JOEBIALEK

The framers of the U.S. Constitution created the Electoral College as a result of a compromise for the presidential election process. During the debate, some delegates felt that a direct popular election would lead to the election of each state's favorite son and none would emerge with sufficient popular majority to govern the country. Other delegates felt that giving Congress the power to select the president would deny the people their right to choose. After all, the people voted for their representatives to the federal legislature. The compromise was to set up an Electoral College system that allowed voters to vote for electors, who would then cast their votes for candidates, a system described in Article II, section 1 of the Constitution.

Each State is allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representatives (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the Census).

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.

The debate has started again as to whether the U.S. Constitution should be amended in order to change the presidential election process. Some promote eliminating the Electoral College in favor of a direct popular vote for president while others believe the Electoral College should remain unchanged. Just as compromise solved the initial problems of the framers so it is that compromise can solve this problem. The solution is to change the electoral votes to electoral points and reward each candidate a percentage of points based on the percentage of popular votes received in each state. This would eliminate the "winner take all" system thus allowing for all the votes to count. A voter is more apt to believe their vote counted when a percentage of popular votes are taken into account rather than the "all or nothing" system currently in existence. Further, this new system would integrate the desire for a popular vote for president with the need for the individual states to determine who actually gets elected. For example, in Alabama, President Bush won 63% of the popular vote and therefore would be awarded 5.67 electoral points as compared to Senator Kerry with 37% of the popular vote and 3.33 electoral points. In the event of a tie, the national popular vote results would decide the outcome.

If one tabulated the final totals from Election 2004, they would find Bush with 274.92 electoral points versus Kerry with 257.71. The existing electoral college votes shows Bush 286 to Kerry 252. I believe this compromise would reflect a truer intent of the will of the people as exercised through their states. This would also prevent the smaller "red" and "blue" states from being virtually ignored in favor of the larger "battleground" states.

Hitetlen

Makes very good sense This is why it will not be implemeted any time soon. As Churchill said: "You can count on the Americans to do the right thing... after they exhausted all the other possibilities.", and we have a few more stupid ideas to try first.

fromtheright

Joe,

I hope this doesn't ruin your reputation but I think you're exactly right. An excellent collection of essays is Securing Democracy: Why We Have an Electoral College, edited by Gary Gregg and published by ISI Books.

Haener

Am I correct in assuming that the above system would weigh the votes of citizens of relatively smaller states heavier than votes originating from the big states since all states regardless of size have at least two electoral votes?

If that is so I ask why this would be an acceptable compromise. In my humble opinion, in choosing the president of the US each citizen's vote should be weight equal. The above system does not change the fact that a candidate can be elected president while losing the popular vote allthough it would lower the chances of such a scenario unfolding compared with the current electoral process.

Could someone explain why this:should apply or what actually is meant by it. Only one person can be president and that person should be president for all Americans. Why do individual states have the need to influence this? And how do individual states exactly determine who will be the president? I know how the electoral college works and how electoral votes are assigned and how the current system more or less measures the will of the American people, but I don't see how I should interpret the above statement in this context.

I also don't see the need for the popular vote to be used as a tie-breaker in the proposed compromise since calculating the division of electoral votes by state using another decimal or several others, basically as many as necesarry would remedy the situation if using two or three decimals would yield a tie.

JOEBIALEK

some very good points, the electoral points would make the red/blue states more up for grabs...

ohwilleke

Just a quick hit and run here. Small states don't necessarily benefit greatly from the electoral college because the electoral college discounts the impact of states that are strongly blue or strongly red, and most small states are one or the other, while it gives undue weight to evenly divided states and many large states (Florida and Ohio and Pennsylvania come to mind) are relatively evenly divided.

The biggest benefit of the electoral college is that it reduces the likelihood and extent of a problem of an inconclusive outcome. There needs to be a recount or litigation over the election anywhere, only if the marginal state necessary to win the electoral college is close, and if it it close, typically only that state and one or two others will have to have recounts or be litigated. In contrast, a very close national election could spur massive national litigation and even a national recount.

Feather

I'm more in favor of returning to the actual Electoral system itself--direct election of the electors instead of the candidates.

Master Of Puppets

I would like to see the electors apportioned by vote percentage within the state. The current systems, where most states are winner take all, while a few others are proportional violates the one-man-one vote principle.

B_Sharp

Every time the Leftist Democrats cannot win, they wish to change the rules. Let unelected judges make laws. Let the 2 leftists big cities of New York and Los Angeles elect politicians.

'Winner take all' are your biased words. It is more appropriately called "Power to the State".

Proportional voting is a disaster, it is the same as Popular voting. Only tyrants wish to dictate to the States how to perform their elector voting.

The USA is properly built upon State power, in theory. This correctly prevents big, concentrated (undesireable) states like New York from dictating to the smaller states. The former 'Founders' were smarter than the modern day self proclaimed 'Enlightened' with their neo nonsense plans because they cannot get elected otherwise.

Electoral College modifications = Democrat Talking Points

If the Leftists wish to get elected more, quit trying to change the rules, serve the will of the people by changing your pro-thievery policies. The scams will never end.

Styrofoam

:rolling:

Oh, you're serious? Power to the State, eh? I take it you would have us return to the glorious days of the Articles of Confederation?

Anyhoo, the way I understand it, one of the reasons for the Electoral College was that the average American in those days was a rural farmer. Information distribution was terrible; there was no way the average farmer could be informed enough to make a reasoned decision. So the people would elect the Electors to be the informed people and make the decision for them. But these days, with radio, TV, and the internet, everyone has access to political information, regardless of how spun it may be. So the average person can very easily make a reasoned decision. That's one main reason why I favor eliminating the Electoral College. My other reasons have already been voiced in the thread.