Electoral College reform

United States
November 24, 2007 10:18pm CST
A lot of topics on here debate the issue of electoral college vs National popular vote to determine the President of the United States. In the event that there is no consitutional amendment changing the way we elect our President, there will be the electoral college. Some states, I believe 12, have passed laws dedicating that state's electoral votes to the winner of that state (the closest solution to having a popular national vote). Most states employ a winner take all approach to distributing that state's votes. Nebraska and Maine employ a congressional district approach and divide their electoral votes base on who wins the congressional districts and state-wide votes. Colorado has proposed (I don't know if it has passed) a system where the electoral votes will be divided in proportion to the state-wide vote. My own preference is the dividing up the electoral votes depending on Congressional district and 2 votes for the state-wide winner. This way, winner of the state gets two, but not all, and the individual congressional districts get their say. Gerrymandering then really plays a big role, so I'm really open to other reforms that might be out there. What would be your preference, if any?
1 person likes this
3 responses
• United States
25 Nov 07
It might be more interesting to have a popular or national vote, not that I think things would change but it would give the people a idea of how the candiates were getting votes. I think it is time to change the constitution to get people's vote for President, the Electoral College has served it's use in the past, we should have a popular vote, just like American Idol, you know nothing changes in Congress, same old folks in power year after year. Somebody rigs the vote count.
2 people like this
@anniepa (27239)
• United States
26 Nov 07
My preference is absolutely to get rid of the Electoral College for once and for all! I know there have been those who have said the result would be "mob rule" but I'm afraid I don't "get" that at all. After all, it was only the 2000 election in my lifetime where the popular vote winner and Electoral vote winners were different, but unfortunately that was quite enough, thank you very much! As for the argument that the big cities would control the elections I don't buy into that either because people do much more moving and relocating than they did 200 years ago. To say that everyone who lives in a big city thinks the same or everyone that lives in a rural area thinks the same is just plain ridiculous. People are people and it should be one person, one vote, how difficult is that to do? Gerrymandering is something else that needs to be controlled. Annie
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Nov 07
The whole issue kind of goes to the question of is this the United STATES or the UNITED states? My line of thinking is that those who place Federalism above states would favor the national vote, but those who favor states rights favor the electoral college. I agree with you that not everybody who lives in the big city or everybody who live in rural areas think the same, but tendencies tend to be the same. I live in a big city in a big state, but I believe big city policies will dominate if there is no balance. In California, there are two things to consider. There is a split between urban interests and agricultural interests - then there is the "rivalry" between the northern and southern parts of the state. It just seems more than coincidence that at least the last 6 last governors have been from big cities (4 from LA county). Candidates from the urban centers do dominate and to top that, during my lifetime, Southern California has dominated the population, so it doesn't surprise me that 5 of the last 6 governors have been from the southern part of the state, and 4 of those 5 from LA county. Although it's not the hometown of the candidates, but who those large urban centers identify with. The Constitution itself calls for electors from the states to cast ballots, which makes one of the original ideas behind the idea obsolete - but the other part, by assigning each states with electoral votes, indicates concern that the candidates who support the interest of the large states would dominate the country. One person one vote again brings up the Federal vs States question. It is one person one vote within each state, but beyond that state's election, the state as a whole casts its vote. Interesting issue. I'm glad it only comes up once a century.
@kurtbiewald (2628)
• United States
25 Nov 07
some kinda small blue pills they have some free samples to I think maybe try them