We Need to Eleminate the Electoral Vote after this election.

[umtalal]

Fellow DU.'rs with the know how? How can it this be done?

[UpsideDownFlag]

1. electoral college?

that's never, ever going away. it's too entrenched.

[swag]

2. If Bushco wins, they may eliminate any vote after this election.

[flordehinojos]

12. That was precisely my thought, too.

:-)

[Indiana_Dem]

3. I wish! It's too extremist for our middle-of-the-road people

I believe. I don't know how it will ever be done especially with all the polarization going on.

[unblock]

4. you need overwhelming support from the small states it most benefits

give it up.

nor is it remotely our biggest problem. it's inexact, but hardly way off.

[nosmokes]

5. i would rather get rid of iowa and new hampshire

having such power simply by virtue of voting before the rest of us.

maybe try something like have 5 different primary dates with 10 states in each primary.

and i would dearly love to see some method where third parties could actually stand a chance.

[beyurslf]

6. Requires a constitutinoal amendment. It would never pass

[elperromagico]

7. The most you could hope to do right now would be to reform it

on the state level. Work to change the way electoral votes are allocated - what's being done in Colorado is a pretty good example.

The winner-take-all system is arguably the biggest flaw of the Electoral College system; a candidate can win less than half of the state's popular vote, but win 100% of the state's electoral votes. A more fairly divided method might produce more accurate results.

Take Florida in 2000 for example. The certified results (yeah, I know that they're not the true results) had the vote like this:

Bush - 48.85%
Gore - 48.84%
Nader - 1.63%
Other - 0.68%

Bush got all 25 of Florida's electoral votes that year. But if you tried to divide it up to fit the popular vote, it would come out something like this:

Bush - 12
Gore - 12
Nader/Other - 1

Or you could use something similar to the primary system of delegate allocation, where a candidate has to get more than 15% to receive delegates. Let's use the Florida results from 1992 as an example of how this would work:

Bush - 40.89%
Clinton - 39%
Perot - 19.82%
Other - 0.28%

The electoral votes would be divided like this:

Bush - 10
Clinton - 10
Perot - 5

Reforming or abolishing the electoral college on a national level would require a lot more effort, and the chance of failure would be far greater. You have a better chance of doing it on the state level.

[DieboldMustDie]

11. This would leave us with a high probability in a 3 (or more) way race...

of no candidate receiving an electoral majority and the decision being left to the House, with each state having one vote. I think it would be better to have the EVs divided proportionally between the top 2 candidates.

Just my 2¢ ;)

[elperromagico]

16. Yes, but the 15% provision would help to curb most of that.

Third party candidates rarely cross the 15% threshold in elections. I don't think Nader crossed it in any state in 2000.

[Dookus]

13. keep in mind that doing it this way

would have added a LOT of votes for Bush from big, liberal states like New York and California.

[elperromagico]

15. And it would have added a LOT of votes for Gore

from Texas, Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, North Carolina, et cetera.

[IndianaGreen]

8. Electoral College should have been abolished after the 2000 election, but.

there are people in both major parties that like things the way they are. You see, the Electoral College, and the winner-take-all system, guarantees the monopoly of the two major parties. If there is one thing the duopoly does not want, is competition!

The status quo is also favored by small states, small according to population, not to ego. States such as Iowa and New Hampshire would miss all of the ass kissing they get from candidates. I don't care if they like to have their asses kissed, but I do care when such small states carry more proportional weight than the larger industrialized states that have their primaries much later in the year.

There is another way to fix things without having to go through a Constitutional Amendment, and that is by following the lead of states such as Colorado and apportion the Electoral votes based on the popular vote. For example, a state like Indiana would have some of its Electoral votes go to Kerry, based upon the percentage of the vote that Kerry will get in the more civilized parts of Indiana, while the Neanderthals vote for Bush.

[Senior citizen]

9. Reform the electoral college

Restore the Fairness Doctrine

Fix health care

Grapple with the deficit

End the war

Restore international relations

Revive the economy

Reregulate the media

Make corporations pay taxes and clean up their messes.

Etc., etc., etc.....

Teresa Heinz Kerry is quite a woman.

John Kerry now holds the world record for the longest "honey do" list in history.

[NYC Liberal]

10. If Kerry wins the EV,

but Bush wins the Popular Vote...watch for millions of Freepers to demand the abolition of the Electoral College.

[formernaderite]

14. we'll never get rid of it...except by revolution.

Seriously, what benefit do all the small rural states get from this? Even leftward leaning states like Maine, that already proportion their electoral votes would rather be left with some vote clout.
I myself go back and forth on this...who knows the trends could switch.

[Suzi Creamcheese]

17. Isn't that what everybody said after the 2000 election?

What happened? I don't even remember anyone introducing any legislation on it with any prominence or it coming to a vote.

[Satchel]

18. Instant run-off voting

Instant run off would be ideal. It allows third party candidates a chance while your vote does not support your least favorite candidate.

[kiahzero]

26. Hardly

IRV is actually worse than our current system. Condorcet, or, to a lesser extent, Acceptance voting, would be the best system.

[soothsayer]

19. Well, what do you propose to replace it?

that would be a start

[umtalal]

20. I want to move to a popular vote with instant runoffs.

In instant runoffs the voters will rank th candidates according to the preference. The vote will not be wasted. I think both political parties are guilty as charged because they don't want a competition.

I read this in the September 2004 issue of Wired. (check problem 32)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.09/idol.html?pg=3

[soothsayer]

21. But does that solve the problem of big cities controlling elections?

and wee little sparse places not mattering much?

[RichardRay]

22. It doesn't solve it, and it needs solved

I live in Wyoming, the least populace state in the country, including Alaska. We're the only state with a single congressperson. We also have big reserves of coal and natural gas. We're really aware of just how quickly our entire state could turn into a fuel source for the rest of the country with no regard whatsoever for local perspectives.

One of the purposes of the electoral college was to temper the 'tyranny of the majority', we still need something that does that.

Richard Ray - Jackson Hole, WY

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Sounds good to me.

Most people now live in, or around, the cities. Right now, old BillyBob and his mule have more say than a city dweller.

[IndianaGreen]

25. As opposed to rural Iowa and NH having more influence than NY?

Democracy is democracy, and to support the current system is not democratic.

[umtalal]

28. SoothSayer, I see the big cities are getting screwed with the electoral.

I live in a major metropolitan and I do not have an easy life making ends meet. But it seems to me, someone from a smaller and empty state is controlling my destiny. Something is not right.

[rullery]

23. The Electoral College is NOT going away.

The smaller states would never ratify a constitutional amendment that diminishes their power, and since it takes 3/4 of the states to ratify, this is simply not going to happen.

However Maine and Nebraska use the Congressional District Method of allocating their electoral votes, and Colorado has it on the ballot this election. Under this method two votes go the the state-wide winner, but the remaining votes go to the presidential winner in each congressional district. All states are free to adopt this method if they choose to do so, without a constitutional amendment.

Some current polls show Bush with a small lead in the popular vote, but with fewer electoral votes. This is because Kerry has a small lead in some larger states, while Bush has large leads in some southern and western states. Personally I think it would be fitting indeed if this should be the final result in the election Nov. 2.

[bushwakker]

27. Only One way this will happen...

Bush wins popular vote - Kerry wins electoral vote.