With the eliminatiion of the electoral college and the subsequent weakening of the small population states, I fear the following: The big states divvy up the money and spend it on the big voting blocs in urban areas. The less populated states -- generally agrarian -- get no money for roads, schools, etc. because the big cities need it more (and they have the votes). Huge mobs in the cities cry out for food, but all the people in the farm states have moved to the city where they can get services. Also, what food there is lays rotting in the field for lack of roads / transportation to get it to market. Simplistic example, I realize, but are we looking forward to see what the results really might be rather than what we want them to be in an ideal world?
This doesn't change the workings of Congress, just the election of the presidency. Nothing would change except who Presidential contenders campaign towards. Is it really good that 30% of the US population doesn't even get considered in a Presidential election just in Texas, California, and New York? Or that the entire deep south and New England area is already pre-determined? And that Florida and Ohio get an absurd amount of attention? As far as just paying attention to the big states if it was a national election, that doesn't make any sense. California is 55/45 or so. At best, you can change that to 58/42 or 52/48. Focusing all your efforts there can only win you so many votes. But instead of focusing on individual states, you'd actually have to nationwide appeal with people of all types. You couldn't just cater your campaign to Florida and Ohio independent voters to just tip the scales of about 300,000 voters in those two states.
We could just determine who is president by who wins the MLB All-Star game. AL wins, then the Democrat gets the White House. If the NL wins, then the Republican gets the White House. If it is good enough for home field in the World Series, then it could work for the White House too.
Yeah, but if the electoral college was eliminated and the election was popular (meaning a true democracy instead of a republic) - then rural areas would get no attention at all....it would all be in urban areas - cities...california, new york, illinois, florida....and the heartland left out. As much as I detest Bush, I don't think the electoral college should be eliminated. It ensures that every state matters.
Electoral college is a good tool to preserve the power of the smaller states. You are only as strong as your weakest link. It's just a shame that the South East drinks Republican cool-aid.
I like it, but as a Yankee fan and a Republican, I think it should be reversed. Besides, shouldn't the big money Yankees and Red Sox represent the GOP? The south is no more a given than New England. Maybe the Jesusland suggestion would serve everyone best (though it would make me a Canuck).
And the reverse is fair? Right now a handful of swing states get attention and everyone else gets nothing in terms of political attention. The argument goes both ways. Either way, someone is going to get more attention than everyone else but at least with the elimination of the electoral college, everyone's vote counts equally. As it stands right now, a democrat's vote means nothing in Texas and a Republican's vote means nothing in New York. A popular vote would at least allow those votes to mean something.
Eliminating the Electoral College would be a huge mistake. Hopefully inertia will ensure the status quo. Electing presidents by direct popular vote would turn this country upside down and degrade presidential campaigning even further. We don't want to go there.
how so? They'll just start whoring themselves to a new group of states. The system can't really get much worse. At least with a popular vote, everyone's vote really counts and we can avoid the idiocy of the 2000 election.
I think it would be most useful for the individual states to split up their votes based on how people voted...rather then take away power from small states. Remember, we're the united STATES of america. We're not a completely federal government. The states choose the president, not us directly. That's how our country was built. As a republic, not a democracy.
Yea that would be fine as well. The status quo however is a joke and needs some serious fixing. But your proposal would work just fine.
Taking out electoral college, not only makes every vote count, but also allows more voices. In a pure populate vote, every party or independant candidate matters, because it allows coalition between parties, which leads to more compromise - a healthy political environment. If Dems and Repubs want to focus their attention in urban areas and large cities? That's fine. Small parties can work on those remote places, if you can grab those votes with coalition, do you think those big boys will ignore those small guys? Right now, is there anyone who has serious political ambition considering forming own party? No way, because it doesn't serve anything, he never has a chance to have his voice heard. The 2 party only situation is wrong, and electoral college is the foundation of that.
Why? There are tens of millions of rural voters. If they are ignored by one party and vote strongly for the other, they will have a huge impact on the election. Urban dwellers have less room for change - they are going to be split 53/47 or so regardless. How? California, Texas, New York, and about 30 other states are completely ignored in Presidential campaigns right now.
Certainly that's an option but all that does is try to best represent the overall popular vote as much as possible. That makes small states even less useful. At the absolute best, you're going to get a 60/40 split. So take a state with 5 EC votes. At best, one candidate will win 3 of 5. At worst, they'll win 2 of 5. 1 vote is all you can win there. Why even bother?
In attempting to be succinct, I don't think I stated my point clearly. Whereas I agree this action will not change the workings of Congress per se, I was attempting to point out that elimination of the electoral college could lead to changes in our entire representative system simply because the President is generally the leader in proposing strategic legislation. Because he would be looking at the population centers first and foremost, the status of the smaller states ultimately might be diminished. All I am trying to point out is that we shouldn't scrap a system without really thinking it through and without attempting to foresee the subtle short-term and long-term effects. The bicameral system our founding fathers devised was a brilliant compromise that allowed a nation to be forged. I urge serious study by all concerned.
You can't really have a coalition run for one office, that would make them less political parties and more political action committees, which are already quite numerous.
I see what you are saying, maybe they should get rid of senates as well and replace that with a parliment, just like a real democracy? Senates was a form from slavery society, exercising democracy among the elite class. All the parties run for themselves, but at election night, depends on the result, you can form coalition on the fly, based on the result. That's a gurantee to have a government representing the majority. That's also encouragement for people to join election, because their votes matter, no matter what candidate they feel representing them the best.
Yeah but on the flip side, parliamentary systems can also go haywire like in Italy and India where coalition governments rise and fall. Sometimes elections produce such weak coalitions that there just isn't any trust in the government and it is reduced to lame duck status before anything has even started. Also, the amount of whoring among members of the coalition becomes ridiculous. The only examples of truly stable coalition governments are essentially two party systems like the US (Canada, the UK, France, etc..)
Actually the coalition in Germany was pretty stable as well. CDU + FDP vs. SPD + Green. The more votes you get, the more contribution you are making towards the coalition; therefore, the more important post in the cabinet or opposition.
Urban settings tend to go democratic while rural republican. If we just have a popular election...I think it would give a heavy advantage toward democrats. They would be able to just tour urban areas whereas republican would also need to transverse rural areas. Think about it, New Yorkers and Californians would determine the outcome of nearly every election - the Great Plains would be entirely left out of the political debate. Why would a presidential canidate bother visiting Montana?
