Here is a Future Solution to our Current Election Problem

Personally, I think it's an excellent solution, although it does open the road to dismantling the two party system. If Nader could have gotten just one EC vote in each state, it puts a significant amount of pressure on either of the major party candidates. With only 488 EC votes left, the split for the major party candidates would be 270-218 (if they kept 270 as the threshhold). I wonder how the math would have worked out in this election since the popular vote was so close -- depending on how many fractions of an electoral vote you go to, could it have been a tie?

I don't know, any significant change to the EC will probably reduce the two-party chokehold on American politics. I have a tendency to think that after it all dies down, the EC stays as it is.

------------------
Brought to you by the letter M.

 

"although it does open the road to dismantling the two party system"

so, what's wrong with that?

------------------
'Deeds, not words, shall speak me.'

 

Isn't this more-or-less the equivalent to a popular vote, since EC votes are proportioned by population?

------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

 

It would put every election into the House of Reps. Thus giving that branch the power to select a president, and thus remove the balance of power between all three branches.

To win this year, the Republicans would have begged people to vote for Nader. Absolutely begged. And they would have done it. Creating a three way push into the House when nobody got 270. That get's Bush elected even if he got just 10% of vote. It's to easy to manipulate.


------------------
humble, but hungry.

 

Good point, RMTex -- didn't think of the amendment issue. Then again, PhiSlammaJamma makes a good point about the House issue. I think the Perot electon would have gone to the house, and apparently, more states are Republican, so we'd almost always have a Republican President. Bad idea!



------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

 

What about coalition-building? It happens in other countries all the time. If, for example, neither Bush nor Gore got 270 electoral votes, they could persuade some Nadar electors to vote with them, in exchange for incorporating some of the Green party platform.

This would give significant power to third parties, though. So I doubt that it would ever fly on a national scale.

------------------

 

I would say a plurality, but that could lead to a messed up 10-party system where we end up electing random people who don't really have the support of the people. Is this something that is constitutionally defined, though?

A benefit to the EC system (not that I support it) is that one person comes out a definite winner with 50% of the country's "vote", which gives that leader a credibility of some sort that wouldn't happen if someone won with only a plurality. This is an interesting issue -- I know I had never thought of it this way before today.


------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

 

I guess I forgot to mention that I don't think there is anything wrong with dismantling the two party system. In fact, I'm all for it.

Splitting the EC votes would also not quite reflect the popular vote since population per vote varies from state to state. In 1990, the population per electoral vote for Wyoming was 151,000. In California, the population per vote was 551,000. Even though you have to reach fewer people in the small states, mass media gives you an advantage in large states.

If you lowered the threshold to 242 electoral votes, you would theoretically put in a candidate with 45% of the vote.



------------------
Brought to you by the letter M.

 

I have another idea. How bout each voter gets assigned a voting assistant. When they come into the polling place, the voting assistant holds their hand and escorts them to the booth. The voter then tells the assistant who they would like to vote for. The assistant then takes the voter's hand, and makes the proper selection for him or her, being sure to select the proper candidate amidst the mass of confusion that is a ballot. The voting assistant hasn't actually voted for the person, since the assistant was actually holding the voter's hand, but it is the voter's hand that in fact makes the selection. Sound good?

 

If you lowered the threshold to 242 electoral votes, you would theoretically put in a candidate with 45% of the vote.

Any legimitate 3rd party candidate could still throw the election to the House. In both 1992 and 1996, I believe Clinton won with less than 45%. In both of those cases, Bush/Dole would have been placed in office by the House without even winning a plurality of the popular vote -- is this what we want?



------------------
Is it any coincidence that the Cato is the only Rocket with a temperature scale named after him?

I didnt think so!!!!

 

Freak,

Laying the sarcasm on thick today I see.

RM Tex,

I was watching ABC news and Cokie Roberts said something interesting.

You know Cokie Roberts is dumber than a post, right?



------------------

 

Well, I was reading a transcript of a 1997 meeting of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution and apparently reforms to the electoral college are discussed quite often.

In this discussion, proposals were made to set the cutoff at 40% (or something close -- that's not the magic number, just one that was thrown out). In U.S. history, only Lincoln was elected to the presidency with less than 40% of the vote. Additionally, 14 presidents have been elected with less than 50% of the vote (which reflects probably only 25% of the population if that), including Clinton, Kennedy, Lincoln, Truman and Wilson.

Interestingly enough, the information above was used to support keeping the EC. I'm using it to point out the fact that it probably doesn't matter much if the presidency is decided on a plurality as no president in the last 175 years has received a mandate of the population because so many people don't vote.

If competition drives the economy maybe it can drive politics as well.

------------------
Brought to you by the letter M.

 

The electoral votes are awarded by the states, and I don't think it takes a constitutional ammendment to change the way those votes are awarded. So, a change like this might be easier than dismantling the entire electoral college.

They were talking about one of the smaller states that does have something along this line to address this problem. (Oregon?) Two electoral votes are awarded on the basis of who wins the state, and the rest are based on the winner of each congressional district in the state.

(RE: Each state has two electors for it's two senators, plus one for each representative.)

Something like this would address most of these issues.

------------------
Stay Cool...

 

RMTex...would they round up, or down for the decimal point?

------------------
In the end there will be no judges...only witnesses to my greatness.

[This message has been edited by Curly (edited November 10, 2000).]