.

Even though faithless electors have never conspired to fix an election, it doesn't mean it cannot happen. Thus the need to ensure that it cannot.

If the two political parties are conspiring to fix an election, I think we've got larger problems than the electors.

Using math the smaller states votes are apparently worth more than yours. Let's remember that your vote for president doesn't count at all unless you are an elector.

Yes, votes in small states ARE worth more than hers (and mine for that matter). Your second statement is incorrect.

Which means that depending on the smaller state we look at, they could also be worth nothing. Numerical superiority trumps relative value every time. Your state still has more influence in the process than Wyoming.

No, it doesn't. My state has more influence than Wyoming as a whole, but on a per-person basis I don't. I don't really care how much influence the guy down the hall or down the street has, I care how much influence I have.

You also mentioned disproportionate representation in the Senate. That's actually a different discussion. There is a thread

It is different, but related. Wyoming is grossly over-represented in the Senate, and the House, it doesn't need to be grossly over-represented in the EC as well.

To put it mildly, a true democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Here are some things that may never have happened had we not maintained a republican form of .gov. BTW I am using those words as descriptors and not as a political party title, Fair nuff?

Yes, Democracy does suck. I am all for a Republic, but the EC doesn't make it a republic, the fact that we vote for representatives to represent us makes it a republic.

 

[Larkinn]

-No one- thinks CA should allocate its electors in a manner that better represents the will of the people?

Wow.

Actually that is what Jillian is arguing for, but she is arguing for it on the level of the entire country, not just the blue states.