Electoral college (should I stay or should I go?)

[Outrider]

 

For those who do not know.

A very thorough review.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)

 A shorter version with a quote.

https://votesmart.org/education/electoral-college#.WguT9nNMG7N

Quote

 

Americans elect the President and Vice President through a method of indirect popular election. On the first Tuesday in November, voters cast their ballots for a presidential candidate. These votes actually count towards a group of electors who pledge to vote for a specific candidate in the Electoral College. The "Electoral College" is the group of citizens selected by the people to cast votes for President and Vice President

 

.

 

So there are some who say our method of voting for POTUS is outdated and broken and needs to be replaced. I am agreeable to the concept if implemented in the right way. If the electoral college is abolished and everything else left pretty much the same my almost worthless vote would become completely worthless. So here is my proposal. 

1. Abolish the electoral college.

2. Voting to take place the 1st of November thru the 7th every 4 years.

3. The voting is to take place on a closed network of computers in every court house.

4. The network will be monitored by 100 auditors 50 appointed by the DNC and 50 by the GOP. All compensation to be paid with campaign funds.

5. All voters must be registered in a federal database at least 6 months prior to November of an election year.

P.S.

I know number 4 needs some work if we are ever to move beyond our two party system. 

[iNow]

Like you, I say it should go... with caveats. In terms of caveats, here’s how I approached this last year immediately following the presidential election: 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100305-is-it-true-about-the-us-ballot-papers/?tab=comments#comment-953334

Quote

Civics classes should be mandatory. 

Election Day should be a national holiday. 

Instant Runoff voting should be universal. 

Electoral district lines should be drawn by independent 3rd parties based on consistent logical standards. 

Limits should be set on total number of terms members of congress can serve. 

Laws should be enacted that congress representatives cannot work in a lobbying job for at least 5-years after leaving office. 

Lobbying should be disallowed entirely, or at least be made money-free. 

Campaign funding should be driven solely through "credits" which each citizen receives and can spend/share/trade however they see fit. 

Elections should last no more than 60 days

 

Also, I haven’t looked at it recently, but I had a thread on the two party system about 9 years ago:

 

[OldChemE]

You don't have to get rid of the Electoral College to have popular vote decide the election.  Every state has the right to divide its electoral votes any way they wish-- a couple (NH and maybe Maine-- I'm not certain) already divide their electoral votes based on their state's popular vote.  The real issue, I believe, is that the Electoral College system gives States a small degree of leverage in national elections, which they would not have if the Electoral College was abolished.  For example, with the Electoral College all the votes from New York and California went to Clinton, even though both states has significant votes for Trump.  In this election, of course, Clinton would have won if the election was by popular vote, but that kind of situation doesn't happen very often.  So, in order to switch to popular vote, the politicians in the big states would have to be willing to risk the loss of leverage.  I doubt that's going to happen anytime soon.

 

 

[Outrider]

Well I forgot to add part of one of my provisions so I will resubmit with an important modification to #2.

1. Abolish the electoral college.

2. Voting to take place the 1st of November thru the 7th every 4 years. The tally is to be kept secret until all votes have been made and counted.

3. The voting is to take place on a closed network of computers in every court house.

4. The network will be monitored by 100 auditors 50 appointed by the DNC and 50 by the GOP. All compensation to be paid with campaign funds.

5. All voters must be registered in a federal database at least 6 months prior to November of an election year.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Like you, I say it should go... with caveats.

Thanks for your reply. As for direction once I hit the submit button the thread is ours not mine.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Civics classes should be mandatory. 

As a condition of registering to vote? Ok but the sticking point with some is going to be with whats going to be taught and who is going to do the teaching but I think we can hammer all that out. This goes along well with my point 5 and helps identify who is voting. I know many of the voter id proposals are underhanded attemps at discrimination but I think it is important to find a fair way to id each voter.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Election Day should be a national holiday. 

If we make this a week long affair there will be no need. Don't know if you realize but the majority of the middle class  do not get all the national holidays. I certainly don't.

Also the practice of a minute by minute tally of the vote was a horrible idea. We need to keep the tally secret until all ballots are counted.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Laws should be enacted that congress representatives cannot work in a lobbying job for at least 5-years after leaving office. 

Lobbying should be disallowed entirely, or at least be made money-free. 

Any thing you can think of that takes money and/or lobbying out of the system I am all for!

I had more but its late srrry. Maybe tomorrow. 

[Ten oz]

I personally do not like the fact that every state has there our process. Each state should have the right to manage their own elections for their own seats but POTUS is a national position which impacts the whole country. I think every state needs the same process (# of earlier voting days, registration window, absentee voting, etc).

I think one way to maintain the system we have while better respecting the popular vote would be to have a second round of voting in the event that the electoral college and popular vote is split. All votes cast stand but a second day of voting is held a week later where all eligible voters who had not  yet cast a vote get the opportunity to vote. One votes get switched, the electoral college stands, more people get the opportunity to vote. 

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Outrider said:

 3. The voting is to take place on a closed network of computers in every court house.

A closed network is a huge amount of infrastructure.

Quote

 5. All voters must be registered in a federal database at least 6 months prior to November of an election year.

Why so long? That's more of a burden than what's in place already. 

If everything is computerized, you should be able to register the day of the election. Or be pre-registered via other means. (You could even be put in the system when you're born or become a citizen, and have your registration be activated when you turn 18)

[Outrider]

Ten oz

I totally agree with your first paragraph. 

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I think one way to maintain the system we have while better respecting the popular vote would be to have a second round of voting in the event that the electoral college and popular vote is split. All votes cast stand but a second day of voting is held a week later where all eligible voters who had not  yet cast a vote get the opportunity to vote. One votes get switched, the electoral college stands, more people get the opportunity to vote. 

I see no need to keep the electoral college in any form or really even have a voting process for the GOP or DNC candidate. I believe that in the last election many were voting against Trump or Clinton instead of voting for someone they wanted to lead the country. Both parties have failed in the past to give us viable candidates. Walter Mondale comes to mind for the democrats and Romney for the republicans. This was the first time IMO that both candidates were unfit for office.

If we were to go to popular vote perhaps it would be a good thing to have a runoff if no candidate can amass a certain percentage of the vote. 55%?

2 hours ago, swansont said:

A closed network is a huge amount of infrastructure.

And those that would rig the system are ready and willing to expend a huge amount of effort. I know its no small thing I'm asking but if it can assure a fair election would it not be worth it? Of course I am open to other suggestions I just think me voting from my phone is not a good idea.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Why so long? That's more of a burden than what's in place already. 

For who? With the current system I have to be at a specific place on a specific day. With my proposal I would have a whole week to make it to that specific place.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

(You could even be put in the system when you're born or become a citizen, and have your registration be activated when you turn 18)

I like this idea.

[swansont]

6 minutes ago, Outrider said:

 For who? With the current system I have to be at a specific place on a specific day. With my proposal I would have a whole week to make it to that specific place.

I quoted your six month lead time to register to vote.  

[Ten oz]

59 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Ten oz

I totally agree with your first paragraph. 

I see no need to keep the electoral college in any form or really even have a voting process for the GOP or DNC candidate. I believe that in the last election many were voting against Trump or Clinton instead of voting for someone they wanted to lead the country. Both parties have failed in the past to give us viable candidates. Walter Mondale comes to mind for the democrats and Romney for the republicans. This was the first time IMO that both candidates were unfit for office.

If we were to go to popular vote perhaps it would be a good thing to have a runoff if no candidate can amass a certain percentage of the vote. 55%?

 

The electoral college is in the Constitution. It isn't going anywhere in the foreseeable future in my opinion. Making incremental changes is more realistic than a total rewrite.

As for the 2 party system; no one has to participate in the Primaries or vote a party line. I personally do not feel the two major parties have failed. I like Walter Mondale. I don't think losing an election automatically means a politician is flawed. I think Jimmy Carter is one of the best Presidents ever. I also thing the first Bush was good and the last true Republican that governed in the many the party advertises. The issue in my opinion isn't with the candidates the party comes up but is with us stupid voters. Just look at the race in Alabama this Roy Moore still probably wins; same on each person who votes for him. 

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

 As for the 2 party system; no one has to participate in the Primaries or vote a party line. 

That's not really an issue with the two-party system. On the national level, you're locked in because of the way that congresscritters are elected. One winner per zone (be it congressional district or state). 

If we elected both senators at once, or multiple representatives from an an area at once, with the highest number of tallies getting in (depending on how many seats were available), we might open up the field to multiple parties. Probably easier to implement at the local level. Voting for e.g. 7 members of a town council, for example, and just needing to be in the top 7.  

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

That's not really an issue with the two-party system. On the national level, you're locked in because of the way that congresscritters are elected. One winner per zone (be it congressional district or state). 

If we elected both senators at once, or multiple representatives from an an area at once, with the highest number of tallies getting in (depending on how many seats were available), we might open up the field to multiple parties. Probably easier to implement at the local level. Voting for e.g. 7 members of a town council, for example, and just needing to be in the top 7.  

Most ballots have more than 2 options. Perhaps rank choice voting would be a good idea?

http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits

[swansont]

59 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

Most ballots have more than 2 options. Perhaps rank choice voting would be a good idea?

http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits

But you only elect the top vote-getter.

If you cast e.g. three votes, and the top seven vote-getters were elected, you could have a more diverse result.

[Ten oz]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

But you only elect the top vote-getter.

If you cast e.g. three votes, and the top seven vote-getters were elected, you could have a more diverse result.

Ultimately people need to be more responsible with their vote. No system is stupid electorate proof and in places like Alabama allowing for all seats at once could lead to an utter calamity on leadership. 

[Outrider]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I quoted your six month lead time to register to vote.  

Yep you did. I misread.

7 hours ago, swansont said:

Why so long? That's more of a burden than what's in place already. 

If everything is computerized, you should be able to register the day of the election.

I just picked six months out of the air but I would want at least two months for verification. Anything that fights corruption I am for. I really don't see it as a burden maybe a slight inconvenience. 

Also we can tie it into the civics classes iNow suggested. 

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

The electoral college is in the Constitution.

As on any issue I really never see this point one of the most amazing thing the framers ever did was write it on paper as opposed to carving it in stone.

3 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Making incremental changes is more realistic than a total rewrite.

Ok here I see your point. Maybe my proposal is a bit to ambitious. 

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

Perhaps rank choice voting would be a good idea?

I think it would.

[Ten oz]

13 minutes ago, Outrider said:

Yep you did. I misread.

I just picked six months out of the air but I would want at least two months for verification. Anything that fights corruption I am for. I really don't see it as a burden maybe a slight inconvenience. 

Also we can tie it into the civics classes iNow suggested. 

As on any issue I really never see this point one of the most amazing thing the framers ever did was write it on paper as opposed to carving it in stone.

Ok here I see your point. Maybe my proposal is a bit to ambitious. 

I think it would.

I don't think the Constitution was amazing. I don't think the founders even cared much about most people. Many things in the Constitution are designed for the rich and power to be protected from each other and the masses more so than the little guy have equity. I am just thinking in terms of what's possibly legislatively today. No progressive or aggressive reworking would make it through Congress. In my opinion agreeing to a second of voting or automatic recounts (we didn't get Recounts in swing states 16') in the event that the popular vote and electoral college split would be a step forward. 

[iNow]

An interesting proposal is circulating to limit the way the electoral college has been so consistently distorting our presidential election winners.

Its called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and is supported by many blue states while being opposed by essentially all red states.

[States who join the compact] would commit to awarding their electoral votes to whomever wins the popular vote nationally, regardless of the results in the Electoral College.

<...>

Critics of the Electoral College system have long argued it incentivizes candidates to target swing states with a bounty of electoral votes, while discouraging turnout by voters in states that are reliably red or blue.

Opponents of the current electoral system also say that electing a president through a popular vote could improve how presidents govern in office.

<...>

“When you're sitting in the White House … you say, ‘What states do I have to win and what do I have to do to win them?' That's just not a good way for public policy to be set”  ... Link

[iNow]

Data continues showing the bias introduced by the electoral college and how one side is disproportionately favored with consistency:

 

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/17/20868790/republicans-lose-popular-vote-win-electoral-college

Quote

In modern elections where one party prevails by just 2 points in the two-party popular vote, “inversions are expected in more than 30% of elections.” That number rises to 40 percent in elections with a 1 percentage-point margin.

Republicans, moreover, are far more likely to benefit from an inversion than Democrats. “In the modern period,” the study suggests, “Republicans should be expected to win 65% of Presidential contests in which they narrowly lose the popular vote.”

This Republican advantage can shift elections where the Democrat was a fairly clear winner in the popular vote. “A 3.0 point margin favoring the Democrat,” the study concludes, “is associated with a 16% inversion probability.” In other words, Republicans will win nearly one in six presidential races where they lose the popular vote by 3 points.

Indeed, to understand the magnitude of the GOP’s advantage in the Electoral College, consider this chart:

 

They conclude with this uplifting nugget:

Quote

It’s not hard to imagine 2020 producing an even starker inversion. Historically red states like Texas and Arizona are trending toward Democrats, but most likely not enough to flip those states in the next election. If Democrats narrow Trump’s margins in those states, while Trump barely holds onto states like Florida or Wisconsin, the next Democratic candidate could win the popular vote by 5 million votes or more — and still lose the Electoral College.