The Electoral College

There might have been a good argument for the Electoral College in 1789, but I can't see one today.

It is only fair that EVERYONE be subjected to endless political ads and robo calls, not just those of us in the battleground states.

I'm not a fan of it.  What's funny is depending on how the current presidential election is panning out the various parties either love or hate the EC.  Obama wanted to do away with it several years ago, but today I'm thinking he absolutely loves it.  

I saw an interesting idea about doing a hybrid EC awarding 1 vote per congressional district nationwide.  This would allow everybody to count equally based on population and then hidden red districts in states like CA could have a voice as well as hidden blue districts in TX.  I'm not sure if the math favors one party over another nationwide, but the concept is intriguing for me.

The alternative is straight up popular vote only.

Honestly I don't think it will ever change because the politicians don't want to spread out beyond the handful of swing states.  It makes it easier for them to campaign.

The major reason I've heard for it, is that without it the candidates would just campaign in the major cities (NY, LA, etc.)

I'm All for that.

You could really screw with the foundation - do away with the president and replace with a prime minister.  The PM is never voted on, but is the head of the majority of congress.

Would make local politics much more interesting.  And get rid of the electoral college.

Eh....until congressional districts are defined more arbitrarily I'm not sure if this is "fair" either.  I live in a blue district (in a swing state) but it's designed as a blue district to make sure more seats (or in your proposal, electoral votes) go to Republicans.  If you would look at a map, our districting does not make any logical sense unless you know about the populations of the assorted non-contiguous cities that make it up...

Getting rid of the "winner takes all" approach that most State's have with their votes would be a good start.

Getting each State to require that the EC votes representative of the populace would also be nice... currently, there is no such requirement.  The popular vote could go one way, but the EC could just up and decide to go the other way and there is no recourse.

I think it should be changed to pure popular vote.  As stated earlier it made sense, but that time has long since passed.

As someone who supports Obama, who very could well loose the popular vote tonight but become the next president anyways, I think that it would be wrong for him to win again if he loses the popular vote. 

Maybe, just maybe the Democrats and Republicans could work together to get rid of the electoral college after each having an election "stolen" from them.

Or I could win the lottery while being struck by lightning, which is probably more likely.

One reason for the electoral college is to keep as much power at the state level as possible.
Even better if it could be kept at a lower level.

Back in the day a farmer out in Pennsylvania wouldn't necessarily be able
to make an informed decision about a presidential candidate from Illinois.
On the other hand, he'd know about the judgement of an electoral candidate in the next county
and would trust him to represent his concerns in voting for president.

I don't know if this was the thinking of the Founders in establishing the system, but it would make sense.

Keeping power at as local a level as possible is a good thing.

So how 'bout this?

Let the state legislatures choose the electoral delegates.
That would eliminate the endless cycle of presidential campaigning. 
Individual citizens would not vote for president.
It would put the burden for choosing the president on our state representatives,
who would then have to answer to us in local elections.

It might also have the consequence of giving a larger voice to third parties.
It's conceivable that third parties could win substantial seats in state legislatures
because of the dynamics of local communities.
That would then cause coalitions to form in choosing the electoral representatives.
Third parties would have more leverage in the outcome.

It would infuse some of what is good about the parliamentary system into our own system. 

This is aweseome.  And mocks what many people think...  From one of my favorite shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6A7NGUHJd4

WINNER!  Key and Peele are Da' Bomb, Y'all!

Don, Agree or disgree with you...I always enjoy reading your posts and you perspective on things.

I doubt we would get a tie but it would be interesting.  If we got one I  bet each side would lobby the electoral candidates and complain the other one is doing it while saying they are not.

Nice thing about the current system is it makes recounts way easier.  nation wide recount would be long and frustrating. 

1 vote for each district sounds interesting but I worry it will just give power to one party or another.  Assuming each district will go for president the direction they went with there congressman it would just give 1 party complete control.

That is awesome.

I just spent a half hour on youtube watching those guys.

Why do we have 100 Senators?  So soveriegn states have equal representation in US government. 

Wyoming population:  ?450,000 

Population of CA:  38,000,000

450,000 / 38,000,000 = 1.2% 

Going to the popular vote marginalizes rural areas even more than the electoral college and would give all the power to the population centers.

We could go back to your voting weight being dependent on the amount of land you own.

Well that is a good point.   I kinda like using tupuppies idea but adding yours in also.  each district get 1 vote but the winner of the state gets a bonus 2. 

I'm in!  We own 6 acres in Alabama....also own a few tracts here and there in Louisiana too.  Would I get to vote in both states then?  ;-)  There is actually a Rogillioville, LA.  Really. 

This... some of the gerrymandered districts are just comical...

Wyoming has 3 electoral college votes, about one EC vote per 150,000 residents.  California has 55 EC votes, roughly one EC vote per 691,000 residents.  So a resident in Wyoming has a vote weighted 4.5 times more than that of a California resident's vote.  How is this a fair system?

What does fair have to do with it ?