Should we consider reforming our electoral college?

Bush one the popular vote this time and the electoral college. 2 to 3 million more people voted for Bush than Kerry, yet if about 130,000 votes swinged to Kerry in Ohio, he would have been elected president of the United States. Isn't that wrong? Shouldn't we make electional reforms for better equal representation, I mean a 3rd party candidate can't win the Presidency with our system set up the way it is. I believe all the candidates running for President should be allowed equal air time, including third party candidates. All of them should get to debate each other, and I think if we setup a proprotional system in the united states, people would be better representated.

Well bush won in 2000 even though Gore had the popular vote, this time (i hate to admit) bush seems to have won fair and square, and as much as i dont like him, i have to live with the fact your country just doesnt know whats best for them or the world.

But back to the topic... the electoral colledge should be scrapped and your president should be decided on the popular vote and thats all...

Also partys should not be allowed to spend so much money on their campaigns, and should not be allowed to accept corporate sponsorship. The way your system works now, only the parties with money can get any publicity, also the parties that favour corporate rights over individuals rights will more likely to win due to large 'donations' from the corporations.

i feel very strongly that we should keep the electoral college, for the reasons that it was designed that way.

if you go by population, you need ten states to win. electoral college needs 11. and thats the extreme case, the difference only grows if you use the electoral college.

the issue that many people dont see, especially those in the blue states is that besides being the population, we are states. alaska, wyoming, montana, WHO GIVES A DAMN? well, nobody, by population its insignificant. you can ignore them.or oil in the alaskan refuge, what they gonna do? to hell with the wildlife in wyoming, montana, let it burn. except, of course, for the electoral college. you get those three, thats 9 votes. its not california, but thats a lot as far as collecting small states goes.

Yes, it must be reformed. Why? Density. our home state going to a specific candidate is based on the popular vote of the state, correct? Well, if there is a low concentration of support for my candidate where I live, my vote is discarded because it seems as if that candidate has no pull andno following. But there IS a following, it's simply dispersed. We can call states for certain candidates, but can we call percents of the country? If I want to vote for a candidate who only has a strong pull in another state, must I pack my bags and move to Idaho in order for my vote to be seen? If you live in a state with a large enough population (I speak this coming from Texas) you've got to get a whole lot of votes to break over that 0% mark. If smaller candidates wish to be taken more seriously in larger states, there must be more showcase on their national pull instead of state wide.

Countless people have told me, "Texas is going to Bush, is there a point?" Many undecided voters base their vote on how their state will swing, and those of us with a lowre density here in Texas sure get screwed around by the electoral college.

Here in Australia we had a referendum a few years back to vote to see if we would become a republic (as oposed to a commonwealth state). The majority of people here would like to be a republic, with a president and so forth. The reason the vote was knocked back was because the system was based on the US EC system and everyone saw it for what it is, an outdated system that needs revising.

Firstly, I think anyone posting about the Electoral College should read what it's actual function is.

You can do that by going here

I've briefly excerpted 3 points to make life easier for everyone.

1. On the Tuesday following the first Monday of November in years divisible by four, the people in each State cast their ballots for the party slate of Electors representing their choice for president and vice president (although as a matter of practice, general election ballots normally say "Electors for" each set of candidates rather than list the individual Electors on each slate).
   
2. Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State.
   
3. In the event no one obtains an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, the U.S. House of Representatives (as the chamber closest to the people) selects the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority of the States being required to elect.
   

Do you understand what that means? You didn't vote for Bush or Kerry, did you? You voted for some folks who supported Bush or Kerry. If the Bush team got more votes, they cast their votes for Bush and vice versa.

But do you see the second point? Whoever wins the "popular" vote in A state, wins THAT state.

The point about one candidate winning the National popular vote is entirely irrelevant. A "national" popular vote is completely worthless in this system. He who wins the most Votes wins the race.

For those who were wondering, Electoral vote numbers are decided by adding the state's Senators (always 2) and Congressmen (at least one).

The people who cried about Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 and how he was robbed were WRONG. The people who said Bush was up by 3 million votes so the Electoral College wasn't reflecting popular view are WRONG. This is the system. If it needs an overhaul, fine! But that is the system, read it yourself. I'm not saying I like it. I think that when an accurate, uncorruptable method of counting popular votes is devised we should toss the College completely. But this is what we have now. If you're running for an American Government position you should accept the American Electoral process or don't waste our time.

By the way if you want to talk about an anomalous system:

In 1824 J.Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson both ran, neither got more than 50% of the Electoral Vote, and Jackson got more Electoral Votes. Congress chose Adams as President (see point 3 above). You think 2000 and 2004 were bad?

[edit on 12-3-2004 by Djarums]

fabulous post, djarums. however, i dont see the relevance here. as far as i can tell, nobody has exhibited a lack of knowledge about the electoral college, and i dont expect very many people in this forum to do so.

dont forget, though, that in that election, henry clay was a third candidate for president. in the congress, he threw his support behind adams, and gave him the presidency. he was then appointed secretary of state, in the 'corrupt bargain.' nowadays, wed destroy somone for that. then again, wed also destroy someone for having a huge booze party like jackson did when elected.

to get back to the topic, i would like very much to see a system where the votes are divided in a state. lets say a state has 7 votes, and goes for Meltzer in 2008. 2 of those votes go directly to meltzer for winning. the other 5 are then given out according to the way the popular vote went. for example, meltzer won 60%, schwartzanegger won 40%, so meltzer would get 3, for a total of 5, and ahhnold would get 2. i think it solves most problems, and allows for a better political system.

Originally posted by Amorymeltzer
to get back to the topic, i would like very much to see a system where the votes are divided in a state. lets say a state has 7 votes, and goes for Meltzer in 2008. 2 of those votes go directly to meltzer for winning. the other 5 are then given out according to the way the popular vote went. for example, meltzer won 60%, schwartzanegger won 40%, so meltzer would get 3, for a total of 5, and ahhnold would get 2. i think it solves most problems, and allows for a better political system.

Thats not a bad idea, but then gerrymandering would become a huge factor for the national election. Because as we all know every ten years a census is taking, and then districts are redrawn to fit the population. And right now the only gerrymandering that is allowed is racial gerrymandering to get more of the minority in elected positions. So that could really effect the election, for example lets say theres 5 districts, and they change the district lines and took most of the minority and make it one district. Now, since minority usually votes democrat that district would go to the democrats, and the other 4 distriicts have a better chance to go to the republicans because their is a less minority vote there. Personally, I like the proportional system where a party can only win so many seats, with that system it could bring in more parties, and people are better representated. Now for the presidency, I think each of those parties should run a candidate, and to win the presidency one candidate must reach above 50 percent. I know what you guys are saying, what if a candidate doesn't reach above 50 percent? That problen can be fixed with a spinoff election, where on the ballot it will say who's your first choice for president, then second, third, and so and so on. Then you add up the first choice votes, and then you keep going until you reach the magic number of 50 percent or more. The electoral college should be I think tossed, the reason they set it up back then was because the average joe didn't know enough about the candidates. A person voting in Georgia, wouldn't know much about a candidate in New York, so they set it up where a candidate has to win states not the popular vote. Now with todays television, radio, internet, and newspapers the average joe knows plenty about the candidate. Personally, I don't see any electoral reforms coming soon, I mean honestly what politican is going to change a system that helped them get elected?