Keep in mind the Electoral College's bias toward Republicans:

[AP]

I have read a few articles about reforming the Electoral College without getting rid of it entirely. The articles argue that because the electoral college gives all the states (and DC) an extra two EVs (for their senators) it gives small states a little more weight. The rest of the EVs roughly reflect the population since you get one for each congressional district, and all congressional districts are more or less the same population.

Here is how that played out this year:

According to my very quick skim of the election results, Bush won 31 states, which gave him 62 EVs that came from the undemocratic, "one person, more than one vote the smaller your state is" extra two EVs. Kerry won 19 states and DC for 40 EVs. Since Kerry won larger states, he won the votes of people who didn't get the premium for the extra two EVs the way Bush did.

According to matters as they now stand, Bush is winning the EVs by 34 points (286 to 252). But if we got rid of the 102 extra EVs, Bush would have only won by 12 EVs (224 to 212). Of course, if the extra 102 EVs weren't in play, it would have changed strategies, so it's hard to say what would have happened. Nonetheless, I think it's safe to say that the more democratic the vote is, the better Democrats do.

Furthermore, in terms of activism, I think it's much more likely that the Electoral College could be reformed to get rid of the two extra EVs. I think America would do that before it got rid of the Electoral College altogether.

[pmbryant]

1. EC is not biased towards Republicans

If it were, Kerry would not have come within a single state of winning the EC, while losing the popular vote by over 3%.

The Electoral College is not worth keeping. Both Republicans and Democrats should unite in junking it.

--Peter

[AP]

5. Bush won 50% more states, 13.5% more EVs, and 6.25% more votes...

...than Kerry this year.

Without the extra two EVs per state, he would have only won by 5.66% more EVs, which is closer to the popular vote difference.

So why is the Republican advantage doubled by the current method? Because most of the small states which Bush won are heavily Republican -- which probably correlates to their size too -- and the voters in those states have votes worth more than a voter in CA. So that's how the EC gives Republicans a boost.

[pmbryant]

8. If 150,000 votes in Ohio were different...

Kerry would have won the election while losing the popular vote by over 3 million votes. That hardly looks like a bias towards Republicans.

Peter

[AP]

12. But if he had been able to win 150,000 more in Ohio, he probably would...

...have won a few more in other states.

It's not like those 150,000 are going to magically appear in OH and nowhere else.

Your argument is like saying Kerry could have won the presidency with all the votes in 20 states and none of the votes in 30 states, and could have gotten 10 million fewer votes overall, and that would be proof that the Electoral College is biased towards Democrats.

OK. True. But it's not very likely that that would happen.

Anyway, my argument is simply saying that those two extra EVs that each state and DC get operate to give people in smaller states more political power than people in large states, which is why Bush got 50% more of the states, 13% more of the EVs but only 6% more of the popular vote.

Don't you think it's very interesting that if you take away those extra two EVs, Bush would have beaten Kerry with roughly 6% more popular votes and 6% more EVs than Kerry?

It would be nice to get rid of the EC altogether, but, short of that, taking away those extra two EVs seems to go a long way towards replicating what's happening with the popular vote.

[pmbryant]

21. I'm on your side

I want to eliminate the Electoral College completely.

My argument is that it is not biased to either the R's or the D's, but towards the popular vote loser often enough to be a major problem. I think the facts of the last two elections illustrate this and thus could help to convince Repubs who thought after 2000 that the EC benefitted them that it really is a crapshoot instead and should be abolished.

If getting rid of the EC comes down to a partisan R vs D issue, it will never happen.

--Peter

[AP]

22. If Dems and Republicans did equally well in small states, then I'd

agree with you.

But I think there's a correlation between being a small state and voting Republican. Obviously, it doesn't hold true in VT, RI, Del. and Md (but all those states are pretty close, culturally and physically, to big states). But, for the most part, I suspect it's the case.

In any event, this year it helped Republicans. In any other year, perhaps I'd just say it was undemocratic.

[forgethell]

2. Why America will NEVER

get rid of the Electoral College.

It does give a little more power to the smaller states. And these same states would have to approve this loss of power in order to get the necessary Constitutional amendment passed. NEVER gonna happen.

[Spangle]

4. What Power?

Did you see any canidates going to those states and asking them their opinion or asking for their vote?

Get rid of the EC and every vote in every state will count.

How many "blue" people in "red" states just stayed home because they didn't feel their vote mattered against all the red?

And the "red" people in the "blue" state? Same thing.

[forgethell]

10. Well, I didn't say it would be a

bad thing. I said it wasn't going to happpen. And I think that I am right about this.

As for people who stay home, I've got no sympathy for them. You vote because it's your duty, win or lose, if you care about your government.

[mtnsnake]

16. Exactly, and how many "blue" people in "blue people states"

stayed home for the same reason you mentioned. Considering the huge difference in population in the blue states, if everyone thought their vote counted, and everyone turned out to vote BECAUSE their vote counted, I think the Democrats would win more elections.

[AP]

7. I'd still like to take my chances on it because:

(1) You have a basic American principle on your side of "one man, one vote," and

(2) Because small Democratic states would be easy to convince. The only time EVs matter is with the presidential election, and if you're a small Democratic state, you're getting screwed by small Republican states. And larger blue states, regardless of politicall affiliation should prefer it, like NC, FL, and TX.

It wouldn't be easy, but you might be able to build a coalition around those two arguments.

I definitely don't think we'll be getting rid of the Electoral College any time soon.

[forgethell]

11. Well, you can try. Good luck. n/t

[AP]

15. I'm clearly not going to do it on my own.

But if people keep thinking about the math...maybe in a million years...

[pmbryant]

20. The Electoral College screws most small states too

If you vote in "small states" Alaska or DC or Utah or Rhode Island, your vote is worth almost nothing in the Electoral College system.

Then again, if you vote in "large states" Florida or Ohio or Pennsylvania or Michigan, your vote is worth quite a lot.

(On the other hand, votes in "small states" New Hampshire and New Mexico are worth quite a lot, while votes in "large states" New York and Texas are worth very little.)

If we can convince people that truth that the only states that benefit from the EC are the few "swing states", then it shouldn't be hard to pass a new constitional amendment to eliminate it.

We need to get away from the fallacy that the EC benefits "small states", though, since that false perception will ensure the survival of the EC for a long while to come.

--Peter

[AP]

23. It's not worth nothing. It's just not fought for. The fact is, if you live

in a small state, your vote has extra weight.

That's not the same thing as living in a swing state where they fight for your vote, but it's still significant in terms of democracy.

[pmbryant]

24. Think about why it's not fought for

Votes that are fought for are the ones worth something. Votes not fought for are not worth much. Presidential campaigns are not run by dummies; these people know where votes are worth something and where they are not.

Furthermore, this is what common sense tells us as well. Common sense tells people in Alaska or DC or Texas or New York that their vote, whether for Bush or Kerry, is worth very little. Their electoral votes are already certain.

Finally, this is an argument that gives us some hope to be able to convice nearly 40 states to pass a constitutional amendment eliminating the EC.

--Peter

[AP]

26. Because a vast majority of people in the state will vote for one of the

two parties.

Just because most NY'ers and CA'ians and RI'ers are Democrats doesn't mean their votes are worthless.

If you only have a finite set of resources, your time is going to be better spent in OH fighting for the people at the margins than it is in CA, AK or MT trying to completely reverse the culture that makes those states prefer one party or the other at the top of the ticket.

And to repeat for emphasis: I don't think we're ever going to abolish the EC.

I'll have reread your post for your alternative argument, because I think I missed it.

[pmbryant]

28. The argument is in post #20

Here it is again, in brief: The Electoral College does not favor small states. In fact, it only favors "swing states". Votes in states that are decided by large margins, whether large or small, are not worth much. (Not completely worthless, just not worth much.) Since there are only a handful of swing states in each election, voters in the vast majority of states get shortchanged by the EC.

And to repeat for emphasis: I don't think we're ever going to abolish the EC.

That's rather defeatist. Why argue against it then?

It can be done. History tells us how. For example, this country passed constitutional amendments giving the vote to African Americans and to women and to 18-year-olds, and an amendment removing power to elect Senators from state legislatures. These all passed even though the results explicitly diluted the power of the group that did the voting.

As my agrument above shows, passing an amendment to abolish the EC should be a lot easier.

Peter

[AP]

29. Agree to disagree.

I think abolishing the EC is too big a paradigm shift. I think it would probably have enough knock-on consequences, that people would be afraid to try it.

As for the worthless vote-valuable vote argument. I guess we'd have to spend time agreeing on terminology before we could have that debate.

[ooglymoogly]

3. proverbial pie in the sky

[Leilani]

6. Right, it's biased!

LOL!

The Founding Fathers said "what can we do to screw Dems in the 21st Century?" "Aha! The Electoral College is the answer!"

[AP]

9. You don't think it's undemocratic?

You don't think that adding the extra two EVs to every state doesn't give people in smaller states more power than people in larger states?

Regardless of what the intention was originally, I don't see what makes you LOL about me pointing out its effect today.

[Leilani]

13. We do not live in a Democracy!

We live in a Republic!

[AP]

14. Whatever.

I thought it was worth discussing. Over a year ago I read a review of a book by a Harvard Law Professor (or was in the University of Virginia?) who made this argument. I thought it was worth doing the math on it now that we know the results of the 2004 election.

I think the math shows that the argument is very compelling.

If people want to reform the way we vote to make it more democratic, this is just one more argument to keep in your arsenal.

We may live in a Republic, but I can't think of a single good reason for giving SD a 200% bonus and RI a bonus of 100% more EV power while only giving California about 4% increase.

What's the argument in favor of that which stems from the fact that we're a Republic?

[July]

25. We live in a democracy and in a republic.

Or, if you prefer, a democratic republic.

We do not live in a direct democracy; we live in a representative one.

Are you joking, and do you know that saying the U.S. is not a democracy (but is a republic) is a right-wing claim?

[AP]

27. Calling America a Republic is a right-wing argument?

You don't say.

[Leilani]

30. OK, I'm really Rush Limbaugh

traveling incognito on this board!

[AP]

17. And for emphasis: yes, it's biased. It doubled Bush's MOV over Kerry

(6% of popular vote to 13% of EV) because Bush won more small states which all got the 2 vote surplus on top of the more democratic 1 EV for each cogressional district.

Without the extra two votes, the EV MOV would have been closer to the popular vote MOV, even though most states are winner take all.

Maybe we should elect presidents by congressional district EVs? You win the congressional district, you get the EV. That would be interesting.

[DrGonzoLives]

18. We'll never be able to abolish it

Those small states will never go for it, much as I would like to see this undemocratic bullshit go far, far away.

The best chance we have is to demand proportional electoral college voting. Under that scenario, just using direct percentages to divide up the vote, Bush still wins 278-260, but it would also more accurately reflect people's voting, and give some measure of your vote mattering in states where it otherwise wouldn't.

[AP]

19. Oh, I don't think we could abolish it. But I agree, the two best things to

do, as you said, proportional EC voting (maybe even break it down to congressional district level -- but that would make gerrymandering incredibly critical), and get rid of the two extra votes for the senators (or get it down to one vote).