Instant Runoff Project seeks end of electoral college by 2015

[fsbooks]

I would put this in Campaign 2016 if there were one.... :-)

Abolish the Electoral College. While we do need a whole host of other changes (such as campaign finance reform, or public financing of elections), I believe they are not as fundamentally important as the need to change the very structure of the system for voting and counting those votes. The current system allocates votes in such a way that only the major party candidates can win.

The Electoral College is an archaic institution that served a useful purpose in times of poor and slow communication, horse-driven transportation, and provincial (state) governments. The current winner-take-all implementation of nominating electors used by nearly all states within the union has the anti-democratic effect of erasing 3rd parties from the presidential election. Furthermore, because there are no runoffs for Presidential elections, a plurality (the one with the most votes), rather than a majority, receives all of a state's electors. George W. Bush won Florida by a plurality in 2000. There was also no majority winner in Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, or Wisconsin.

Holding a separate runoff election for President would be messy and expensive. "Instant Runoff," also known as "Alternative Vote" should be used. All voters have to do is rank their preferences 1-2-3 etc. A majority winner is determined by eliminating the lowest candidate and transfering those ballots to their next choice until a majority is determined. On March 5th, 2000, San Franciscan voters adopted Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) to replace separate runoff elections to save money and reduce negative campaigning.

http://www.instantrunoff.org/

Think of how much useless discussion this would save on these boards with regard to "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" discussions (oh, but this is about the future, not this election, sorry moderators).

[Dookus]

1. The electoral college

isn't going away. Ever. We have to deal with that fact.

[theboss]

2. I like the electoral college

Of course, I love the fact that both Kerry and Bush are falling over themselves to suck up to West Virginia, because it could be the difference maker in November. If there were no electoral college, the state would mean very little.

[bryant69]

3. That's exactly why we have it

California and New York and Florida would get attention; small states or sparsely populated states would get no presidential attention.

At least that's according to the theory.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ClassWarrior]

10. Every single vote would get attention...

...irrespective of the borders in which it was contained.

[trogdor]

19. Large, sparsely-populated states would get the least attention.

West Virginia still has sufficient population density to make campaigning there financially worthwhile. So does Vermont. Wyoming, on the other hand, would be sucking hind tit. It's a logistical problem, not a direct function of state population.

Edit: Of course, even in states like Montana, there are places where large enough numbers of people live to be worth a stop.

[doubleplusgood]

5. states shouldn't matter

...nor should any artificial geographical lines on a map. Only votes should matter. For those who think the electoral college guarantees smaller states presidential attention, you only have to look at "safe" GOP states like Utah, Idaho, Alabama, etc. to realize that neither the GOP or the Dems are going to put too much effort there. Abolishing the electoral college would guarantee that the Dems (and Repubs)would spend more funds campaigning in states that they had no chance of winning, in order to get more votes in the national total. That's what counts.

And, if the electoral college is such a neat idea, then why not do it for statewide offices too ? Require that U.S. senators win majority "electors" from all counties/legislative districts in a state. Or just do away with direct voting for U.S. Senate. Oh, wait, isn't that what Alan Keyes wants to do ?

[theboss]

7. I think states do matter

The issues facing California are not the same as the issues facing West Virginia or the issues facing Massachusetts.

[calico1]

14. Exactly. I agree.

[pmbryant]

4. Alas, our voting system has far bigger problems that need to be dealt with

I used to be a big proponent of IRV and abolishing the Electoral College. But I think it is quite clear that our voting system has a number of huge systemic problems that are much higher priority and need to be addressed right away. In particular, counting every single vote as accurately as possible and ensuring confidence that this has been done.

Priorities.

--Peter

[shraby]

6. People mention that "small states won't get attention"

if the electoral college is abolished. All the campaigning attention only means:
1. You get to see more ads on t.v.
2. You get to listen to more b.s. on t.v.
3. If they visit your state, the cities and towns visited incur expenses that the locals have to pick up providing security for the candidates.

Sure looks like a win-win situation to me. NOT

[theboss]

9. Because of the electoral college

John Kerry has to go to Wheeling, West Virginia and explain to 10,000 people in a large what his policies are regarding steel, trade, and the environment. He needs those 10,000 votes to win the state in order to win the election. He has to talk to those people, look them in the eye, hear their stories, and answer them directly. He has to listen to Jay Rockefeller and Robert Byrd when they speak. When he leaves, he has to tailor his advertising for them.

Without it, he can run a bunch of national ads about how Bush is stupid and how he was a war hero and wonder if he can pull another 25,000 votes out of Manhattan to cancel the 10,000 people in the Ohio Valley he is ignoring.

[pmbryant]

15. Because of the electoral college...

20 million people in Texas and a slightly smaller number in New York have no voice in the Presidential election.

A few million people in Wyoming, Alaska, Idaho, Utah, Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Hawaii, and DC also have no voice. So this isn't just a big state/little state issue.

Why should a small number of people in a few select states get so much say and the rest of us get nothing?

--Peter

[trogdor]

21. Except he wouldn't be ignoring the 10,000 in Louisville either.

Not if he wants to win. It's a fair guess neither candidate will spend much time in Louisville because Kentucky is about as red a state as it gets. Direct election would require national candidates to beat ALL the bushes for votes, not just the ones in states that are too close to call. It would make Southern cities like Louisville, Atlanta, or Charleston as worthwhile places to campaign as Milwaukee, Detroit and Dubuque.

[theboss]

25. The Red State/Blue State argument is overrated

Forty years ago, Republicans would be arguing that campaigning in the South was a total lost cause. It's not my fault that one party or another controls a state at the moment. But that can change.

The population of states don't generally change. In twenty years, Tennesse may be a Democratic stronghold; it may be the most hotly contested state in the election. But Wyoming is still going to be empty.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClassWarrior]

12. So it's a crutch for the Greens...

...who use it to lose?? WTF?

:crazy:

I think your negativity is a waste of bandwidth. Your lousy spelling is too.

[Radio-Active]

11. if they want to change the current system, here's how they should do it..

Use instant runoff voting. Keep the electoral college, but make the state's electoral college vote proportional (I thought I read somewhere that they were trying to do this in Colorado). That way, if Gore wins less than half of a state like New Mexico, he would receive roughly less than half of the state's electoral votes. The current system completely ignores the voters of the runner-up in presidential elections. It also discourages people from voting in the hard "red states" or "blue states". Now a Democrat who votes in Alabama will make no difference in the final outcome, so many might not even bother to vote.

[trogdor]

22. That would make gerrymandering even more intense...

...than it already is. Assume you are going to use congressional districts to determine who the electors are. That would be the most logical way to do it, IMO. If you think the decennial bloodbath over redistricting is bad now...

[beyurslf]

13. Rather than abolish the electoral college, why doesn't every

state do what CO may do. It would in effect do the same thing.

The idea that small states would get ignored...

simply not true. In a close election, every vote would get attention. I haven't seen but a couple ads, but I am in KS (a small state) and every one knows who will win here. If we did what CO was doing, then Bush and Kerry would have reason to drive for votes here.

[pmbryant]

16. Very bad idea

I assume you're referring to the idea of winning electoral votes by congressional district. Unfortunately, this is one of the worst ideas floating around, and it would allow the horribly corrupt process of gerrymandering to influence the Presidential election.

It is bad enough that the people's influence over Congress is thwarted by this process. Extending re-districting and gerrymandering to Presidential elections would be a further travesty. It is a move in exactly the wrong direction.

--Peter

[Radio-Active]

17. I wouldn't want it calculated by congressional district

Instead, the number of electoral votes per candidate would be based on the percentage of the popular vote that candidate received. When it's based on the whole state, gerrymandering is no longer a problem. I didn't realize Colorado was basing it on congressional district.

[pmbryant]

18. Sorry. I was mistaken about what Colorado is doing

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/002351.html

Just read that Colorado is not thinking about doing it by Congressional district (that is what Maine and Nebraska do, I believe), but instead by proportion of popular vote, as you suggest.

Sorry for the confusion. :dunce:

This isn't such a bad idea, but I think it is not good for some states to do this and some not to. It should be all or nothing, ideally.

--Peter

[Classical_Liberal]

20. The instant runoff voting part of the plan is more doable

The trouble with changing this part of the constitution is that you have to get the small states to vote for it.

[Cleita]

23. You might find this interesting.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/07/10/BABADIGEST4.DTL

SF will have runoff voting for this coming election. :-)

[kiahzero]

24. Instant runoff has serious problems

See also: http://www.electionmethods.org